V-

* J A U J,
C
I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOH TEE EASTERS DISTRICT OF PE3NSYLVANZA

IMPRISOKED CITIZENS U1TIOS e t a l . :
I V.
HILTON SHAPP e t a l .

CIVIL ACTIOS Ho. 70-3054 CLASS ACTION

> j

9
=10

o

So

§
0«

16

•fe.

SO.

E

:- . S T I P U L A T I O N

; • * • " • • ' '.

*

.

*'

I t i s agreed by and between Jack J. Levine, Esq., attorney

for p l a i n t i f f ' s class and Benjamin Lerner, Esq., attorney for

defendants, that the provision and maintenance of the following

•hall constitute a minimally adequate law library at each of the

:". '_• •

i ' • ••• . .

"• " _

•' . . . .'

• t a t * c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s maintained by defendants!

A. Federal Materials

' • - \ - • ; . . "'^ •;--«...

(1) O.S.C.A. - ' c o n s t i t u t i o n

" •

18, ^8 SS2241-2255.

551981-1985

•\'\

^federal Kales of Appellate

Procedure

•/•

i-'ftules of Supreme Court; - .

• DEC 2 3 tS7Z/ J0HNJ.|^Rp!.:3/ Clark

/

(3) Federal Reporter 2d s e r i e s since 1960;

Federal Supplement since'i960;

' '"

Shepard's U.S. Citations;

Shepard's Federal Citations; and

(7) Rules of local federal d i s t r i c t courts.

B . General Materials

(1) Bailey and Rothblatt, Complete Manual of 'Criminal Forms (Lawyers Coop.);"

(2) BlacX's Law Dictionary (West);

"t3) Cohen, Legal Research in a Nutshell (West);

(4) Criminal Law Reporter (Bureau of National Affairs),

CLERK OF. COURT

•..'"• \v

••

\

c

J (5) Xirael and LeFave, Criminal Procedure In a Butshell (West);

1 (6) Prison Law Reporter (ABA);and /(7) Sokal. Federal Habeas Corpus.2d ed. (liich

C. Pennsylvania Materials

^ ( 1 ) Pa. State Reports since 1960;

^ ( 2 ) Pa. Superior Court Reports since. I960;

fJ\ (3) Pa. Advance Reportsr

/J% (4) Pa. Constitution;

• '"';.',".f:

vT5) Pardon's Pa. S t a t . Ann. - Titles 17, 18, 19, 60-61; -g HI

\A&) Vale's Pa. Digest. Vols. 11. HA, 11B, 44,

4-4A, Cumulative Supp. (West) ;

;

<Al) Shepard's Pa. Citations since 195^; '

/ve (B) Xessler, Law of Criminal Procedure in

Pennsylvania (Bissel);

*

/)t> (9) Henry, Pennsylvania Evidence (West) j and

Pa. Rules of Court (West).

•" •

""

. -J*
i
1

rovide and aauitain ad

obligation to Court shal

 
 ENTERED:

CLERK OF COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUP.: FOR TJir EASTEJW DISTRICT OF ?ES$SY~Vt

NED CITIZENS L*NION, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

-vf.ILTON SK~,?P, e t a l.

NCS 7C- ^ 0S-J *' 71-1CC6, 70-
ORDER

AND NOW, this ?-.'• tiay C* \^.^

, 197B, it.

is hereby ORDERED that the proposed Consent Decree filed

April S, 1976, is APPROVED with the following nodixications:

1. The amendments to the proposed Consent Decree

contained in the stipulation of the parties entered into on

May 15, 1978; and

2. Seciizr. V l i c t l ) is Strieker, ar.d replaced with

the fclJowi.^c r : : v : s ; : r . :

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp PC-PA-005-003

• ft! 1 pubiicaticr.s except newspapers and mcatir.es may tie received ircr. ar.y source, with the f:llcw;r.g ercvisr:
Ccvers of hard-bour.c ?^l::ai:Dr.s received fr=n sc-irces ctr.er thar. tr.e original source (e.g. , publisher, bookstore, distributor cr depart^e r.t • tore) ctay be dtTjced or rerrved where inspection of the cover is deeried necessary and r.c reasonaJrly available alternative izrz. of : . - spection is adequate.

Micj2:nes and newspapers aus: be

icailed directly fror. the original scurce

(e . c . , puxlisher, Docjcstcre, distributor

or c e p j r t w r : store,' witr. the fillo«--t-c

proviso:

•

Ssr.a.l l e t t e r - s u e d pamphlets nay

fce received in rev--a- ccrresrcr.c-

e-:c fror. fanily servers, frier.es

or reiiccas advisers."

 
 r

c

c.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOB THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IMPRISONED CITIZEN'S UKIOK, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

KILTON SKAPP, et al.

