•
Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 1 of 9

Check the box next to the best description of your cause of action. Choose only one:

Prisoner Civil Rights

til

Non-Prisoner Civil Rights

o

Personal Injury/Tort

o

Tax Collection Practices

o

Employment Discrimination

o

Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ __ o

FILED
AUG 3 f 20tl
:TRtCK E. DUFFy a..ERk
biiiiUiidili

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

Bll-L-t Ny.s

DIVISION

(You must fill in this blank. See Instruction 6.)

(Full name of Plaintiff and prisoner number, if any)

Cause No.~V Il-qq -:/5LL.. - j(R-C.so
(to be filled in by Clerk of Court)

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT

VS.

Jury Trial Demanded

o

;:YD A&TON I R'o !3l1!.s:r PA VI 1.., .s- y t::. () !tAN;)! Jury Trial Not Demanded

IS

,../IINA MAE.. tH.({gl~/MBRK. ttl4&T MAN,

CItI'\i<!l-o']TF- bot..-t=. 2-1'\1-) I4IKI!. FE..el2-llE.R ,
(Full name of each defendant. Do not use et. al.)

Defendants.

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Use this form to file a civil complaint with the United States District Court for the District of Montana. You may attach additional pages where necessary.
2. Your complaint must include only counts/causes of action and facts not legal arguments or citations.

Plaintiff's Last Name ---'I=_IS...;.H'---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5109) Page 1 of7

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 2 of 9

3. Your complaint must be typed or legibly handwritten. All pleadings and other papers submitted for filing must be on 8 Y:zl! x 11 I! paper (letter size). Each plaintiff must sign the complaint (see page 7). The signatures need not be notarized. However, each signature must be an original and not a copy. You must pay the Clerk for copies of your complaint or other court records, even if you are proceeding in forma pauperis. The cost for copies is $0.50 per page and prepayment is required.

4. The filing fee for a complaint is $350.00. The filing fee is set by Congress and cannot be
changed by the Court. In addition, you will be required to pay the cost of serving the
complaint on each of the defendants. If you are unable to prepay the entire filing fee and
service costs for this action, you may move to proceed in forma pauperis. Your complaint
will be returned to you withoutfiling ifit is not accompanied by either the full filing fee or
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Please note that prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis are required to pay the full filing fee in installments.

5. Complaints submitted by persons proceeding in forma pauperis and complaints submitted by prisoners suing a governmental entity or employee are reviewed by the Court before the defendants are required to answer. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). After the Court completes the review process, you will receive an Order explaining the findings and any further action you mayor must take. The review process may take a few months; each case receives the judge's individual attention.

6. Pursuant to Standing Order DWM 27, "no prisoner may maintain more than two (2) civil actions in forma pauperis at one time, unless the prisoner shows that he or she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury."

7. The case caption (page 1 of this form) must indicate the proper Division for filing. A Division where the alleged wrong(s) occurred is a proper Division. When you have completed your complaint, mail the original of your complaint and either the full filing fee or your motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the proper Division:

. Billings Division: Clerk of U.S. District Court, 316 N. 26th, Room 5405, Billings, MT 59101 (Big Horn, Carbon, Carter, Custer, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, Golden Valley, McCone, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Rosebud, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Treasure, Wheatland, Wibaux or Yellowstone County)

Butte Division:

Clerk of U.S. District Court, 400 N. Main St., Federal Bldg. Rm. 303, Butte, MT 59701 (Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Madison, or Silver Bow County)

Plaintiff's Last Name _-L-!..=-::.!...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5/09) Page 2 0/7

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 3 of 9

Great Falls Division: Clerk of U.S. District Court, 215 1st Ave. North, P.O. Box 2186, Great Falls, MT 59403 (Blaine, Cascade, Chouteau, Daniels, Fergus, Glacier, Hill, Judith Basin, Liberty, Phillips, Pondera, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Teton, Toole, or Valley County) Crossroads Correctional Center is located in Toole County

Helena Division:

Clerk of U.S. District Court, 901 Front St., Ste 2100, Helena, MT 59626 (Broadwater, Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, Meagher, or Powell County) Montana State Prison is located in Powell County

Missoula Division:

Clerk of the U.S. District Court, 201 E. Broadway, P.O. Box 8537, Missoula, MT 59807 (Flathead, Granite, Lake, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Ravalli, or Sanders County)

COMPLAINT

I. PLACE OF CONFINEMENT

A. Are yoU incarcerated?

Yes~

No D (if No, go to Part II)

B. If yes, where are you currently incarcerated?
f\1MlTANA Wo l4.'L-rJlS PfV$6r!
C. If any of the incidents giving rise to your complaint occurred in a different facility, list that facility:

II. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

A. Non-Prisoners

1. Does any cause of action alleged in this complaint require you to exhaust administrative remedies before filing in court? Yes D No D Don't Know 0

2. Ifyes, have you exhausted your administrative remedies? Yes D

NoD

Plaintiff's Last Name _:-F..;.;!!;::..;.H"--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5/09) Page 3 of7

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 4 of 9

B.. Prisoners (If you listed other institutions in I.e above, please answer for each institution).

1. Is there a grievance procedure in your current institution? Yes ~ NoD

2. Did you fully exhaust the administrative grievance process within the jailor

prison where the incidents at issue occurred?

Yes ~ No D

3. If you did not fully exhaust the grievance process, explain why:

III. PARTIES TO CURRENT LAWSUIT

.s A. Plaintiff

vS ""tV F F/5 H is a citizen of MONtANA

, .

(State)

presently residing at 70 I ,$ OVTH 2.J~ s,te~lf:..-T

(Mailing address or place of confinement)

B. Defendant Jo A[..,of\!

is a citizen of MONTANA

(State)

employed as vJA R DfLA/

at---,M~b~l\lL-~u:.(A.:LJrJ~A_..:.W;;..::O::..!.M=l;!..!./II-",o:"'-.Lf-=t<:;.::Js:::..;o=-<I\I-,,-_

(Position and Title, if any)

(Institution/Organization)

Defendant Roster P4UL

is a citizen of _ _M=>U(;):.:;.."'IC.----"-',A'-!.!..N.:.:;t'l-"--_ _ __

(State)

employed as DepIIT'/ WAl?b~

at MON7A7\/A WOM~/V:5 I"lLlsolII

(Position and Title, if any)

(Institution/Organization)

Defendant S v Ii- 0 t2.ANl>

is a citizen of MO /\IfjAr/VA

(State)

employed as l:>fLPVT'( WAf...l>"--,J at Mo 1\\ TA tV A We ItA e /1/IS fJ ILISt>.JV •

(Position and Title, if any)

(Institution/Organization)

(NOTE: If more space is needed to furnish the above information, continue on a blank sheet labeled "APPENDIX A: PARTIES").

Plaintiff's Last Name _-=-...:.~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5/09) , Page 40f7

Case 1:11A-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 5 of 9

IS A

M oN7ANII
IV.!) J'I.1. £.,Js PP-IS6,1\/,

b If,. F'e..N bAI\.J,
£. M f>1..O'I P&-- D A5

AS
jJ it ,"1'1 JV b AtV7 Fi ~ Pl...o'-It&P
of

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 6 of 9
IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
A. Count I (State your cause of action, e.g., how have your constitutional rights been violated):
C-oMMVNli"l A"'f MoNTANA
ItA:> No 7 itA I:> :rtbf:.. 5AI<.-1 ft... R \t.. Q,1l ra. M If 1\J7.S C F TIt£!!2. (lYE- Rf.?.tR (;US5/bI'l5 Fo~ FA\l--'-\~1E- t o C!.~ INVOLVE.!>
Date ofincident(s): I'1A;(,C\-l ~DO""lO f'Rt:...SEo-NT 1. Supporting Facts: (Include all facts you consider important, including names of persons involved, places, and dates. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal arguments, cases, or statutes).
1 A M NOT COVlR-r 0 Rbe..~£O TO AI\I!I"'O "THE. '"ftfe:.R p. (>~u,,\(./ RI6tt7 /...IVI/\l'l

2. Defendants Involved: (List the name of each defendant involved in this claim and specifically describe what each defendant did or did not do to allegedly cause your injury).
M'f~f:L-f - 5USAf'l nSH - ANb TI-f!f.. 4{;.Nlt-I2.AI- f 6 PUl..-AT/6N OF

(NOTE: For each additional claim, use a blank sheet labeled "APPENDIX B. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS." You must set forth two paragraphs for each count, one consisting of Supporting Facts (following the directions under N(A)(l», and one consisting of Defendants Involved (following the directions under IV(A)(2».

Plaintiff's Last Name --'--.:.;::....;..'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5/09) Page 5 0/7

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 7 of 9
T~'"T No W C-orVS1575 o f OfVL.Y
r+O" ~'f) R.~'-Il-~/FTIOI\lI\t." f'trV () 0A rV7€-'-I,[

WITlf

ALl..

tHE-

MWP
ME-AI 4'7

I'V1 S P Do NOT

.. (-'0 Ii?

C-l,...(.\.SSt FIG-At/ON 15 MINIMVlM P-.I'i.-S-rP.IL.T~C>,
COM f'(A?--r1C.... {jl/"Jl-I'C-- Dtv"'''''' P.J~(Q. 2.eo'ik

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 8 of 9

V. INJURY

Describe the injuries you suffered as a result of each individual defendant's actions. (Do no cite legal arguments, cases, or statutes).
BE-INC) EORC£b "To t!.E- ItJ...JO\.-V;;;t) II\l T!=\-i.. 1'tt€.--f?Aff}V-rc../rtl4.H7 I-IVI/Vtj

C6'O1 MMTVctlJRIT~CV.

T1<.f:l'r'T MI!.-NT A-SS OC-I ATlbN,

Pt(Q4R.8Mj 6~ be-I\.IILP eke-,AIN eIH'JIL.I:.D4~S
I-\-(.)I!>t>. 'f \ CAN r: t:.-f'U1I, R ec..1'41E- A'TION j F vb \C-.I I\IU..,/ 8'1

IfbtNcrr BeiNe, l!.Ci?uA\.-\..'1 c.c"", eif..-N6A\~D AS 't±A:c OF MoNTANA ;i-rATfiil' PRISo.N INMJ'i'TLS)' F/ll!\..v)Q.!l-TO (.OW!p\..-y WI"1"l-t Ic-I RI..C ~.\"IL-'f RL.5 Lt1..1$

IN B't-C£.B CIJ"$S/f:>N$ A4AIN5-r INMI9-re... CAe5-!!.. FI\..I!.. Wtf1?H lAb,iMl'l7L-V C.AN 4\:)\le,..12..,sl.-';I AFF!:.G.:( t>AI'Z-O(.../L- aOA~l) 1Je..c..1SION5; C.oN'INvtrt..t:. l'I1oDII=IG.II'IT1¢AJ$ 10 Ie-Jeu:. LONIIN VALL)! :!:T/ F("'~> l/\JfI1!t11L Pl$.o4!e£SS
13,/ S f!../f I Ale; e,.::l\ c..f. Lb ''''''1 Ly C:ot\l -rR. .... D 1c...10 12..'1 R I!!:.-~ 1.1 \ Re... M~;V7S 'TO o P, TAl tJ tH2'l=Stt.- Ct_AsSI FtC-A7/oNj UN b oc..y Mte N7lkD 6 AtVC..TION "'-@7
i,-Jt)lA.L-l:> PeRM1T -S-rAFF ON 1:::.I"r,'1 To 7'AILt:..- AC.-IION5 'T~I I'I.)OI..{I-Q

v&eA{?Ob/Ze... AN 11t#111A-'£ f>ttf:tSt=- C-kflS$'IEtc..lt7tJ()Aj.

(NOTE: If more space is needed to furnish the above information, continue on a blank sheet labeled "APPENDIX C: INJURY").
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Describe the relief you request. (Do no cite legal arguments, cases, or statutes). M" DI E IC-A-'-lOf\l $ M Ah f.. "1b =ntc;:.. I e J R l.-(, po 1...-/(..->, T41'17 WOId"-b
}
13 t.. e;. ~ I..V\I.- TO -n+ f... ~ e.. Q \.A I R. f, M /E..I\J T S 6 r- -r Ite-= M.t:l /IJ 7 A IV A

(NOTE: Ifmore space is needed to furnish the above information, continue on a blank sheet labeled "APPENDIX D: REQUEST FOR RELIEF").

Plaintiff's Last Name _ _~....::....:.!.--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5109) Page 60f7

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 1 Filed 08/31/11 Page 9 of 9

VII. PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION

A. I understand I must keep the Court infonned of my current mailing address and my failure to do so may result in dismissal of this Complaint without notice to me.

B. I understand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit litigants filing civil complaints from using certain infonnation in documents submitted to the Court. In order to comply with these rules, I understand that:

• social security numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, and financial account numbers must include only the last four digits (e.g. xxx-xx-5271, xx-xxx5271, xxxxxxxx3567);
• birth dates must include the year of birth only (e.g. xx/xx/2001); and • names of persons under the age of 18 must include initials only (e.g. L.K.).

If my documents (including exhibits) contain any of the above listed infonnation, I understand it is my responsibility to black that infonnation out before sending those documents to the Court.

I understand I am responsible for protecting the privacy of this infonnation.

C. I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the plaintiff in this action, I have read this complaint, and the infonnation I set forth herein is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.c. § 1621.

D. (Prisoners Only) This Complaint was deposited in the prison system for legal mail, postage prepaid or paid by the prison, on
_ _s~'=-o..!...-rj.f:!.....-_·=~~~A...t..=u=+q-=-v.5:::...'r,--_______, 20 II

Executed at )/JOJlJ"?'A(I!H WOMtJt/;' jJl<lf.~N ts/L-U$on /7""" It!l{qi WS 7

(Location)

(Date)

, 20--,-,-0_

Signature of Plaintiff

(If there is more than one Plaintiff, each Plaintiff must sign the complaint using a separate declarations page).

Plaintiff's Last Name _-.!-....:..:::...:~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint (Revised 5/09) Page 70f7

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

SUSAN F. FISH, Plaintiff,
vs. JO ACTON, ROBERT PAUL, SUE ORAND, ANNAMAE DERRICK, MARK HARTMAN, CHARLOTTE DOLEZAL, and MIKE FERRITER
Defendants.

Cause No. CV 11-00099-BLG-RFCCSO ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 1

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 8
Pending is Plaintiff Susan Fish's Motion for Default Judgment (Court Doc. 11) and Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service. (Court Doc. 12). I. MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants move for dismissal, contending that Fish failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) by serving a copy of the Complaint upon each Defendant at the time of service of the Summons. Defendants have appeared solely for purpose of bringing the motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process, and they do not waive the requirement of proper service of process to obtain personal jurisdiction in the case. (Court Doc. 12, p. 2). In her response, Fish requests additional time to perfect service upon the Defendants.
The motion should be denied for the following reasons. First, Defendants did not comply with Local Rule 7.1(c), which requires that the text of a motion “must state that other parties have been contacted and state whether any party objects to the motion.”
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 2

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 3 of 8
Second, there is good cause to extend the time for service. Defendants admit that they were provided with a summons for the case and a copy of the October 24, 2011 Order which summarizes the allegations of the Complaint. They seek dismissal because they were not served with an actual copy of the Complaint. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Plaintiffs may show good cause where they attempted to serve a defendant but have not yet completed it, were confused about the requirements for service of process, or were prevented from serving a defendant because of events outside of their control. See Wei v. Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985). Fish is a pro se prisoner litigant who attempted service upon the Defendants by paying the Yellowstone County Sheriff's Office nearly $400.00 to serve her documents. The simple problem is that she failed ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 3

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 4 of 8
to include a copy of the Complaint with the documents served upon Defendants.
"Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint." United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984). Fish, as a pro se prisoner litigant, has exercised due diligence in attempting to properly serve Defendants. Therefore, good cause exists for extending the time to serve, and the motion to dismiss should be denied.
Fish represents in her response that she is attempting to remedy the defect by providing a copy of the Complaint along with an Acknowledgment of Service upon Defendants' counsel. It is unclear whether this process has been successful because no acknowledgment or waiver of service has been filed with the Court. Given Fish's incarceration, the fact she has already paid nearly $400.00 in service costs, and that the allegations of the Complaint were summarized in the October 24, 2011 Order served upon Defendants, it would seem appropriate that Fish attempt service by sending her request for waiver ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 4

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 5 of 8
of summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) to counsel for Defendants. The Clerk of Court will be directed to provide Fish with a copy of Rule 4 and Forms 5 and 6 from the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should Defendants fail to waive service, the Court will consider a motion for costs to be awarded to Fish, as directed in Rule 4(d)(2). II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Fish’s Motion for Default Judgment must be denied because, as she concedes, proper service has not been made.
Accordingly, the Court issues the following: ORDER
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Fish with a copy of Rule 4 and Forms 5 and 6 from the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Fish is given until May 18, 2012, to file proof of service upon Defendants or otherwise show cause why service has not been accomplished.
Further, the Court issues the following: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 5

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 6 of 8
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Fish's Motion for Default (Court Doc. 11) should be denied. 2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Court Doc. 12) should be denied. 3. At all times during the pendency of this action, Fish SHALL IMMEDIATELY ADVISE the Court and opposing counsel of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS." The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date, except that if Fish has been released from custody, the notice should so indicate. The notice shall not include any motions for any other relief. Failure to file a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Notice of Right to Object to Findings & Recommendations and
Consequences of Failure to Object Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to these Findings and Recommendations within
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 6

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 7 of 8
fourteen (14) days of the date entered as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. As this deadline allows a party to act after the Findings and Recommendations is served, it falls under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). Therefore, three (3) days are added after the period would otherwise expire. Any such filing should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
If a party files objections, they must itemize each factual finding to which objection is made and must identify the evidence in the record they rely on to contradict that finding. In addition, they must itemize each recommendation to which objection is made and must set forth the authority they rely on to contradict that recommendation.
Failure to assert a relevant fact or argument in objection to these Findings and Recommendations may preclude the parties from relying on that fact or argument at a later stage of the proceeding. A district judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which objection is made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Findings and Recommendations. Failure to timely file written ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 7

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 8 of 8
objections may bar a de novo determination by the district judge and/or waive the right to appeal.
This order is not immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a), should not be filed until entry of the District Court's final judgment.
DATED this 9th day of March, 2012.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION TO DISMISS– CV 11-00099-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 8

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 18 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 2

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SUSAN F. FISH,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

APR 122012

PATRICK E. DUFFY CLERK

BILLINGS DIVISION

BY_--w.:=~_ _
Deputy Clerk
U.S. DISTRICT COURT BILLINGS DIVISION

CV-11-99-BLG-RFC-CSO

Plaintiff,

vs.
JO ACTON, ROBERT PAUL, SUE ORAND, ANNAMAE DERRICK, MARK HARTMAN, CHARLOTTE DOLEZAL, and MIKE FERRITER,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby has entered Findings and Recommendation recommending that Fish's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 11) be denied and that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 12) also be denied. Doc. 16. Judge Ostby recommends the motion to dismiss be denied because (1) Defendants did not comply with L.R. 7.1 (c) by stating whether they confirmed Fish's consent or opposition before filing their motion and (2) there is good cause for extending the time for service of the Complaint since Fish is a prisoner proceeding pro se whose only failure in service was failing to provide copies of

1

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 18 Filed 04/12/12 Page 2 of 2
the Complaint to the Sheriffs Deputies she hired to serve this lawsuit. Since Fish has not properly served the Complaint, Judge Ostby recommends her Motion for Default Judgment be denied.
Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party has 14 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). In this matter, no party filed objections. While this failure to object to results in a waiver of all objections to the findings of fact, Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,455 (9th Cir. 1999), it does not relieve this Court of its burden to review de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions of law. Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989).
After an extensive review of the record and applicable law, this Court finds Magistrate Judge Ostby'S Findings and Recommendation are well grounded in law and fact and adopts them in their entirety.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fish's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 11) is DENIED and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 12) is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of the entry of this Order. DATED the 12th day of April, 2012.
2

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 41

Anna Conley ACLU of Montana Foundation P.O. Box 9138 Missoula, MT 59807 Telephone: (406) 443-8590, Ext. 3056
. : annac@aclumontana.org

Kyle Gray

Adrian A. Miller

Holland & Hart LLP

P.O. Box 639

Billings, MT 59103-0639

Telephone: (406) 252-2166

Fax: (406) 252-1669

Email: Email:

==~=-:::....:c===.::.::.::::.::..:==
~~~~~~~~

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ron Waterman Gough Shanahan Johnson & Waterman 33 S. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59691 Telephone: (406) 442-8560 Fax: (406) 442-8783 Email: rfw@gsjw.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

SUSAN F. FISH, TERRI WETZEL, TASHA RAINEY, ANGELA ROMAN NOSE, NICOLE MOORE, ROLANDA WAGNER, and NICOLE LANCE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JO ACTON, ROBERT PAUL, SUE ORAND, ANNAMAE SIEGRIEDDERRICK, MARK HARTMAN,
DOLEZAL, FERRITER AND MONTANA
Defendants.

) No. DV 11-0099-BLG-RFC-CSO ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 41

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs are female prisoners currently or previously incarcerated at the

Montana Women's Prison in Billings, Montana. Defendants have violated

plaintiffs' equal protection rights set forth in the U.S. and Montana Constitutions,

as well as 20 U.S.C. 168 1discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex.

While incarcerated at the Montana V/omen's Prison, Plaintiffs are forced to

participate in a degrading and unbeneficial "Right Living Community" program.

Female prisoners' only alternative to forced participation in the "Right Living

Community" is prolonged solitary confinement with no access to job opportunities

or education opportunities. All female prisoners, even those who have not been

court ordered to obtain treatment, must participate in the "Right Living

Community." The "Right Living Community" enables prisoners to engage in petty

and vindictive behavior, and gives prisoners power over other prisoners' privileges

and punishments.

No male prisoners are forced to participate in the "Right Living

or any similar program in the Montana State Prison. The only

prisoners required to participate in treatment are those court ordered to obtain

Male

are

m

to m

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 3 of 41

dorm and/or general population, obtain work training and education, which are not

contingent on their participation in forced treatment programming.

The Right Living Community is purported to serve as a substitution for the

statutory right of prisoners in Montana to attend boot camp. Because they are

women, plaintiffs are denied the ability to attend boot camp, a three month

intensive military-style rehabilitation treatment and education program available to

male prisoners which, upon successful completion, results in eligibility for

sentence reduction or conversion to probation. Male prisoners sentenced to boot

camp, sentenced to the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections, and

sentenced directly to Montana State Prison can attend boot camp. Conversely, no

female prisoners, even those who have been endorsed by their sentencing judges to

attend boot camp, have the opportunity to attend boot camp.

For the duration of their incarceration, Plaintiffs have been denied equal

protection of the law and are subjected to gender discrimination. This gender

discrimination includes forced participation in the "Right Living Community" for

female prisoners, while

is absolutely no forced participation in any similar

program male prisoners in Montana State Prison or any other private or

regional prison male

111 state of Montana, and denial of the

attend

acts

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 4 of 41

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article II, §4 of the

Montana Constitution.

Forced participation in the "Right Living Community" and denial of boot

camp also violate 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (commonly termed "Title IX") as female

prisoners are not receiving education opportunities equal to male prisoners.

Female prisoners' access to work training and education programming is

conditioned on their forced participation in the "Right Living Community." Denial

of boot camp for female prisoners, which is an education program, also results in

unequal education opportunities for male and female prisoners.

NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiffs bring Count I of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 to

redress violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to receive equal protection while incarcerated in the Montana

Women's Prison. In connection with Count I, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and

declaratory relief against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick, Hartman and

in their o.....,,1'or

capacities, and actual, nominal punitive damages

against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick, Hartman and Ferriter in their

as as

and

S §1

redress violations Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendments to

-4-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 5 of 41

U.S. Constitution to be guaranteed equal protection under the laws while they are

incarcerated in the Montana Women's Prison. In connection with Count II,

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Acton, Paul,

Orand, Derrick, Hartman and Ferriter in their official capacities, and actual,

nominal and punitive damages against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick,

Hartman and

individual capacities, as well as attorneys' and

costs.

3. Plaintiffs bring Count III of this action to redress violations of 20

U.S § 1681,which states, in part "[n]o person in the United States shaH, on the

basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving

Federal financial assistance ..." 20 U.S.C. § 1681. In connection with Count III,

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant Department of

Corrections, and actual, nominal and punitive damages against Defendant

Department of Corrections, as well as attorneys' fees and costs from all

defendants.

Plaintiffs bring Count IV this action to redress violations 20

.S.C.§1681 . of

states, in part "[n]o person in the

States shall, on or

subjected discrimination under any education

or

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 6 of 41
Federal financial assistance ..." 20 U.S.C. § 1681. In connection with Count IV, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant Department of Corrections, and actual, nominal and punitive damages against Defendant Department of Corrections, as well as attorneys' fees and costs from all defendants.
5. Plaintiffs bring Count V of this action to redress violations II, §4 of the Montana Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and prohibits violations to human dignity. In connection with Count V, Plaintiffs seek actual, nominal and punitive damages against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick, Hartman and Ferriter in their individual capacities, as well as attorneys' fees, and court costs.
6. Plaintiffs bring Count VI of this action to redress violations of Article II, §4 of the Montana Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and prohibits violations to human dignity. In connection with Count VI, Plaintiffs seek Plaintiffs seek actual, nominal and punitive damages against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick, Hartman and Ferriter in their individual capacities, as well as attorneys' fees, and
costs.
-6-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 7 of 41

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court for Counts I, II, III and IV

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343 because the matters in controversy

arise under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

8. Supplemental jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court for Counts V

and VI pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391 (b) because a

substantial part of the events that give rise to Plaintiffs' claims took place in

Billings, Montana.

10. This Court has authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to award

appropriate actual, consequential, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages,

and has authority under 42 U.S.C. §1988 to award attorney fees and costs to

successful civil rights plaintiffs.

PARTIES 11. Plaintiff Susan Fish is a prisoner in the general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. For the approximately last five years Ms. Fish has been

forced to participate in the "Right Living Community" (formerly known as

"therapeutic community") at the Montana Women's Prison. or around April

1

.
III

a

new

verSI.On

Living

prisoners over 55 who have participated in

two

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 8 of 41

years in which she must attend fewer meetings and need not participate in

"structure board" or crews, which are explained below.

12. Plaintiff Terri Wetzel is a prisoner in the general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. For approximately the last two years, Ms. Wetzel has

been forced to participate in the "Right Living Community" (fonnerly known as

"therapeutic community") at the Montana Women's Prison. On June 11,2011,

Gallatin County District Court Judge Holly Brown entered an order granting Ms.

Wetzel's Motion for Boot Camp Endorsement. Despite this endorsement,

defendants have denied Ms. Wetzel the opportunity to participate in boot camp.

13. Plaintiff Tasha Rainey is a prisoner at the Passages Assessment,

Revocation, Sanction and Hold Center. She was a prisoner at the Montana

Women's Prison from December 7,2009 through March 19,2012. One of Ms.

Rainey's male co-defendants, who was convicted of similar crimes arising from

the same incident, has been released on probation since October, 2011 after

successfully completing boot camp. Without the equal ability to attend boot camp,

Ms.

will remain incarcerated at Passages until September, 2013.

14. Plaintiff Angela

is a prisoner in general population the

s

ue<:errlOer 17, 2007

by Montana

Court, '-'V"'~""".""'H

Roman

states that Court supports the Defendant's application to

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 9 of 41

participate in the women's boot camp program as available throughout the DOC.

Despite this support, because boot camp is not available to female prisoners, Ms.

Roman Nose will discharge her full five year sentence with no sentence reduction

and no rehabilitative programming in October, 2012.

15. Plaintiff Nicole Moore is a prisoner in general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. On 7,2011, Ravalli County District Court Judge

Jeffrey Langton entered a Memorandum giving Ms. Moore his permission and

endorsement to participate in the boot camp program. Despite this support,

Defendants have denied Ms. Moore the ability to attend boot camp.

16. Plaintiff Rolanda Wagner is a prisoner in general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. Ms. Wagner is a young prisoner, and is an ideal

candidate for boot camp. Despite this, Ms. Wager has been denied the ability to

attend boot camp because there is no boot camp available for female prisoners.

17. Plaintiff Nicole Lance is a prisoner in general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. Ms. Lance is a young prisoner, and is an ideal

candidate boot

Despite this, Wager has been denied ability to

attend boot camp because there is no boot camp available female prisoners.

18. Defendant Acton is, at all relevant times was, Warden at the

S V H . l ' - ' H

-9-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 10 of 41

19. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Acton has acted with

discriminatory intent and taken action she knew or reasonably should have known

would violate plaintiffs' right to equal protection by forcing female prisoners to

participate in the Right Living Community with knowledge that male prisoners are

not forced to participate in any similar programming, punishing female prisoners

for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the Right

Community,

conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living

Community, and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary confinement as their

only alternative to participation in the Right Living Community.

20. Defendant Acton has acted with discriminatory intent and taken action

she

or reasonably should have known would violate plaintiffs' equal

protection rights by depriving female prisoners of the ability to attend boot camp

and receive a sentence reduction upon successful completion.

21. Defendant Acton has personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing all female prisoners alternatively to

participate in the Right Living Community or reside in solitary confinement with

no job opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

Action has further personally participated in violations

plaintiffs'

by

participate boot camp and attempting replace boot

with a

-10-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 11 of 41

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent of boot camp. The "Right Living Community Orientation

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

cannot result in a sentence reduction.

23. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant

Acton in her official individual capacity. With regard to

V and

Plaintiffs name Defendant 10 Acton in her individual capacity.

24. Defendant Robert Paul is, and at all relevant times was, Deputy

Warden at the Montana Women's Prison.

25. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Paul has acted with

discriminatory intent and taken action he knew or reasonably should have known

would violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female prisoners to

participate in the Right Living Community with knowledge that male prisoners are

not forced to participate in any similar programming, punishing female prisoners

for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living Community,

conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living

Community, and requiring female prisoners

solitary confinement as their

only alternative to participation in the Right Living Community.

26.

has

he knew or reasonably

have

would violate plaintiffs' equal

-11-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 12 of 41

protection rights by depriving female prisoners of the ability to attend boot camp

and receive a sentence reduction upon successful completion.

27. Defendant Paul has personally participated in violations of plaintiffs'

equal protection by forcing all female prisoners alternatively to participate in the

Right Living Community or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

28. Defendant Paul has further personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent of boot camp. "Right Living Community Orientation

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

cannot result in a sentence reduction.

29. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant

Robert Paul in his official and individual capacity. With regard to Counts V and

name Defendant Robert In individual capacity.

30. Defendant Sue Orand is, and at all relevant times was, Deputy

at Montana

s

31.

color state law, Defendant Orand has acted

with discriminatory intent and taken action

or reasonably should have

-12-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 13 of 41

known would violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female prisoners

to participate in the Right Living Community with knowledge that male prisoners

are not forced to' participate in any similar programming, punishing female

prisoners for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living

Community, conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in the Right

Living Community, and requiring female prisoners to' in solitary confinement

as their only alternative to participation in the Right Living Community.

Defendant Orand has acted with discriminatory intent and taken action she knew or

reasonably should have known would violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights by

depriving female prisoners of the ability to attend boot camp and receive a

sentence reduction upon successful completion.

32. Defendant Orand has personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing all female prisoners to participate in

the Right Living Community or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

33. Defendant Orand has further personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

Orientation

that is

substantial equivalent boot camp. The "Right Living '<./VHH.U....'eU Orientation

-13-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 14 of 41

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

cannot result in a sentence reduction.

34. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant Sue

Orand in her official and individual capacity. With regard to Counts V and VI,

Plaintiffs name Defendant Sue Orand in her individual capacity.

35. Defendant AnnaMae Siegfried-Denick .

at relevant times

was, Operations Manager at the Montana Women's Prison.

36. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has

acted with discriminatory intent and taken action she knew or reasonably should

have known would violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female

prisoners to participate in the Right Living Community with knowledge that male

prisoners are not forced to participate in any similar programming, punishing

female prisoners for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the Right

Living Community, conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in

the Right Living Community, and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary

confinement as their only alternative to participation in the Right Living

Community.

37.

""U''-'LUH Siegfried-Derrick has

discriminatory . and

or reasonably should

violate

-1

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 15 of 41

equal protection rights by depriving female prisoners of the ability to attend boot

camp and potentially receive a sentence reduction upon successful completion.

38. Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has personally participated in violations

of plaintiffs' equal protection by forcing all female prisoners to participate in the

Right Living Community or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

39. Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has further personally participated in

violations of plaintiffs , equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the

ability to participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a

facility-wide mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is

not the substantial equivalent of boot camp. The "Right Living Community

Orientation Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills

building, and cannot result in a sentence reduction.

40. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant

AnneMae Siegfried-Derrick in her official and individual capacity. With regard to

Counts V and VI, Plaintiffs name Defendant Sue Derrick in individual

capacity.

41. Defendant Mark Hartman' and at

III

Living

the

s

-1

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 16 of 41

42. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Hartman has acted with

discriminatory intent and taken action he knew or reasonably should have known

would violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female prisoners to

participate in the Right Living Community with knowledge that male prisoners are

not forced to participate in any similar programming, punishing female prisoners

for not engaging in "full and u,·u..,.~, participation in the Right Living Community,

conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living

Community, and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary confinement as their

only alternative to participation in the Right Living Community.

43. Defendant Hartman has personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing all female prisoners to participate in

the Right Living Community or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

44. Defendant Hartman has further personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

Community Orientation

same

and

result in a sentence reduction.

-16-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 17 of 41

45. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant

Mark Hartman in his official capacity. With regard to Counts and VI, Plaintiffs

name Defendant Mark Hartman in his individual capacity.

46. Defendant Mike Ferriter is, and at all relevant times was, Director of

the Montana Department of Corrections.

47. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Ferriter has acted