NOS. 70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545

ORDER

AND NOW, this "; 7 " d a ^ o f A.Vi'-t,

t 1978,

it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants must provide an

adeguate law library in the Pennsylvania State Correctional

Institutions at Graterford, Dallas, Huntingdon, Muncy, Rockview

ajid Pittsburgh. These libraries must include the material

specified in the stipulation entered into between the parties

and approved by this Court on December 20, 1977, document $238.

•
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, CE. J. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp
'C-PA-005-004
ENTERED: CLERK OF COli;;

 
 C

rf •
CLERK OF COURT

IN THE tWITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

L'.' .' • • i

FOR THE EASTERN' DISTRICT OF PEKNSYLVA.VIA

IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION*, et al.

-v-

r^T ~\ {

MILTCN SF-APP, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

NOS. (70-3 054 ,} 71-513,

-

7j.-j.lOb, 70-2545,V" •.

72-2050

-w> 0 ''.
CL: CL:
v..
JOSEPH S. LORD, I I I , CE. J .

June 7, 19 73

• Plaintiffs, twenty-one individual prisoners and

Is

an unincorporated association of prisoners of the Commonwealth.

o

of Pennsylvania incarcerated at six state penitentiaries, brought

"D

<u

this class action in 1970.— Plaintiffs 'represent a class c o n -

O

o.:

prising all persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the

E

Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at Graterford,

Dallas, Huntingdon, Kuncy, Rockview and Pittsburgh. Defeadsr.ts

are elected and appointed officials of the Cormo-wealth and its

prison systera. The complaint attacks conditions ar.d p o l i c i e s at

each of the prisons as being violative of 42 U.S.C. SS 1 9 S 2 , 1 9 E 3 ,

and 1988 as well as the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth

A m e n d n e n t s of the United States Constitution. W e have juris d i e tier.

under 28 D.S.C. 5 1343.

Host of the issues raised in the complaint are the subject matter of a consent decree entered into by the parties and approved by me on May 22, 1?7S. However, two areas of contention were orsitted fron settlement and instead have been litigated. These complaints involve the constitutionality of conditions in

1/ Several other suits brought by state prisoners have been consolidated with this original action (C.A. S70-3C5O and have been resolved by the Consent Decree or tried in this adjudication.

n' w

TT

the ms-xircu-T security cell blocks at four state penitentiaries and of the prohibition in all the institutions against conjugal visits. We visited the four cell blocfcs in q-uesticn in August 1974 and again in August 1975. We reserved ruling on these tvo issues, pending our decision to approve the consent decree.

We conclude that the conditions in the niajciaur: security

areas at Graterford, Dallas and Muncy do not constitute cruel and t

unusual punishment in violation of the Eigfiti and Fourteenth Aziend-

rcents. However, the three cells at Huntingdon known as the "Glass

Cage" are constitutionally unacceptable and must be closed. Ve

also conclude that the prohibition against sexual visitation at

each of the state institutions does not offend the Constitution.

In determining the constitutionality of prison con-

ditions, federal courts must allow state penal officials broad .

latitude in determining how to administer and regulate the prison

environment in light of recognized penological goals of deterrence,

rehabilitation and institutional security. Jones v. North Carolina

Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc.,

U.S.

, 53 L.Ed. 2d 629,

£38-39 £1977); Pell v. Procur.ier, 417 U.S. 817, 822-26 (1S74);

Procur.ler v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 356, 404-05 (1974), The court cannot

dictate to state officials the conditions which the court na.y fee.1,

as a matter of enlightened and advanced prison theory, should prevail

in state penitentiaries. .£_££ Knuckles v. Prasse, 302 F. Sup?. 1C3S,

1048 (E.D. Pa. 1969), af f'd, 435 F.2d 1255 {3d Cir. 1S70), cert.