discriminatory intent and taken action he knew or reasonably should have known

would violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female prisoners to

participate in the Right Living Community with knowledge that male prisoners are

not forced to participate in any similar programming, punishing female prisoners

for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living Community,

conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in the Right Living

Community, and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary confinement as their

only alternative to participation in the Right Living Community.

48. Defendant Ferriter has acted with discriminatory intent and taken

action he

or reasonably should have known would violate plaintiffs' equal

protection rights by depriving female prisoners of the ability to

boot

receIve a

reduction upon successful completion.

plaintiffs'

protection rights by forcing -17-

prisoners to participate in

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 18 of 41

the Right Living Community or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

50. Defendant Ferriter has further personally participated in violations of

plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent of boot camp. The "Right Living Community Orientation

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

cannot result in a sentence reduction, is mandatory, perpetual, and cannot result in

a sentence reduction.

51. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant

Mike Ferriter in his official capacity. With regard to Counts V and VI, Plaintiffs

name Defendant Mike Ferriter in his individual capacity.

52. Defendant Montana Department of Corrections ("DOC") is, and at all

relevant times to this lawsuit was, the government agency in charge of the

administration all Montana state prisons including the Montana Women's

Prison. The DOC has violated 20 U.S.C. 1681 by accepting federal funds and

III

acts that deprive female prisoners education

male

-18-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 19 of 41

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to go to boot camp. 53. Boot camp is a legislative program designed to provide alternative

means of rehabilitating young felony offenders. Mont. Code Ann. §53-30-401 -

403. The program uses physical activity, military style discipline and intensive

counseling to "correct criminal and other maladaptive thought processes and

behavior patterns and to instill self-discipline and self-motivation." Section 53-

30-403(3)(b), MCA.

54. The boot camp program was originally located in the Swan River

Correctional Training Center. In 1997, the DOC opened the Treasure State

Correctional Training Center ("TSCTC") in Deer Lodge, Montana, which currently

houses male prisoners participating in boot camp.

55. Boot camp has been very successful in decreasing new offense

recidivism rates dramatically and providing valuable rehabilitation skills relating to

structure, treatment and education to felony offenders.

56. Boot camp is based on military

programs. Participants

live, work, and train together in a structured, military-style setting. The program

emphasizes physical activity and conditioning as well as intensive education,

and is followed by an aftercare program at Great -19-

pre-release center.

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 20 of 41

57. Mont. Code Ann. § 53-30-403(2) provides the prisoner eligibility

requirements for the boot camp. The statute does not require that prisoners be

sentenced to boot camp in order to attend, and does not provide that only males are

eligible for boot camp.

58. Prisoners enter the TSCTC boot camp program by being sentenced to

boot camp by a judge, or by applying and being accepted.

Code

§

I 8-20 I (4)(m) allows a judge to order an offender to complete boot camp prior to

reducing his or her sentence. Prisoners may enter the program from various

correctional programs and facilities, such as the Sanction, Treatment, Assessment,

Revocation and Transition (START) Center, in Warm Springs, Montana and

Missoula Assessment and Sanctions Center, in Missoula, Montana, or may enter

directly from MSP.

59. Participation in boot camp is voluntary, and prisoners who

successfully complete the program are eligible to have their sentences reduced or

converted to probation.

60. Initially, female prisoners participated in boot camp at the TSCTC

facility. In July, 2001, MWP started the Intensive Challenge Program (ICP), a

boot camp for female prisoners. With the opening the female prisoners no

TSCTC.

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 21 of 41
61. At the time of its creation, the ICP served as a female counterpart to the male boot camp program, and was similarly structured. Prisoners would participate in intense physical training, counseling, and treatment. The program would last from 3-6 months, usually followed by an aftercare program. Many female prisoners successfully graduated from this program.
62. Graduates of the ICP could receive reduced or suspended sentences. or around 2009, ICP was suspended. Defendants instituted an "orientation program" for the "Right Living Program" ("RLC") program for new MWP prisoners, and attempted to characterize this RLC orientation as a boot camp equivalent. Today, female prisoners have no programs available for sentenced reduction upon successful completion.
63. However, the RLC orientation is nothing like boot camp. It is mandatory. All MWP prisoners are forced to participate. RLC orientation does not provide the same treatment and education skills. RLC orientation does not and cannot result in a sentence reduction. RLC orientation occurs in general population in MWP. '-'H'-'-U'V prisoners' only option aside from RLC orientation is solitary confinement. RLC orientation is not military-style, and it does not contain a
1-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 22 of 41

64. The statutes detennining Boot Camp eligibility do not limit

participation to male prisoners. TSCTC has taken female prisoners into its

program. The ICP, when it ran as a boot camp, took only female prisoners.

65. Female prisoners no longer have access to a boot camp, nor any

similar program that provides the same rehabilitation skills or sentence reductions

and/or suspensions.

B. Plaintiffs are forced to participate in a mandatory "Right Living Community" program, formerly known as "therapeutic community."
66. The Right Living Community program ("RLC"), fonnerly known as

"therapeutic community" is a treatment program designed to restructure thinking

patterns and change human behavior. Therapeutic community has predominately

been utilized in the addiction treatment context, but has been utilized by MWP to

attempt to restructure "criminal thinking." The RLC was implemented at MWP in

or around 2006.

67. Therapeutic community treatment programs were built on a premise

that participation is voluntary in order for the treatment to effective. Despite

this premise, participation in RLC at MWP is mandatory.

68.

divides

pod'

a

IS

on the

board" consist of two tiers.

upper tier are the Senior

-22-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 23 of 41

Coordinator, the Assistant Coordinator and the Senior Clerk. The lower tier of the

"structure board" consist of prisoners who are "crew leads", including the

expeditor, education crew lead, environment crew lead, motivation crew lead,

community representative and business crew lead. The remainder of the pod is

"family" or "community."

69. Members the "structure board" maintain power and authority over

other prisoners in their "family." This includes assigning tasks and homework to

the rest of the "family" and assigning the "family" specific tasks to perform at

RLC meetings, such as stating or reflecting upon an RLC principle or reflecting on

a news or sports story. "Structure board" members also oversee inter-personal

relationships between prisoners in their "family," and are authorized to ensure that

"family members" are treating each other with respect.

70. Because of the power "structure board" members have, their

relationship with other prisoners in their "family" can have significant negative

impacts on conditions of incarceration for other prisoners. This hierarchy gives

certain prisoners

over other prisoners.

71. Female prisoners must participate in two "family" or "community"

each

are run the

board." Participation

III

III

and

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 24 of 41

72. Female prisoners must also attend a "talking circle" on Wednesday

nights, and "family night" on Friday nights, in which they are forced to participate

in at least one half hour of activity with the other prisoners in their "family."

Participation in these meetings is required, and non-participation results in

disciplinary action and loss of privileges.

73. RLC meetings consist ofRLC-related statements, news and sports

reports, and often include the singing of children's songs and playing of children's

games such as "Simon says", "the rain song", and "musical chairs". Other required

activities in RLC meetings include sharing your favorite ice cream flavor, book,

song or animal. "Full and sincere" participation in these activities is required.

Plaintiffs and other female prisoners find forced singing of children's songs and

playing of children's games degrading, humiliating, and non-rehabilitative.

74. Female prisoners must do RLC-related homework as a condition of

their confinement. Failure to complete RLC-related homework results in

disciplinary action and loss of privileges.

75. RLC, as administered by Defendants, requires prisoners to exhibit

"full and sincere participation" in RLC activities, meetings and homework. Failure

smcere

in RLC activities,

and

in disciplinary

and

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 25 of 41

76. As administered at MWP, RLC does not have a beneficial impact on

prIsoners. RLC was designed to be voluntary, and it was designed to end after a

finite period of time. Because Defendants administer RLC as a mandatory

program with no finite duration, it does not provide prisoners with the intended

benefits.

77. Plaintiffs, like all other MWP prisoners, must participate in RLC for

the duration of their sentence at MWP. Prisoners at MWP do not receive any

sentence reductions or suspensions for participation in RLC. Prisoners at MWP do

not receive compensation for participation in RLC.

78. In an exception recently created, prisoners who have participated in

RLC for two years and are over 55 years old, or have participated in RLC for four

years and are under 55, are required to participate in a more limited way with RLC.

Prisoners within this exception must attend at least two community meetings a

week, be a phase 4 or 5, maintain compliant status, have not been convicted of any

major infraction within 120 days, and be leaders in the community. If a person

meets these requirements she does not have to be a part of the structure board,

crew leads, or crew members, and for recreation she will be considered a phase

She is to

required . the

and maintain all phase four expectations.

lila

eligibility a return

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 26 of 41

participation in RLC. Like RLC for the rest of the prisoners, this reduced

involvement in RLC is mandatory.

79. The only option for women who choose not to participate in RLC is to

be housed in solitary confinement, commonly termed "administrative segregation"

or "disciplinary detention" in Cor F pod in MWP. and F pod consist of isolation

cells in which prisoners spend approximately hours day in their cells.

Scientific research has established that prolonged solitary confinement causes

significant psychological damage to prisoners.

80. Male prisoners in the Montana State Prison ("MSP") are not required

to participate in any treatment program unless ordered by a sentencing judge or by

MSP personnel on a case-by-case basis to address issues relating to a specific

prisoner's needs. Many male prisoners at MSP are provided monetary

compensation for participation in treatment programs. There is no facility-wide

forced treatment or programming for male prisoners. Male prisoners are not

obligated to have two daily meetings with their pod. Male prisoners are not

in a facility-sanctioned treatment-based hierarchy

their pod or

housing unit. Male prisoners are not forced to participate in activities with other

In

or

prisoners are not forced

s songs and play

s games.

prisoners are not forced

treatment-related

subject to punishment.

-26-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 27 of 41

81. Male prisoners' privileges and punishments are tied solely to their

classification and disciplinary record, and are not tied to participation in treatment

programs that are not court ordered.

82. Male prisoners in court-ordered treatment programs receive

compensation for participating in such treatment. Court-ordered treatment

programs for male prisoners are of finite duration.

C. The RLC Phase System 83. In addition to the DOC classification system governed by DOC policy

4.2.1, female prisoners at MWP must participate in a "Phase" system as an integral

part of

Each phase has certain privileges and punishments. At MWP,

prisoners are classified into four phase groups, with four being the group that

receives the most privileges. Female prisoners begin on phase one.

84. Some of the benefits that come from "full and sincere" participation in

the RLC and "phasing up" include increased activities, hobby and craft, gym, yard

and recreation time, and priority when applying for jobs. Phase one prisoners get

one of recreation five days a week and no access to electronics,

including personal television, or canteen food items. Phase two prisoners get two

a day seven days a

of

two

a

no

a day, seven days a

hours of hobby time

days a

-27-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 28 of 41

no canteen restrictions. Phases two through five get one night per week of evening

yard. Phase four and five prisoners get five hobby pennits, unlimited recreation

time, unlimited hobby time during week days, no canteen restrictions, and evening

yard as scheduled. They may also participate in the flower garden project, play

Nintendo Wii, have monthly socials, and they get a state-issued colored polo shirt.

Also the phase system influences where the prisoners are housed and when they

participate in activities.

85. Consistently not modeling RLC values and/or behavior results in the

loss of phase. When a prisoner loses a phase, in addition to the decreased

privileges discussed above, her electronics and polo shirts are taken and are not

returned until she earns her phase back. 30 days of clear conduct is required for a

prisoner to go up one phase. Female prisoners at MWP who receive DOC write-

ups also "lose phases," which result in a loss of privileges. Female prisoners may

receive write ups, punishments and awarenesses all for the same incident, and be

punished multiple times for these various categories of infractions arising out of

the same'

86. Male prisoners are not required to participate a phase system

standard DOC

87.

male

MSP are based on

their DOC disciplinary record and classification. Male

at MSP are

-28-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 29 of 41

required to participate in an additional "phase" system in order to receive certain

privileges.

D. The RLC "Awareness" and Punishment Component 88. An integral part ofRLC is an awareness program in which prisoners

can make other prisoners "aware" when they act in ways contrary to the principles

of the RLC. An "awareness" can be written or oral.

89. When an prisoner is "made aware" by another prisoner, the result is

often RLC-related punishment, such as writing a list of "deterrences." Deterrences

are actions that a prisoner can take to avoid making the mistake for which she was

made aware. For example, a prisoner who forgot to clear the chairs after a RLC

meeting was made aware by another prisoner, and subsequently required to write

25 deterrences to avoid forgetting to clear the chairs again. Other common RLC-

related punishments for being "made aware" include writing an essay on the

mistake, extra cleaning duty, not being able to speak for a period time, also

known as a "silent task," or being required to stand up and admit "self-defeating"

behaviors to the other members of the "family." These punishments being

"made aware" by other prisoners create a system when prisoners have power over

and u,""-.,-,,,,

board

In

-29-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 30 of 41

interviews and suggest the punishment to be meted out to a prisoner who has been

made aware.

90. The awareness procedure has been used as a vehicle to create

hierarchies among prisoners, to encourage vindictive or petty behavior among

prisoners. For example, prisoners can make an unpopular prisoner aware as often

as possible, while avoiding making

prisoners aware. As such, process

enables prisoners to punish other prisoners in the name of the RLC.

91. When a prisoner obtains three written "awarenesses", she must go to a

"peer awareness circle". When a prisoner obtains 5 written "awarenesses", that

prisoner receives a DOC write-up and a "clinical" punishment such as extra work,

being forced to admit "self-defeating" behaviors in front of others, or attending a

"conduct" seminar.

92. Male prisoners do not have a system of "awarenesses." Male

prisoners are not subject to treatment-related privileges and punishments for

participation in a mandatory treatment program and for being "made aware" by

other prisoners.

-30-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 31 of 41

COUNT I - DEFENDANTS' IMPOSITION OF FORCED RIGHT LIVING COMMUNITY PROGRAMING VIOLATES THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FISH, WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
93. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 92 as fully restated here.

94. By their policies and practices described above, Defendants have

discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their gender, thereby violating their

right to equal protection of the laws. These policies and practices have and

continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents or employees in their

official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' deprivation of rights

secured by the U.S. Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

95. MWP is a medium and maximum security prison, and is the only

prison that houses females sentenced to the DOC or sentenced specifically to

MWP in the state of Montana. MWP prisoners sentenced to the DOC go through a

screening and assessment process at the Passages Assessment and Sanctions

in Billings Montana.

96. MSP is a low, medium and maximum security prison that houses

1400

In

of

a

process the

Assessment and Sanctions

in Missoula, Montana. Although DOC

1-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 32 of 41

houses some male prisoners in regional prisons and/or the Crossroads Correctional

Facility in Shelby, Montana, the majority of male prisoners in Montana serve their

sentences at MSP.

97. Prisoners at MWP are similarly situated to males at MSP. As

prisoners in state prisons serving DOC or facility-specific sentences issued from

state district court judges, female prisoners and male prisoners at MSP are

sufficiently similar with respect to their conditions of incarceration, treatment

programs available to them, and their interest in programs available to them for

sentence suspension and/or reduction. As such, female prisoners at MWP are

equivalent to male prisoners at MSP.

98. Despite the fact that female prisoners at the MWP are similarly

situated to male prisoners at the MSP, female prisoners are subject to unequal

treatment resulting from gender discrimination. As such, there is a lack of parity

between female and male prisoners regarding forced participation in RLC. This

gender discrimination is apparent from facially gender-based classifications.

99. Unlike female prisoners, male prisoners are not required to participate

in mandatory therapeutic community programming. Unlike female prisoners, male

disciplinary status is contingent on their participation in mandatory

and

and/or facility-specific

policies. Unlike female prisoners, male prisoners cannot have privileges

-32-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 33 of 41

revoked for refusal to participate in mandatory facility-wide programming above

and beyond the DOC and/or facility-specific discipline policies. Unlike female

prisoners, male prisoners are not forced to choose between participation in

mandatory facility-wide programming or administrative segregation, also known as

solitary confinement. This gender discrimination and unequal treatment is not

substantively related to the achievement of important governmental objectives.

100. Gender-neutral alternatives to the current unequal treatment of female

and male prisoners are available, rendering the current lack of parity between

female and male prisoners unnecessary. For example, the MWP has option of

making participation in RLC voluntary.

COUNT II - DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE BOOT CAMP TO FEMALE PRISONERS VIOLATES THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS
TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, MOORE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
101. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 100 as fully restated here.

102. their policies and practices described above, Defendants

discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their gender, thereby violating their

These policies and practices

and

or ...,'UIJHJ

III

-33-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 34 of 41

official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' deprivation of rights

secured by the U.S. Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

103. MWP is a medium and maximum security prison, and is the only

prison that houses females sentenced to the DOC or sentenced specifically to

MWP in the state of Montana. MWP prisoners sentenced to the DOC go through a

screening and assessment process at the Passages Assessment and Sanctions

Center, in Billings Montana.

104. MSP is a low, medium and maximum security prison that houses

approximately 1400 male prisoners in the state Montana. Prisoners sentenced

the DOC go through a screening and assessment process at the Missoula

Assessment and Sanctions Center in Missoula, Montana. Although the DOC

houses some male prisoners in regional prisons and/or the Crossroads Correctional

Facility in Shelby, Montana, the majority of male prisoners in Montana serve their

sentences at MSP.

105. Prisoners at MWP are similarly situated to males at MSP. As

prisoners in state pnsons serving DOC or facility-specific sentences issued from

state district court judges, female prisoners and male prisoners at MSP are

rp"npl~r to their conditions of incarceration, treatment

III

to

for

-34-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 35 of 41

sentence suspension and/or reduction. As such, female prisoners at MWP are

equivalent to male prisoners at MSP.

106. Despite the fact that female prisoners at the Montana Women's Prison

are similarly situated to male prisoners at the Montana State Prison, female

prisoners are subject to unequal treatment resulting from gender discrimination. As

such, there is a lack parity between female and male prisoners the ability to

attend boot camp. This gender discrimination is apparent from facially gender-

based classifications. While male prisoners who have not committed crimes for

which they may receive capital punishment who are

endorsed for boot camp, sentenced to the DOC's custody, or sentenced directly to

MSP have the ability to go to boot camp, similarly situated female prisoners do not

have the ability to go to boot camp. Unlike male prisoners, who have the ability to

go to boot camp, followed by an aftercare program at the Great Falls pre-release

center, and receive a sentence reduction, female prisoners do not have this option.

107. Defendants have repeatedly represented to female prisoners who have

requested boot camp that they cannot go to boot camp unless they are sentenced to

boot camp. Defendants'representations female prisoners who have requested

boot camp that they cannot go unless they are sentenced are false. Male prisoners

can and do attend boot camp

being sentenced boot camp.

-35-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 36 of 41

108. Gender-neutral alternatives to the current unequal treatment of female

and male prisoners are available, rendering the current lack of parity between

female and male prisoners unnecessary. For example, defendants can re-institute

the Intensive Challenge Program previously available to female prisoners.

Defendants can work with make female beds available in the Treasure State

Correctional Training Center. Defendants can transfer females to of state boot

camp programs.

COUNT III - DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING 20 U.S.C. §1681 BY CONDITIONING PARTICIPATION IN WORK AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR FEMALE PRISONERS ON RLC PARTICIPATION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FISH, WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, WAGER AND LANCE)
109. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 108 as fully restated here.

110. The Montana Department of Corrections receives federal funding. As

such, its education programs are governed by 20 U.S.C. §1681 (Commonly termed

"Title IX"). Title IX requires equality in educational programs provided to men

and women.

Ill. While male prisoners in MSP have access to work training and

educational

required

in RLC,

at

In

a day

-36-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 37 of 41
and F pods. Work training and educational programming opportunities for female prisoners in C and F pods is significantly diminished.
112. By requiring mandatory participation in therapeutic community in order to avoid lockdown in solitary confinement with no or limited work training or education privileges, Defendant Department of Corrections is providing unequal educational opportunities to female prisoners.
COUNT IV - DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATION 20 U.S.C. §1681 BY NOT PROVIDING BOOT CAMP TO FEMALE PRISONERS
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, MOORE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
113. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 112 as fully restated here.
114. The Montana Department of Corrections receives federal funding. As such, its education programs are governed by 20 U.S.C. §1681 (Commonly termed "Title IX"). Title IX requires equality in educational programs provided to men and women.
115. Boot camp requires prisoners to participate in a number of general academic classes, rehabilitative classes, including "criminal thinking errors" and victimology. As such, it is an educational program. By not allowing female prisoners the opportunity to attend boot camp, Defendant Department of Corrections is providing unequal educational opportunities to female prisoners.
-37-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 38 of 41

COUNT V - DEFENDANTS' IMPOSITION OF FORCED RIGHT LIVING COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING VIOLATES ARTICLE H, §4 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FISH, WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
116. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 115 as fully restated here.

117.

specifically U-.LH"'",-,", the allegations set forth in

I as

fully restated here. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert that defendants

have engaged in gender discrimination, violated plaintiffs' human dignity, and

denied them equal protection of the laws in violation of Article II, §4 of the

Montana Constitution.

COUNT VI - DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE BOOT CAMP TO FEMALE PRISONERS VIOLATES ARTICLE II, §4 OF THE MONTANA
CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, MOORE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
118. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 117 as fully restated here.

119. Plaintiffs specifically re-allege set forth in <UH_!",UUVih'

as

fully restated here. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants

violated iHH.HUl..LVH

III

Montana

-38-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 39 of 41

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Declare Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick and Ferriter have

violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution through forcing female prisoners at the Montana Women's

Prison to participate in the "Right Living Community";

B. Declare Defendants

Paul, Orand, Derrick and Ferriter violated

the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution by not allowing female prisoners to attend boot camp and seek a

sentence reduction;

C. Declare Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick and Ferriter have

violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under Article II, §4 of the Montana

Constitution through forcing female prisoners at the Montana Women's Prison to

participate in the "Right Living Community";

D. Declare Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick and Ferriter have

violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under Article II, §4 of the Montana

Constitution by not allowing female prisoners to attend boot camp and seek a

sentence

Declare Defendant Montana Department Corrections has violated

20 S 1681 through conditioning

training and education opportunities on

-39-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 40 of 41

forced participation in the "Right Living Community" for female prisoners at the

Montana Women's Prison;

F. Declare Defendant Montana Department of Corrections has violated

20 U.S.C. 1681 by denying female prisoners the opportunity to attend boot camp

and seek a sentence reduction;

G. Issue an Order: (i) enjoining and prohibiting Defendants Acton, Paul,

Orand, Derrick and Ferriter, their successors and other current and future

employees of the Montana Department of Corrections, from requiring mandatory

participation in Right Living Community and/or Therapeutic Community and from

imposing punishments and/or removing privileges for refusal to participate; (ii)

requiring Defendants to provide female prisoners in Montana with the opportunity

to participate in Boot Camp using the same criteria utilized for male prisoners in

determining eligibility and sentence reduction/suspension;

H. Award plaintiffs actual, nominal, consequential, compensatory,

punitive, nominal and any other damages that the Court may deem appropriate

against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Derrick and

for violations of

Article II, §4 of the Montana Constitution;

I.

consequential, compensatory, punitive,

other damages

may

Defendant Department Corrections for violations 20 U.S 1861;

-40-

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 36 Filed 09/04/12 Page 41 of 41
J. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 S.C. §1988.
Dated this 31 st day of August, 2012. ACLU of Montana Foundation Gough Shanahan Johnson & Holland & Hart LLP ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
-41-

 
 CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee11oof f4433

Anna Conley ACLU of Montana Foundation P.O. Box 9138 Missoula, MT 59807 Telephone: (406) 443-8590, 3056 Email: annac@aclumontana.org
Kyle A. Gray Adrian Miller Holland & Hart LLP P.O. Box 639 Billings, 59103-0639
(406) 252-2166 (406) 1669 Email: ~~~~~~~~

Ronald Waterman Gough Shanahan Johnson & Waterman 33 S. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 442-8560 Fax: (406) 442-8783 Email: rfw@gsjw.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

SUSAN F. FISH, TERRI WETZEL, TASHA RAINEY, ANGELA ROMAN NOSE, NICOLE MOORE, RAYLONDA WAGNER, and NICOLE LANCE,
Plaintiffs, vs.
DERRICK, MARK HARTMAN,

) No. DV 11-0099-BLG-RFC-CSO
) ) ) ) SECOND AMENDED
) COMPLAINT
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee22oof f4433

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs are female prisoners currently or previously incarcerated at the

Montana Women's Prison in Billings, Montana. Defendants have violated

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights set forth in the U.S. and Montana Constitutions,

as as 20 U.S.C. § 1681 by discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex.

While incarcerated at the Montana Women's Prison, Plaintiffs are forced to

participate in a degrading and '-lUlU""'"'"""

"Right Living

program.

prisoners' only alternative to forced participation in the "Right

Community" is prolonged solitary confinement

no access job "",'n01'"T1

or education opportunities. All female prisoners, even those who have not been

court ordered to obtain treatment,

participate in "Right

Community." The "Right Living Community" enables prisoners to engage in petty

and vindictive behavior, and gives prisoners power over other prisoners' privileges

and punishments.

No male prisoners are forced to participate in the "Right Living

or any

program in the Montana State

are

m

m

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee33oof f4433

donn and/or general population, obtain work training and education, which are not

contingent on their participation in forced treatment programming.

The "Right Living Community" is purported to serve as a substitution for

the statutory right of prisoners in Montana to attend boot camp. Because they are

women, Plaintiffs are denied the ability to attend boot camp, a three month

intensive military-style rehabilitation treatment and education program available to

pnsoners

successful completion, results in eligibility

sentence reduction or conversion to probation. Male prisoners sentenced to boot

camp, sentenced

of Montana

of

and

sentenced directly to Montana State Prison can attend boot camp. Conversely, no

female

even those have been endorsed by their sentencing judges

attend boot camp, have the opportunity to attend boot camp.

For the duration of their incarceration, Plaintiffs have been denied equal

protection of the law and are subjected to gender discrimination. This gender

discrimination includes forced participation in the "Right Living Community" for

there is absolutely no Tfyt',~""'rI participation in any

III

or any

or

Montana,

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee44oof f4433

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article II, §4 of

Montana Constitution.

Forced participation in the "Right Living Community" and denial boot

camp also violate 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (commonly termed "Title IX") as female

prisoners are not receiving education opportunities equal to male prisoners.

Female prisoners' access to work training and education programming is

conditioned on . forced participation in

"

of boot camp for female prisoners, which is an education program, also results in

unequal education opportunities male female

NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiffs bring Count I of this action pursuant to 42 U.S . §1983 to

redress violations Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to receive equal protection while Incarcerated in the Montana

Women's

connection with

I, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and

declaratory relief against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick,

III

actual,

against Defendants

Paul, Orand, .

III

as as

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee55oof f4433

2. Plaintiffs bring Count II of this action pursuant to 42 U.S §1983 to

redress violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to be guaranteed equal protection under laws while they are incarcerated in the Montana Women's Prison. In connection with Count II, Plaintiffs injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Acton, Paul,

Orand, Siegfried-Derrick, Hartman, Dolezal, and Ferriter in their official

capacities, and actual, nominal and punitive

against Defendants Acton,

Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick, Hartman, Dolezal, and Ferriter in . individual

as

as ,.,-r-r,'"\rr!

3. Plaintiffs bring Count III of this

to redress violations 20

U.S.C. § 1681,which states, in part "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the

basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving

Federal financial assistance ..." 20 U.S.C. § 1681. In connection with Count III,

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant Department of

and actual,

and

damages against

as as

.C. § 1 1

III

III United States

on

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee66oof f4433
basis of be excluded from participation' be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ,," 20 U.S.C. § 1681. In connection with Count IV, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendant Department of Corrections, and actual, nominal and puniti ve damages against Defendant Department Corrections, as well as attorneys' fees and costs from all
5. Plaintiffs bring Count V of this action to r ....t" ......" violations Article §4 of Montana Constitution, which guarantees equal protection the prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and prohibits violations to human dignity. connection with Count V, Plaintiffs seek actual, nominal and punitive damages against Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick, Hartman, Dolezal, and Ferriter in their individual capacities, as well as attorneys' fees, and court ,-,v.nC).
6. Plaintiffs bring Count VI of this action to redress violations Article of

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee77oof f4433

Dolezal, and Ferriter in individual capacities, as as attorneys' fees, and

court costs.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court for Counts I, II, III and IV

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343 because the matters in controversy

arise under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

8.

IS

upon . Court for

and VI pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l367.

9. Venue is proper in this

under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) U'-''-'<'<U0''-' a

substantial part of the events that give rise to Plaintiffs' claims took place in

Billings, Montana.

1O.

Court has authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to award

appropriate actual, consequential, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages,

and has authority under 42 U.S.C. §1988 to award attorney fees and costs to

successful civil rights plaintiffs.

PARTIES 11. Plaintiff Susan Fish is a

has

as

at

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee88oof f4433

Women's Prison. or around April 201 Ms. Fish became eligible to participate

in a new version of the mandatory "Right Living Community" for prisoners over

55 who have participated in RLC two years in which must attend

meetings and need not participate in "structure board" or crews, which are

explained below.

12. Plaintiff Terri Wetzel is a prisoner the general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. For approximately the last two years, Ms. Wetzel

been forced to participate in the "Right Living Community" (formerly

as

11, 11,

Gallatin County District Court Judge Holly Brown Ant"a.r,o'rj an

granting Ms.

Wetzel's Motion for Boot Camp Endorsement. Despite this endorsement,

Defendants have denied Ms. Wetzel the opportunity to participate in boot camp.

13. Plaintiff Tasha Rainey is a prisoner at the Passages Assessment,

Revocation, Sanction and Hold Center. She was a prisoner at the Montana

Women's Prison from December 7,2009, through March 19,2012. One of Ms.

smale

was

cnmes

remam

at

2013.

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFilieledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee99oof f4433

14. Plaintiff Angela Roman Nose is a prisoner in

population at the

Montana Women's Prison. The December 17, 2007, Sentencing Order by

Montana District Court Judge Hagel, Rosebud County District

sentencing

Ms. Roman Nose states that the Court supports the Defendant's application to

participate in the women's boot camp program as available throughout the DOC.

Despite this support, because boot camp is not available to female prisoners, Ms.

Nose will discharge her full five-year sentence no

reduction

and no rehabilitative programming in October 2012.

15.

Nicole

IS a

Montana Women's Prison. On June 7,2011, Ravalli County District Court

Jeffrey Langton entered a Memorandum giving Ms. Moore his permission and

endorsement to participate in the boot camp program. Despite this support,

Defendants have denied Ms. Moore the ability to attend boot camp.

16. Plaintiff Raylonda Wagner is a prisoner in general population at the

Montana Women's Prison. Ms. Wagner is a young prisoner and is an ideal

candidate for

Wagner has

the ability

1 IS an

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1100oof f4433

candidate for boot camp. Despite this, Ms. Lance has been denied ability to