denied, 403 U.S. 936 (1971). However, 'judicial restraint car^-.ot

encompass any failure to take cognizance of valid constitutional

clains,* Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 405, and therefore the

court should not hesitate to remedy conditions which amount to cruel

and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Anendasr.t defies precise definition because

it "oust draw its Cleaning frc~ the evolving standards of decency

that m^rk the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 3S6 U.S. 86, 101 (19SS). In the context of prison conditions there are three criteria of the Eighth Anendne.it which njight be applied. If an imxate can demonstrate that penal conditions violate any one of these tests, the condition ir.ust be invalidated.
The first criterion is the classic standard that penal conditions are proscribed which violate "the dignity of nan", Trcp v. Dulles, 356 U.S. at ICO; Hove11 v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272, 230 (3d Cir. 1972}, that is conditions which are "so barbarous that [they offend] society's evolving sense of decency", Hadeau v.
, 561 F.2d 411, 413 (1st Cir. 1977), which involve "physical and mental abuse or corporal punishment of such base, inhumane, ar.d barbaric proportions so as to shock and offend a court's sensibilities," B u m s v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771, 778 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1062 (1972), or which involve "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 D.S. 97, 103 (1976)
The second criterion is that punishment which is grossly disproportionate to the offense which precipitated that sanction is violative of the Eighth Amendment. Weens v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 368 (1910). This test has been applied in challenges to the type of punishment imposed, Grecg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 1S7 (1976) (death penalty); Trop v, Dulles, 356 U.S. at 100 (denationalization); and to the duration or conditions of pur.ishaent, Do^ey v. Perini, 518 F.2d 1288, 1290 (6th Cir.), vacated, 423 U.S. 953 {1S7S1; O'Brien v. Moriarty, 489 F.2d 941, 944 (1st Cir. 1974) (duration cf solitary confinement); Hart v. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136, 139-43 (4th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 415 U.S. 938, rehearing denied, 416 o.s. 916 (1974); LaReau v. MacOoucall, 473 F.2d 974, 978 n.S (2d Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 878 (1973) (strip cell grossly severe for prison infraction).
r

The third criterion of the Eighth Amendment has evolved in more recent decisions ar.d requires that punishment must not go beyond legitimate penal objectives, i.e., the punishner.t must bear a rational relationship to the accomplishment of penological goals which are of sufficient importance to justify its severity. See Ovens-El v. Robinson, 442 F. Sup?. 136S, 1384-S5 (tf.D. Pa. 1978); Inmates, D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 416 F. Supp. 119, 122 (D.D.C. 1976); Padgett 7. Stein, 406 F. Supp. 237, 293 (K.D. Pa. 1975); Jordan v. Fitzharris, 257 F. Eupp. 674, 679 (N.D.Cal.* 1966). The Third Circuit has adopted an analogous position in Kovell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1972), in which the court' stated:
"A punishment may be cruel and unusual when, although applied in pursuit of a legitimate penal aim, it goes beyond vhat is necessary to achieve that aim; that is, when a punishment is unnecessarily cruel in view of the purpose for which it is used." Id. at 2B1, quoting from Jordan v. Fitzharris, 257 T~. Supp. at 679.
At least five members of the Supreme Court recently have accepted the •penological objectives" criterion. In Grecc v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Justice Stewart stated in a plurality opinion joined by Justices Powell ar.d Stevens that in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment "the sanction imposed cannot be so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering." Id. at 1S3. Justices Brennan and Marshall similarly have approved the penolcgical objectives standard in Furman v. Georgia, 408 D.S. 283 (1972). See 408 U.S. at 279-80 (Brennan, J., concurring); 408 U.S. at 331-33 (Marshall,J. concurring). This test has been applied to a denial of medical treatment in Estelle v. Gar-ble, 425 U.S. at 103, where the Court said, "denial of medical care nay result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose.'
4-1 T« Cn-i- at 1384

c

five hundred to six hundred feet fro.-?, the main building complex.

Each cell in the EAU is approximately six feet wide, ter. feet

deep, and eight feet high, ar.d is furnished with a bed, mattress,

& sir-X and hopper corsbination (controlled by the irjr.ate) , sheets,

and a pillow. Only cold water is provided. The cells are window-

less and have no interior lighting. However, there are windows

across the corridor fron the cells as well as 150-watt lightbulbs

in front of the cells which illunir.ate the cells sufficiently for

inmates to read. The cells are clear. a.-.d have no ur.pleasent odors.

Ventilation, is adequate.

—

Inmates confined to the EAU have the same right to receive mail, legal materials, and publications as do these in general population. They receive three showers a week and one hour of exercise a day. A doctor visits the BAU each day and a psychiatrist is available at an inziate's request. Inmates in the BAU receive the sane food as instates in general population, although occasionally in reduced portions.
Inmates are co=itted to the EAU by self-ccr^utae.-t, as transfers frcn other institutions' BA'J's, or after a due-process hearing on charges of ci.scor.duct. Ccnru.tzie.-its to the 3A~ generally do not exceed thirty days, but there are so—e long-tern assigr.ir.en-s.
"Death row" cells consist of nine cells within the BAU. They are exactly liXe the other BAU cells except that they
rhave hot and cold water. We conclude, based on the record at trial and cur two visits, that use of the BAU at Graterford does net constitute cruel and unusual pur.ishz-.er.tt There is no question that the cells in the BAU are grin and cheerless. Nonetheless, we conclude that these conditions are rot so ir-h^ane or base that they shock the court's conscience, or violate standards of hu---ar. decency. Similarly, we fi:

rr

0

that such confinement is rationally related to legitiiMte penal goals end thus meets constitutional standards.