attend boot camp because there is no boot camp available for female prisoners.

18. Defendant Jo Acton is, and at all relevant times was, Warden at the

Montana Women's Prison.

19. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Acton has acted with

discriminatory intent and taken action knew or reasonably should have known

would .

to equal protection forcing ,"'-''-.La..,.,",

participate in the "Right Living Community" with knowledge that male prisoners

are

to participate in any similar programming, punishing female

for engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the "Right Living

Community," conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in the

"Right

" and requiring female prisoners to' in solitary

confinement as their only alternative to participation in the "Right Living

Community. "

20. Defendant Acton has acted with discriminatory intent and taken action

or

21.

Plaintiffs'

by

female

to

-1

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1111oof f4433

participate in the "Right Living Community" or reside in solitary confinement with

no job opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

22. Defendant Action has further personally participated in violations

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory

Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent boot camp. The "Right

Community

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

cannot result in a sentence reduction.

23. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant Jo

Acton in her official and individual capacity. With regard to Counts and VI,

Plaintiffs name Defendant Acton in her individual capacity.

24. Defendant Robert Paul is, and at all relevant times was, Deputy

Warden at the Montana Women's Prison.

25. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Paul has acted with

he knew or reasonably should

by

are
III
11

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1122oof f4433

Community," conditioning privileges on "full and .

participation in

"Right Living Community," and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary

confinement as their only alternative to participation in the "Right Living

Community."

26. Defendant Paul acted with discriminatory intent and .un.VB action

he knew or reasonably should have known would violate Plaintiffs' equal

protection rights by depriving

pnsoners the ability to attend boot

and receive a "".n."VLL"',-, reduction upon successful completion.

equal protection by

all female

alternatively participate in

"Right Living Community" or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

28. Defendant Paul has further personally participated in violations of

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory

IS the

-12-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1133oof f4433

29. With regard to Counts I, II, III and Plaintiffs name Defendant

Robert Paul in his official and individual capacity. With regard to Counts V and

VI, Plaintiffs name Defendant Robert Paul in his individual capacity.

30. Defendant Sue Orand is, and at all relevant times was, Deputy

Warden at the Montana Women's Prison.

31. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Orand has acted

discriminatory intent and taken action she

or reasonably should have

known would violate Plaintiffs' equal protection rights forcing female

to participate in

prisoners are not forced to participate in any

programming, punishing

female prisoners for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the "Right

Living Community," conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation

the "Right Living Community," and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary

confinement as their only alternative to participation in the "Right Living

Community". Defendant Orand has acted with discriminatory intent and taken

action she

or reasonably should

violate

by -1

female

participate in

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1144oof f4433

"Right Living Community" or reside in solitary confinement no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

33. Defendant Orand further personally participated in violations

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent of boot camp. "Right

Community Orientation

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

ma

34. With regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name Defendant Sue

Orand in her official and individual capacity. With regard to Counts and VI,

Plaintiffs name Defendant Sue Orand in her individual capacity.

35. Defendant AnnaMae Siegfried-Derrick· and at all relevant times

was, Operations Manager at the Montana Women's Prison.

36. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has

acted

intent and taken action she

or reasonably

participate the "Right are m -1

that participation in

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1155oof f4433

Community," conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in

the "Right Living Community," and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary

confinement as their only alternative to participation in "Right Living

Community" .

37. Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has acted with discriminatory intent and

taken action she knew or reasonably should have known would violate

equal

by depriving .1.'-'1.""'-'-',",

the

camp and potentially receive a sentence reduction upon successful completion.

38. Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has personally participated in violations

of Plaintiffs' equal protection by forcing all female prisoners to participate in the

"Right Living Community" or reside in solitary confinement with no job

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

39. Defendant Siegfried-Derrick has further personally participated in

violations of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the

ability to participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a

IS

not the substantial equivalent

The "Right

lila

-1

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1166oof f4433

40.

regard to Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs name

AnnaMae Siegfned-Derrick in her official and individual capacity_ With regard to

Counts V and Plaintiffs name Defendant AnnaMae Siegfried-Derrick in her

individual capacity.

41. Defendant Mark Hartman is, and at all relevant times was, Lieutenant

in Charge of "Right Living Community" at the Montana Women's Prison.

Acting under the color of state law, Defendant

has acted

discriminatory - and

action he

or reasonably should have known

participate in the "Right Living Community" with are not forced participate in any similar programming, punishing female prisoners for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the "Right Living Community," conditioning privileges on "full and sincere" participation in "Right Living Community," and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary confinement as their only alternative to participation in the "Right Living

Plaintiffs' opportunities and .

or

III

no educational "''''''''>'''''''-,

-16-

III III
no

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1177oof f4433

44. Defendant Hartman has further personally participated in violations

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent of boot camp. "Right Living Community Orientation

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

result in a

reduction.

45. With regard to Counts I, III and Plaintiffs name Defendant

m

official ,",UU'"'..,,"

name Defendant Mark Hartman in his individual capacity.

46. Defendant Charlotte Dolezal is, and at all relevant times was,

Grievance Coordinator at the Montana Women's Prison.

47. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Dolezal has acted

discriminatory intent and taken action she knew or reasonably should have known

would violate Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female prisoners to

participate in the "Right

with

that male

are

participation in the "Right

"

m

Living

to

In

-17-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1188oof f4433

confinement as their only alternative to participation in the "Right Living

Community."

48. Defendant Dolezal has acted with discriminatory intent and taken

action she knew or reasonably should have known would violate Plaintiffs' equal

protection rights by depriving female prisoners of the ability to attend boot camp

and receive a sentence reduction upon successful completion.

49. Defendant

participated in violations of

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing all female prisoners to participate in

the "Right Living Community" or reside in solitary confinement with no .

opportunities and limited to no educational opportunities.

50. Defendant Dolezal has further personally participated in violations

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

pmticipate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp with a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community" that is not the substantial equivalent of boot

camp. The "Right Living Community" does not provide the same treatment,

and Uv'-ttL'U'H

and '-'<-UHLV

ma

IS

perpetual, and V'.HHi>J

51.

name

m -18-

capacity.

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee1199oof f4433

52. Defendant Mike Ferriter is, and at all relevant times Director of

the Montana Department of Corrections.

53. Acting under the color of state law, Defendant Ferriter has acted with

discriminatory intent and taken action he knew or reasonably should have known

would violate Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by forcing female prisoners to

participate in the "Right Living Community" with knowledge that male prisoners

are forced to participate any similar programming, punishing female

prisoners for not engaging in "full and sincere" participation in the "Right

" conditioning

on and sincere"

III

"Right Living Community," and requiring female prisoners to live in solitary

confinement as only alternative to participation in the "Right Living

Community".

54. Defendant Ferriter has acted with discriminatory intent and taken

action he knew or reasonably should have known would violate Plaintiffs' equal

protection rights by depriving female prisoners of the ability to attend boot camp

receive a sentence reduction upon successful completion.

protection

by forcing

or

to no educational """"".....,

1

III
no

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2200oof f4433

56.

has further personally participated in .

of

Plaintiffs' equal protection rights by denying female prisoners the ability to

participate in boot camp and attempting to replace boot camp a facility-wide

mandatory "Right Living Community Orientation Program" that is not the

substantial equivalent of boot camp. The "Right Living Community Orientation

Program" does not provide the same treatment, education and skills building, and

cannot result in a sentence reduction, is mandatory, perpetual, and cannot

In

a sentence reduction.

57.

I,

name

Mike

In

regard

V and VI, Plaintiffs

name Defendant Mike Ferriter in his individual capacity.

58. Defendant Montana Department of Corrections ("DOC") is, and at all

relevant times to this lawsuit was, the government agency in charge of the

administration all Montana state prisons including the Montana Women's

Prison. The DOC has violated 20 U.S.C. 1681 by accepting federal funds and

acts that

for

-20-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2211oof f4433

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to go to boot camp. 59. Boot camp is a legislative program designed to provide alternative

means of rehabilitating young felony offenders. Mont. Code Ann. §53-30-401 -

403. The program uses physical activity, military style discipline and'

counseling to "correct criminal and other maladaptive thought processes and

behavior patterns and instill self-discipline and

53

403(3)(b), MCA.

60. The boot

program was

located in the Swan

Correctional Training

In ] 997, the DOC

State

Correctional Training Center ("TSCTC") in Deer Lodge, Montana, which currently

male

III

camp.

61.

has

in decreasing new

recidivism rates dramatically and providing valuable rehabilitation skills relating to

structure, treatment and education to felony offenders.

62. Boot camp is based on

boot camp programs.

live, work, and train together in a structured, military-style setting. The program

emphasizes physical activity and conditioning as well as intensive education,

3 6

IS

an

Falls

center. ",,>vuLn,..,

1-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2222oof f4433

63. Mont. Code Ann. § 53-30-403(2) provides the prisoner eligibility

requirements for the boot camp. The statute does not require that prisoners

sentenced to boot camp in order to attend, and does not provide that only males are

eligible for boot camp.

64. Prisoners enter the TSCTC boot camp program by being sentenced

boot camp by a judge, or by applying and being accepted. Mont. Code Ann. §

1(4)(m) allows a judge order an offender to

camp pnor

reducing his or her sentence. Prisoners may enter the program from various

correctional programs and facilities, such as the Sanction, Treatment,

Revocation and Transition (START) Center, in Warm Springs, Montana, and

Missoula Assessment and Sanctions Center, in Missoula, Montana, or may enter

directly from MSP.

65. Participation in boot camp is voluntary, and prisoners who

complete the program are eligible to have sentences reduced or

converted to probation.

in boot camp

2001, MWP

a

no

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2233oof f4433

67. At the time of its creation, the ICP served as a female counterpart to

the male boot camp program, and was similarly structured. Prisoners would

participate in intense physical training, counseling, and treatment. The program

would last from 3-6 months, usually followed by an aftercare program. Many

female prisoners successfully graduated from this program.

68. Graduates of the ICP could receive reduced or suspended sentences.

or around 2009, ICP was suspended. Defendants instituted an "orientation

program" the "Right Living

program for new MWP

as a

equivalent. Today, female prisoners have no programs available for sentence

reduction upon successful completion.

69. Despite Defendants' mischaracterizations, the RLC orientation is

nothing like boot camp. is mandatory. MWP prisoners are forced to

participate. RLC orientation does not provide the same treatment and education

skills. RLC orientation does not and cannot result in a sentence reduction. RLC

orientation occurs in

in MWP.

prisoners'

IS

it not

a

-23-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2244oof f4433

70. The statutes determining boot camp eligibility do not limit

participation to male prisoners. TSCTC has taken female prisoners into its

program. The ICP, when it ran as a boot camp, took only female prisoners.

71. Female prisoners no longer have access to a boot camp, nor any

similar program that provides the same rehabilitation skills or sentence reductions

and/or suspensions.

B. Plaintiffs are forced to participate in a mandatory "Right Community" program, formerly known as "therapeutic community."

72.

"Right

("RLC"), formerly

as

is a treatment program designed to restructure

thinking patterns and change human behavior. Therapeutic community has

been

in the addiction

but has been

utilized by MWP to attempt to restructure "criminal thinking." The RLC was

implemented at MWP in or around 2006.

73. Therapeutic community treatment programs were built on a

that participation is voluntary in

this premise, participation in RLC at MWP is mandatory.

74. RLC divides female prisoners

a

IS

on

two

are

-24-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2255oof f4433

Coordinator, the Assistant Coordinator and the Senior Clerk. lower of the

"structure board" consist of prisoners who are "crew leads," including the

expeditor, education crew lead, environment crew lead, motivation crew lead,

community representative and business crew lead. The remainder of pod is the

"family" or "community."

75. Members the "structure board" maintain power and authority over

other prisoners in their "family."

includes assigning tasks and homework

the rest of "family" and assigning the "family" specific

as

or

an

on

a news or sports story. "Structure board" members also oversee'

relationships between prisoners in their "family," and are authorized to ensure that

"family members" are treating each other with respect.

76. Because of the power "structure board" members have, their

relationship with other prisoners in their "family" can have significant negative

impacts on conditions incarceration for other prisoners.

hierarchy gives

77.

or

III

in disciplinary

-25-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2266oof f4433

78. Female prisoners must also attend a "talking circle" on Wednesday

nights, and "family night" on Friday nights, in which they are forced to participate

in at least one half hour of activity with other prisoners in their "family."

Participation in these meetings is required, and non-participation results in

disciplinary action and loss of privileges.

79. RLC meetings consist of RLC-related statements, news and sports

reports, and often .

smgmg children's songs and playing of children's

games such as "Simon says," "the rain song," and "musical chairs." Other required

III

Ice cream

song or animal. "Full and sincere" participation in these activities is

Plaintiffs and other female prisoners find forced singing children's songs and

playing of children's games degrading, humiliating, and non-rehabilitative.

80. Female prisoners must do RLC-related homework as a condition of

their confinement. Failure to complete RLC-related homework results in

disciplinary action and loss of privileges.

81.

as administered by Defendants, requires prisoners exhibit

and '::HU...,VL

III

to exhibit
m

and of .

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2277oof f4433

82. As administered at MWP, RLC does not have a beneficial

on

pnsoners. RLC was designed to be voluntary, and it was designed to end after a

finite period of time. Because Defendants administer RLC as a mandatory

program with no finite duration, it does not provide prisoners with the intended

benefits.

83. Plaintiffs, like all other MWP prisoners, must participate in RLC for

duration of

at MWP. Prisoners MWP do not receive

sentence reductions or suspensions for participation in RLC. Prisoners at MWP

not receive compensation for participation in

84. In an exception recently created, prisoners who have participated in

RLC for two years and are over 55 years old, or have participated in RLC for four

years and are under 55, are required to participate in a more limited way with RLC.

Prisoners within this exception must attend at least two community meetings a

be a phase four or five, maintain compliant status, have not been convicted

of any major infraction within 120 days, and be leaders in the community. If a

meets

have to a part the structure

board, crew

or crew members,

she

a

to achieve maintain all phase expectations.

a of'

a

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2288oof f4433

participation in RLC. Like

for the rest of the prisoners, this reduced

involvement in RLC is mandatOlY.

85. The only option for women who choose not to participate in RLC is to

be housed in solitary confinement, commonly termed "administrative segregation"

or "disciplinary detention" in C or F pod in MWP. C and F pod consist of isolation

cells in

prisoners spend approximately 23 hours per m

Scientific research established prolonged

causes

significant psychological damage to prisoners.

86. Male prisoners in Montana State Prison ("MSP") are not required

to participate in any treatment program unless ordered by a sentencing judge or by

MSP personnel on a case-by-case basis to address issues relating to a specific

prisoner's needs. Many male prisoners at MSP are provided monetary

compensation for participation in treatment programs. There is no facility-wide

forced treatment or programming for male prisoners. Male prisoners are not

obligated to have two daily meetings with their pod. Male prisoners are not

lila

. pod or

housing

Male prisoners are

participate in activities

or

are forced

are

to

-28-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee2299oof f4433

87. Male prisoners' privileges and punishments are tied solely to classification and disciplinary record, and are not tied to participation in treatment programs that are not court ordered.

88. Male prisoners in court-ordered treatment programs receive

compensation for participating in such treatment. Court-ordered treatment

programs for male prisoners are of finite duration.

The RLC Phase System

89.

addition to the DOC classification system governed by DOC policy

.1, female prisoners at MWP

participate in a "Phase" system as an integral

part of RLC. Each phase has certain privileges and punishments. At MWP,

prisoners are classified into four phase groups, with four being the group that

receives the most privileges. Female prisoners begin on phase one.

90. Some of the benefits that come from "full and sincere" participation in

the RLC and "phasing up" include increased activities, hobby and craft, gym, yard

and recreation time, and priority when applying for jobs. Phase one prisoners get

one of

days a

and no access

or

a

no

a day seven days a

three days a

no

-29-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3300oof f4433

canteen restrictions. Phases two through four get one night per week of evening

yard. Some phase prisoners

hobby permits, unlimited recreation time,

unlimited hobby time during weekdays, no canteen restrictions, and evening yard

as scheduled. They may also participate in the flower garden project, play

Nintendo Wii, have monthly socials, and they get a state-issued colored polo

Also the phase system influences

the prisoners are housed and when

participate in activities.

91. Consistently not modeling RLC values and/or behavior results in the

loss phase.

a prisoner loses a phase, in addition the decreased

privileges discussed above, her electronics and polo shirts are taken and are not

returned until she earns her phase back. Thirty days of clear conduct is required

for a prisoner to go up one phase. pnsoners ,-,'-H,,.,,,", MWP

receIve

write-ups also "lose phases," which result in a loss of privileges. Female prisoners

may receIve

ups, punishments and awarenesses all for the same incident, and

be punished multiple times for these various categories of infractions arising out of

same

92. Male

are

DOC

are on vue,,",,,,, MSP are not

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3311oof f4433

required to participate in an additional "phase" system in order to receive certain

privileges.

D. The RLC "Awareness" and Punishment Component 94. An integral part ofRLC is an awareness program in which prisoners

can make other prisoners "aware" when they act in ways contrary to the principles

of the RLC. 95.

"awareness" can be written or oraL

a

pn.so

n

er

.
IS

by another

result is

often RLC-related punishment, such as writing a list of "deterrences." Deterrences

are actions that a prisoner can take to avoid making the mistake for which she was

LH""'U.~ aware. For example, a prisoner who forgot to clear the chairs after a RLC

meeting was made aware by another prisoner, and subsequently required to write

deterrences to avoid forgetting to clear chairs again. Other common

related punishments for being "made aware" include writing an essay on the

mistake, extra cleaning duty, not being able to

for a period time, also

known as a "silent task," or being required to stand up and admit "self-defeating"

to

other HL...,UHJ

"

other prisoners create a

power over

-31

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3322oof f4433

interviews and suggest the punishment to be meted out to a prisoner who has been

made aware.

96. The awareness procedure has been used as a vehicle to create

hierarchies among prisoners, to encourage vindictive or petty behavior among

prisoners. For example, prisoners can make an unpopular prisoner aware as often

as possible, while avoiding making other prisoners aware. As such, the process

enables prisoners to punish

In name of RLC.

97. When a prisoner obtains three written "awarenesses," she must go to a

awareness circle." When a prisoner obtains 5 written

" that

receives a DOC write-up and a "clinical" punishment such as extra work,

being forced to admit "self-defeating" behaviors in front of others, or attending a

"conduct" seminar.

98. Male prisoners do not have a system of "awarenesses." Male

prisoners are not subject to treatment-related privileges and punishments for

participation in a mandatory treatment program and for being "made aware" by

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3333oof f4433

COUNT I - DEFENDANTS' IMPOSITION OF FORCED RIGHT LIVING COMMUNITY PROGRAMING VIOLATES THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FISH, WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
99. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 98 as fully restated

100. By their policies and practices described above, Defendants have

against

on the basis of their "'-,.d.J,........." thereby .

right to equal protection of the laws. These policies and practices have and

continue to be implemented Defendants and their agents or employees in

official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' deprivation of rights

secured by the U.S. Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

lO1. MWP is a medium and maximum security prison, and is the only

prison that houses females sentenced to the DOC or sentenced specifically to

MWP in the state of Montana. MWP prisoners sentenced to the DOC go through a

screening and assessment process at the Passages Assessment and Sanctions

in Billings, Montana.

I MSP is a

and maximum

houses

approximately 1,400

in the

Montana.

III

DOC

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3344oof f4433

houses some male prisoners in regional prisons and/or the Crossroads Correctional

Facility in Shelby, Montana, the majority of male prisoners in Montana serve their

sentences at MSP.

103. Prisoners at MWP are similarly situated to males at MSP. As

prisoners in state prisons

DOC or facility-specific sentences issued

state district court judges, female prisoners and male prisoners at MSP are

. conditions

programs available to them, and their interest in programs available to them for

suspension and/or reduction. such, female prisoners at MWP are

equivalent male prisoners at MSP.

104. Despite the fact that female prisoners at the MWP are similarly

situated to male prisoners

MSP, female prisoners are subject to unequal

treatment resulting from gender discrimination. As such, there is a lack of parity

between female and prisoners regarding forced participation in

This

gender discrimination is apparent from facially gender-based classifications.

105.

are

in mandatory therapeutic community programming. Unlike

is not .::>LULUe'

on

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3355oof f4433

revoked for refusal to participate in mandatory facility-wide programming above

and beyond the DOC and/or facility-specific discipline policies. Unlike female

prisoners, male prisoners are not forced to choose between participation in

mandatory facility-wide programming or administrative segregation, also known as

solitary confinement. This gender discrimination and unequal treatment is not

substantively related to the achievement of important governmental objectives.

106. Gender-neutral alternatives to

unequal treatment

and male prisoners are available, rendering the current lack of parity between

and

the

has the

making participation in RLC voluntary.

COUNT II DEFENDANTS' REFUSAL TO PROVIDE BOOT CAMP TO FEMALE PRISONERS VIOLATES THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS
TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, MOORE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
107. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 106 as fully restated here.

108.

or

III

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3366oof f4433

official capacities, and are the proximate cause Plaintiffs' deprivation of rights

secured by the U.S. Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.

109. MWP is a medium and maximum security prison, and is the only

prison that houses females sentenced to the DOC or sentenced specifically to

MWP in the state of Montana. MWP prisoners sentenced to the DOC go through a

screening and assessment process at the Passages Assessment and Sanctions

In

Montana.

110. MSP is a low, medium and maximum security prison that houses

approximately 1,400 male prisoners in the state Montana. Prisoners sentenced

to the DOC go through a screening and assessment process at Missoula

Assessment and Sanctions Center in Missoula, Montana. Although DOC

houses some male prisoners in regional prisons and/or the Crossroads Correctional

Facility in Shelby, Montana, the majority of male prisoners in Montana serve their

sentences at MSP.

111. Prisoners at MWP are similarly situated to males at MSP. As

in state

or

are

m

-36-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3377oof f4433

sentence suspension and/or reduction. As such, female prisoners at MWP are

equivalent to male prisoners at MSP.

11 Despite the fact that female prisoners at the Montana Women's Prison

are similarly situated to male prisoners at the Montana State Prison, female

prisoners are subject to unequal treatment resulting from gender discrimination. As

such, there is a lack of parity between female and male prisoners the ability

boot camp. UL".-U.... This gender discrimination is apparent

facially gender-

based classifications. While male prisoners who have not committed crimes

which they may receive capital

and are sentenced to

endorsed for boot camp, sentenced to the DOC's custody, or sentenced directly to

MSP have the ability to go to boot camp, similarly situated female prisoners do not

have the ability to go to boot camp. Unlike male prisoners, who have the ability to

go to boot camp, followed by an aftercare program at the Great Falls pre-release

center, and receive a sentence reduction, female prisoners do not have this option.

113. Defendants have repeatedly represented to female prisoners who have

boot camp that cannot

boot camp unless they are sentenced to

can

do r:lTu,,"nn

pnsoners

-37-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3388oof f4433

114. Gender-neutral alternatives to the current unequal treatment of female

and male prisoners are available, rendering the current lack of parity between

female and male prisoners unnecessary. For example, Defendants can reinstitute

the Intensive Challenge Program previously available to female prisoners.

Defendants can work to make female beds available in the Treasure State

Correctional Training Center. Defendants can transfer females to out-of-state boot

programs.

COUNT III - DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING 20 U.S.C. §1681 BY CONDITIONING PARTICIPATION IN WORK AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR FEMALE PRISONERS ON RLC PARTICIPATION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FISH, WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
115. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1

114 as

116. The Montana Department of Corrections receives federal funding. As

such, its education programs are governed by 20 U.S.C. §1681 (Commonly termed

"Title IX"). Title IX requires equality in educational programs provided to men

women.

117. While male prisoners in MSP have access to work training and

educational programming without being required to participate in

female

III

a

III

-38-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee3399oof f4433

and F pods. Work training and educational programming opportunities for female

prisoners in and F pods is significantly diminished.

118. By requiring mandatory participation in therapeutic community in

order to avoid lockdown in solitary confinement with no or limited work training

or education privileges, Defendant Department Corrections is providing unequal

educational opportunities to female prisoners.

COUNT DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING 20 U.S.C. §1681 BY NOT PROVIDING BOOT CAMP TO FEMALE PRISONERS
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, MOORE, WAGNER AND LANCE)

119. Plaintiffs 1''::>14,,::>-:>1"

allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 118 as fully restated

120. The Montana Department of Corrections receives federal funding. As

such, its education programs are governed by 20 U.S.C. §1681 (Commonly termed

"Title IX"). Title IX requires equality in educational programs provided to men

and women.

121. Boot camp requires prisoners to participate in a number of general

it is an educational

not allowing female

Department of .LVU,",,-,,,.,,

IS

unequal educational opportunities to female prisoners.

-39-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee4400oof f4433

COUNT V - DEFENDANTS' IMPOSITION OF FORCED RIGHT LIVING COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING VIOLATES ARTICLE II, §4 OF THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS FISH, WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
122. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

1 through 121 as fully restated

123. Plaintiffs specifically re-allege the allegations forth in Count I as

on

allegations, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants

have engaged in gender discrimination, violated Plaintiffs' human dignity, and

them

the laws

of

§4ofthe

Montana

COUNT VI DEFENDANTS' REFUSAL TO PROVIDE BOOT CAMP TO FEMALE PRISONERS VIOLATES ARTICLE II, §4 OF THE MONTANA
CONSTITUTION
(ALLEGED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS WETZEL, RAINEY, ROMAN NOSE, MOORE, WAGNER AND LANCE)
124. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs

I through 123 as fully restated here.

125. Plaintiffs specifically re-allege allegations set

II as

fully restated here. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants

have engaged in gender discrimination, violated Plaintiffs' human dignity, and

Montana
-40-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee4411oof f4433

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Declare that Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick,

Hartman, Dolezal, and Ferriter have violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs

under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through forcing female

prisoners at the Montana Women's Prison to participate in the "Right Living

Community;"

B.

that

Acton,

Orand, Siegfried-Derrick,

Hartman, Dolezal, and Ferriter violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

allowing female

to attend boot camp and seek a sentence reduction;

C. Declare that Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick,

Hartman, Dolezal, and Ferriter have violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs

under Article II, §4 the Montana Constitution through forcing female prisoners

at the Montana Women's Prison to participate in the "Right Living Community;"

D. Declare that Defendants Acton, Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick,

the'

violated 20

1681

1-

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee4422oof f4433

opportunities on forced participation in the "Right Living Community" for

prisoners at the Montana Women's Prison;

Declare that Defendant Montana Department of Corrections has

violated 20 U.S.C. 1681 by denying female prisoners the opportunity to attend boot

camp and a sentence reduction;

G. Issue an Order: (i) enjoining and prohibiting Defendants Acton, Paul,

Orand, Siegfried-Derrick,

Dolezal, and Ferriter, . successors and

other current and future employees of the Montana Department of Corrections,

from requiring mandatory participation in Right Living Community and/or

Therapeutic Community and from imposing punishments and/or removing

privileges for refusal to participate; (ii) requiring Defendants to provide female

prisoners in Montana with opportunity to participate in boot camp using

same criteria utilized for male prisoners in determining eligibility and sentence

reduction! suspension;

H. Award Plaintiffs actual, consequential, compensatory, punitive,

and any

that

appropriate

Defendants

Paul, Orand, Siegfried-Derrick, Hartman, Dolezal, and

CCaassee11:1:111-c-cvv-0-000009999-R-SFECH-C-CSSOO DDooccuummeennt t3491-1 FFileiledd1100/0/042/1/122 PPaaggee4433oof f4433
1. Award Plaintiffs actual, consequential, compensatory, punitive, nominal and any other damages that the Court may deem appropriate against Defendant Department of Corrections for violations of20 U.S.C. 1861;
J. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S §1988.
Dated this 24th day September 201
ACLU of Montana Foundation
Waterman
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

 
 Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 80 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

BILLINGS DIVISION

SUSAN F. FISH, TERRI WETZEL, TASHA RAINEY, ANGELA ROMAN NOSE, NICOLE MOORE, RAYLONDA WAGNER, and NICOLE LANCE,
Plaintiffs, v.
JO ACTON, ROBERT PAUL, SUE ORAND, ANNAMAE SIEGFRIEDDERRICK, MARK HARTMAN, CHARLOTTE DOLEZAL, MIKE FERRITER, and MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

CV-11-99-BLG-SEH-CSO
ORDER FOR STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL and
PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.

The Court has been informed that this case has settled. Thus, IT

IS ORDERED that, by Friday, October 11, 2013, the parties shall file

a stipulation for dismissal and submit to the chambers of Judge Sam E.

Haddon a proposed order of dismissal, or show cause in writing for

their failure to do so.

Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 80 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 2
All pending motions (ECF 42 and 48) are MOOT, and all deadlines and settings are VACATED.
DATED this 11th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby United States Magistrate Judge

 
 Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 1 of 12
CLOSED,PSLCC,REFER
U.S. District Court District Of Montana (Billings) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−00099−SEH−CSO

Fish v. Acton et al Assigned to: Judge Sam E Haddon Referred to: Magistrate Judge Carolyn S Ostby Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Susan Fish

Date Filed: 08/31/2011 Date Terminated: 10/28/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Adrian Ann Miller HOLLAND &HART 401 North 31st Street Suite 1500 PO Box 639 Billings, MT 59103−0639 406−896−4612 Fax: 406−252−1669 Email: aamiller@hollandhart.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley ATTORNEY AT LAW PO Box 9101 Missoula, MT 59807 406−830−0367 Email: anna@annaconley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jon E. Ellingson ACLU OF MONTANA 241 E. Alder PO Box 9138 Missoula, MT 59807 406−443−8590 Fax: 406−457−5484 Email: jonelling@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray HOLLAND &HART PO Box 639 Billings, MT 59103−0639 406−252−2166 Fax: 252−1669 Email: kgray@hollandhart.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman GOUGH SHANAHAN JOHNSON &WATERMAN 33 South Last Chance Gulch PO Boz 1715 Helena, MT 59624−1715 406−442−8560 Fax: 442−8783 Email: rfw@gsjw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Terri Wetzel

represented by

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 2 of 12

Adrian Ann Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tasha Rainey

represented by Adrian Ann Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Angela Roman Nose

represented by Adrian Ann Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 3 of 12

Nicole Moore

represented by Adrian Ann Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Raylonda Wagner

represented by Adrian Ann Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nicole Lance

represented by Adrian Ann Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna C. Conley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald F. Waterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 4 of 12

V. Defendant Robert Paul
Defendant Sue Orand

represented by Colleen E. Ambrose MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS P. O. Box 201301 Helena, MT 59620−1301 406−444−3918 Fax: 444−1494 Email: cambrose@mt.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Anderson Forsythe MOULTON BELLINGHAM PC PO Box 2559 Billings, MT 59103−2559 406−248−7731 Fax: 248−7889 Email: Andy.Forsythe@moultonbellingham.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira Eakin MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PO Box 201301 Helena, MT 59620−1301 406−444−4935 Fax: 406−444−1494 Email: ieakin@mt.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ross W. McLinden MOULTON BELLINGHAM, PC Suite 1900 Crowne Plaza PO Box 2559 Billings, MT 59103−2559 406−248−7731 Fax: 406−248−7889 Email: rmclinden@avitusgroup.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Colleen E. Ambrose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Anderson Forsythe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira Eakin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyle A. Gray (See above for address)