B. State Correctional Institution at Dallas.

The maximum security cell block at Dallas consists

of two levels: the ground level block, known as S-lr and a lower

level, known as the "Annex". S-l comprises eighteen cells; the

Annex contains eleven cells.

»

The S-l cells have a separate toilet and sink, a bed, and a light inside the cell. An incite is confined to S-l only after a hearing. Every seven days the inmate' s conf ineaer.t is reviewed by his counselor. Every thirty days a conaaittee reviews the inmate's confinement with the inmate present.

. In general, an inmate is sent to the Annex frora S-l. Confinement there generally averages from one to four days, although in some cases assignment to the Annex has exceeded thirty days.

The cells in the Annex measure approximately five feet wide by nine feet deep by ten feet high. They have neither windows nor lights, but windows across from the cells and lights in the corridor provide sufficient lighting for inmates to read. Ver.tilatic: is adequate. The cell block is c+ean and free from unpleasant ocors. Inmates are generally allowed daily showers and are visited by a dcct: each day. Inmates are generally, but not always, served full rations of food. Daily exercise of up to two hcurs is allowed in the ccrridor outside the cell except when the innate is disruptive.

As with the BAU at Graterford, we must conclude that confinement in the S-l and Annex cells at Dallas, although certainly unpleasant, does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

C. State Correctisr.21 institution at Muncy.

The State Correctional Institution at Kuncy, a women's prison, is an open institution, it has no walls, fences, or perimete: guards. The administrative and punitive segregation units of Mur.cy

L _~ _

are housed in Clinton Cottage, which is located in a wooded area one-half mile fron the main facilities. Clinton Cottage contains forty-eight cells on two floors. The first floor contains nineteecells, fourteen with single wooden doors used for administrative segregation and fcux with double doors (one wooden, one barred) used for punitive segregation. The second floor consists of twenty-nine cells, fourteen of which axe double-doored and axe used fcr punitive segregation. The reniair.ir.g second-floor cells are nb longer used.

Each cell is approximately twelve feet deep by eight feet wide by nine feet high and contains a bed, night table, toilet, and sink. The lighting in the cell consists of a sixty-watt bulb. Except for inmates housed in the first-floor punitive segregation cells, inmates in Clinton Cottage axe allowed all items in their cell permitted inmates in the general population. Food.portions are not reduced. Three showers are permitted each week. Clinton Cottage is clean tr.d well-ventilated with no unpleasant odors.

Inmates in administrative segregation are allowed out of their cells fcr one-half of the day. However/ those confined to punitive segregation are not allowed out at all. Inmates ir. punitive segregation are confined generally fcr from one to two weeks, with weekly review, although so-e inmates axe kept for considerably longer periods.

I

We have no difficulty in concluding that conditions at

j

Clinton Cottage, even for those inmates in punitive segregaticr., do

i not constitute cr~uel and unusual punishment.

D. State Correctional restitution at Huntingdon.

The naxisua security area at Huntingdon contains 144 cells. The psychiatric quarters consist of seventeen cells. Three of these cells tre known as the "Glass Cage" and provide the focus of the Huntingdon incites' constitutional attack. v.'e conclude that

use of the Glass Cage constitutes treatment so inhumane and degrading as to anount to cn;el and unusual punishment, its continued use cannot be tolerated.
The Glass Cage is enclosed by glass walls and a locked steel door. The cells measure-approximately nine feet deep by eight feet wide by nine feet high. There is no furniture, no vindow, and no inside lighting. Cells are equipped with a toilet and sink and are supposed to include a mattress, two sheets, a pillow, and blarOcets. We saw none of these iter.5 during our visits, but the cells were not in use at that tine. Outside lighting is totally inadequate for reading. In addition, despite use of a large fan, ventilation is insufficient. The cells are unclean and ar. unpleasant odor pervades.
Our conclusion that the cells in the Glass Cage cannot, remain in use is based in large part on our two visits to the .Institution. On each occasion we were genuinely shocked by the dark, dirty, and totally isolated conditions we observed. We agree with plaintiffs that the continued existence of the Glass Cage constitutes a serious threat to the physical and mental well-being of every resident who is confined there, and thus .we conclude that confinement in such conditions could serve no legitimate per.ologica.1 purpose.
II. Conjugal Visits. Plaintiffs urge us to declare that the lack cf
facilities at each institution in which irur.ates may enjoy sexual visitation with' their spouses constitutes cruel and unusual punishment:. In support of this clais, plaintiffs presented an expert witness. Dr. Herbert Thomas, who testified that lack of conjugal visits is a factor which can cause an inmate to suffer physical, emotional, and psychological stress. The psychological regression
r r. _