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 5 of 12

Ross W. McLinden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Mark Hartman

represented by Colleen E. Ambrose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Anderson Forsythe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira Eakin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address)

Ross W. McLinden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Charlotte Dolezal

represented by Colleen E. Ambrose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Anderson Forsythe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira Eakin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address)

Ross W. McLinden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Mike Ferriter

represented by Colleen E. Ambrose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Anderson Forsythe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira Eakin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 6 of 12

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address)

Ross W. McLinden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jo Acton

represented by Colleen E. Ambrose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Anderson Forsythe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira Eakin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kyle A. Gray (See above for address)

Ross W. McLinden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Annamae Siegfried−Derrick

represented by Colleen E. Ambrose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira Eakin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Anderson Forsythe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ross W. McLinden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/31/2011
09/06/2011 10/24/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT − PRISONER against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number DMTX1−6133.) filed by Susan Fish. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A, #(2) Exhibit B, #(3) Exhibit C, #(4) Exhibit D) (POC, ) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING re 1 Complaint IFP/Prisoner. Mailed to Fish with docket sheet. (TAG, ) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
3 Order to Serve Complaint. On or before December 29, 2011, Fish shall either provide the Court with proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the Defendants, or otherwise show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 10/24/2011. Mailed to Fish with copy of Rule 4 as directed. (TAG, ) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 7 of 12

10/24/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 01/09/2012 01/18/2012
01/18/2012 02/10/2012 03/06/2012 03/09/2012
03/16/2012 04/12/2012
04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012

4 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (TAG, ) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Jo Acton served on 11/8/2011, answer due 11/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Annamae Derrick served on 11/8/2011, answer due 11/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Charlotte Dolezal served on 11/8/2011, answer due 11/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Mark Hartman served on 11/8/2011, answer due 11/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Sue Orand served on 11/8/2011, answer due 11/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed. Robert Paul served on 11/8/2011, answer due 11/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
11 MOTION for Default Judgment as to by Plaintiff Susan Fish. Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Service, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Certificate of Service) (TAG, ) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
12 MOTION to Dismiss Insufficient Service of Process Colleen E. Ambrose appearing for Defendants Jo Acton, Annamae Derrick, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Ambrose, Colleen) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
13 Brief/Memorandum in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Insufficient Service of Process filed by Jo Acton, Annamae Derrick, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul. (Ambrose, Colleen) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Insufficient Service of Process filed by Susan Fish. (TAG, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
15 NOTICE of Legal Representation by Susan Fish. (TAG, ) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
16 Order and Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge to Deny 11 Motion for Default and 12 Motion to Dismiss. Fish is given until May 18, 2012, to file proof of service upon Defendants or otherwise show cause why service has not been accomplished. Objections to FRdue by 3/26/2012. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 3/9/2012. Mailed to Fish with Rules as directed. (TAG, ) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald F. Waterman on behalf of Susan Fish (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
18 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 in full. Fish's Motion for Default Judgment 11 is DENIED and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 12 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 4/12/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Mike Ferriter waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Issued) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
20 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Jo Acton waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
21 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Annamae Derrick waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Charlotte Dolezal waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 8 of 12

04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/29/2012
06/29/2012 08/08/2012 08/17/2012 08/17/2012 08/31/2012
09/04/2012
09/04/2012 09/04/2012 09/04/2012 10/02/2012
10/03/2012

23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Mark Hartman waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
24 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Sue Orand waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Susan Fish. Robert Paul waiver sent on 4/26/2012, answer due 6/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Summons) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Colleen E. Ambrose on behalf of Jo Acton, Annamae Derrick, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul (Ambrose, Colleen) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Ira Eakin on behalf of All Defendants (Eakin, Ira) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
28 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint by Jo Acton, Annamae Derrick, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul. (Eakin, Ira) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
29 SCHEDULING ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 8/31/2012. Discovery due by 3/15/2013. Joinder of Parties due by 8/31/2012. Motions due by 3/29/2013. Additional deadlines in Order. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 6/29/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
30 Mailing of Consent to Magistrate Judge. Sent to counsel Colleen E. Ambrose, Ira Eakin, Ronald F. Waterman.Consent/Objection to USMJ Form due by 8/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Election Form) (TAG, ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
31 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 8/8/2012. (TAG, ) Modified on 8/8/2012 Clerk printed down a copy to CSO Chambers (ACL, ). (Entered: 08/08/2012)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Anna C. Conley on behalf of Susan Fish (Conley, Anna) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Jon E. Ellingson on behalf of Susan Fish (Ellingson, Jon) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
34 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint IFP/Prisoner Ronald F. Waterman appearing for Plaintiff Susan Fish Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
35 ORDER granting 34 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Pursuant to Local Rule 15.1,Plaintiffs must promptly file their amended pleading. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 9/4/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
36 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Susan Fish. (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Kyle A. Gray on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
38 NOTICE of Appearance by Adrian Ann Miller on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Miller, Adrian) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
39 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 36 Amended Complaint Ronald F. Waterman appearing for Plaintiff Susan Fish Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
40 ORDER granting 39 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs must file their amended pleading on or before October 5, 2012. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Defendants are granted until November 2, 2012, to file their Answers. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 9 of 12

10/04/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/12/2012 10/12/2012 10/19/2012
10/23/2012
11/02/2012 11/02/2012
11/13/2012
11/14/2012 11/30/2012 12/12/2012
12/13/2012

10/3/2012. (ASG, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
41 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Susan Fish. (Waterman, Ronald) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
42 MOTION to Certify Class Kyle A. Gray appearing for Plaintiff Susan Fish Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
43 Brief/Memorandum in Support re 42 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Susan Fish. (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by W. Anderson Forsythe on behalf of All Defendants (Forsythe, W.) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by Ross W. McLinden on behalf of All Defendants (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
46 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 42 MOTION to Certify Class to Stay Pls' Motion for Class Certification Ross W. McLinden appearing for Defendants Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
47 ORDER STAYING BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS' 42 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Further briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is hereby stayed pending resolution of a Motion to Dismiss. Defendants must file their motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof by November 2, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 10/23/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Ross W. McLinden appearing for Defendants Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
49 Brief/Memorandum in Support re 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Affidavit of Janee Ward, # 2 Exhibit 2−Affidavit of Charlotte Dolezal) (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
50 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Kyle A. Gray appearing for Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
51 ORDER granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies . Responses due by 11/30/2012. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 11/14/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
52 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Miller Declaration) (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
53 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Ross W. McLinden appearing for Defendants Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
54 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Replies due by 1/7/2013. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 12/13/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 10 of 12

12/14/2012
12/20/2012 01/07/2013 01/17/2013 01/22/2013 01/23/2013 01/23/2013 01/23/2013
01/23/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/31/2013
04/25/2013 04/26/2013

55 Unopposed MOTION to Adopt Stipulated Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Ronald F. Waterman appearing for Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 STIPULATED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER (2) Text of Proposed Order) (Waterman, Ronald) Modified on 12/20/2012 to name exhibit one (MPB). (Entered: 12/14/2012)
56 ORDER. With the exception noted in Order, the Court approves the parties' Stipulated Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 55 −1, and it is substituted for the 29 Scheduling Order dated June 29, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 12/20/2012. (TAG, ) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
57 REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Charlotte Dolezal) (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
58 Joint MOTION for Settlement Conference Kyle A. Gray appearing for Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
59 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Keith Strong. Case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 1/22/2013. RKS chambers separately notified. (TAG, ) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
60 Order Setting: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 1/23/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Keith Strong. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 1/23/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
61 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Keith Strong: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 1/23/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
62 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Brief Kyle A. Gray appearing for Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Surreply Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
63 ORDER: Settlement statements due on or before February 13, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 1/23/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
64 ORDER GRANTING 62 PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY BRIEF. Defendants may file a corresponding response to Plaintiffs surreply by February 1, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 1/24/2013. (TAG, ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
65 SURREPLY re 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel. Docketed in accordance with 64 . (TAG, ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
66 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Response to Plaintiffs' Surreply filed by Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Coles v. Cate) (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
67 Joint MOTION For A Status Conference Anna C. Conley appearing for Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Conley, Anna) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
68 Order Setting: Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/29/2013 at 04:00 PM before Magistrate Keith Strong. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 4/26/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 11 of 12

04/29/2013 05/01/2013 05/07/2013 06/03/2013
06/04/2013
06/04/2013 06/11/2013 06/12/2013 08/01/2013
08/05/2013
08/05/2013 08/26/2013 09/10/2013 09/11/2013 10/04/2013

69 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Keith Strong: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/29/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
70 Order Setting: Settlement statements due by 5/31/2013. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/6/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Keith Strong. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 5/1/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
71 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Sam E Haddon as presiding judge and Magistrate Carolyn S. Ostby for all further proceedings. Judge Richard F. Cebull no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 5/7/2013. (POC, ) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
72 Joint MOTION to Stay Scheduling Order Ross W. McLinden appearing for Defendants Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (McLinden, Ross) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
73 ORDER VACATING DEADLINES AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE. The 72 Joint Motion to Stay is GRANTED. If the case is not earlier resolved, lead counsel for each party must attend a status hearing on Tuesday, August 6, 2013, at 10:00 AM, in the Ella Knowles Courtroom of the James Battin Courthouse in Billings, Montana. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 6/4/2013. (TAG, ) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
Set Hearing. Status hearing set for 8/6/2013 at 10:00 AM in Billings, MT before Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby. (TAG, ) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
74 Order Setting: Telephonic status Conference set for 6/12/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Keith Strong. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 6/11/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
75 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Keith Strong: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/12/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
76 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate and Reschedule Date of Status Conference Kyle A. Gray appearing for Defendants Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Mark Hartman, Sue Orand, Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
77 ORDER granting 76 Joint Motion to Vacate and Reschedule Date of StatusConference. If the case is not earlier resolved, lead counsel for each party mustattend a status hearing at 10:00 A.M. on Monday, October 7, 2013, in the EllaKnowles Courtroom of the James Battin Courthouse in Billings, Montana. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 8/5/2013. (TAG, ) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/7/2013 at 10:00 AM in Billings, MT before Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby. (TAG, ) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
78 Order Setting: Settlement Conference set for 9/9/2013 at 10:00 AM in Great Falls, MT before Magistrate Keith Strong. Signed by Magistrate Keith Strong on 8/26/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
79 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Keith Strong: Settlement Conference held on 9/09/2013. (SLL, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
80 ORDER FOR STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL and PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL (by Friday, October 11, 2013). Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 9/11/2013. All pending motions ( 42 and 48 ) are MOOT, and all deadlines and settings are VACATED. (ASG, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
81 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation for Dismissal Anna C. Conley appearing for Plaintiffs Susan Fish, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel Motions referred to Carolyn S Ostby. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (Conley, Anna) (Entered: 10/04/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-99 As of: 11/02/2014 02:14 PM MST 12 of 12

10/07/2013
10/07/2013 10/25/2013
10/25/2013 10/28/2013

82 ORDER granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time. By Friday, October 25, 2013, the parties must file a stipulation for dismissal and submit to the chambers of Judge Sam E. Haddon a proposed order of dismissal, or show cause in writing for their failure to do so. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 10/7/2013. (TAG, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dismissal Papers due by 10/25/2013. (TAG, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
83 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Jo Acton, Charlotte Dolezal, Mike Ferriter, Susan Fish, Mark Hartman, Nicole Lance, Nicole Moore, Sue Orand, Robert Paul, Tasha Rainey, Angela Roman Nose, Annamae Siegfried−Derrick, Raylonda Wagner, Terri Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Dismissing Case) (Gray, Kyle) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
Magistrate Keith Strong no longer assigned to case. (NOB) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
84 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 10/28/2013. (TAG, ) (Entered: 10/28/2013)