which may result can lead to homosexual behavior, violer.ee, less of self- identity, and self-destructive behavior.
Plaintiffs concede that there is no inherent constitutional right to engage in heterosexual relations in priscn. However, they argue that the Eighth Amendment protects them frci the deleterious effects which flow from denial of sexual visitation rights. They distinguish cases which have held that denial cf , conjugal visits dees not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, see, e.g., McCray v. Sullivan, 50S F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 423 D.S. 8S9 (1975); Lycr.s v. Cillicar.,382 F. Sup?. 198, 201-03 (N.D. Ohio 1974), by noting that the records in those cases lacked the expert testimony provided by plaintiffs.

We do not believe that Dr. Thomas' testimony justifies

a departure from those decisions upholding the denial of sexual

visitation against constitutional attack. See United States ex rel.

Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F. Supp. 114, 142-43 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd,

F.2d

(1978) (and cases cited therein). Dr. Thomas testified

that psychological regression in instates results from many factors.

Foremost among these causes, according to Dr. Thomas, is not denial

of sexual visitation, but instead, lengthy sentences resulting in

long terms of incarceration. Consequently, we fir.d that the denial

of sexual visitation itself dees not cause severe mental or physical

deterioration.

It is clear that not all conditions of confinement vhicr have an adverse effect on a prisoner are constitutionally proscribed. In Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. at 822-23, the Court stated that one of the essential functions of incarceration is the, isolation of -the Inmate from society, which is intended to be an undesirable ccr.litior so as to deter potential criminals frorr. commit ing crir.es.

The restriction challenged here and its effects on innates do not violate'any of the three Eighth Amendment criteria. See Part I, supra. It is obvious that the first two tests of unconstituticnality have not been met. The essence of penal . confinement is isolation fron society, including limitations on physical and social interactions. We conclude that the prohibition on sexual visitation is not so inhuman that it shocks the conscience
t end that it is not disproportionate punishment. A closer.question is whether such a restriction is rationally related to a legitimate penological goal. We agree with Judge Frar.kel's opinion in Pr.ited States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F. Supp. at 143, that there is a division of penological opinion on the advisability of conjugal visitation and that the judiciary is ill-equipped to resolve this complex policy question. Howeverr since there is ample support for the proposition that a restriction on sexual visitation is rationally related to legitimate penal concerns for institutional security and the deterrence value of incarceration, I conclude that such a prohibition must be sustained under the Eighth Amendment.
JOSEPH, S. LORD, III, CK. J.

 
 V
-

THI c:;i

7 Or.

:AST R:; DISTRICT C

\ iciti will S
V. SKA??, e t a l .
Defendants

Civil Action

and

_

_

Allegations of Contempt, as signed and approved by the JUL3 0 t£32

Court on December 30, 1980 (hereinafter the Stipulation}^^

O'-7 r-

and, further, agree to ai?,end the Stipulation as cetailea—-£/^/^—Dep. c

herein:

I. following

The Stimulation is amended to include the

A. he plaintiffs h

CO

be forever barred frcr. instituting any and

all further legal acticr. fcr ccr.ter.pt case:

=o :o

T3

\<

cu c

=CL

O

=6

a.:
£

=0.

U D w n E l i C ; O - . J C I c _ _ £ t . — - — — - • -•J^-i-*— "~ <------•-•- ^ 5 n . i ; D c £ •JK—L....: —, -^ _ ^,_ . ; ; j i •t u O V T u.^tr
Stipulation or ty this A.-er.cL-.ent . E. Procedures fcr the pro:e£E:r.r cf allega-
ticns cf violation cf the Ccr.s ent Decree, Stimulation c" r~c~z~-"':.

fencar

proposal f c r an administrative grievarice procedure fcr the processing of allegations by ar.y r.err.ber of the plaintiff-class that he has teen treated in a znanr.er which is inconsistent v;ith the terr.s of the Consent Decree, Stipulation, or Ar.encnent. (2) The grievance procedure cay be utilized to process any allegation of violation of the Censer.t Decree- Stimulation or /jr.endjr.ent and shall fce the sole forun for the processing of allegations of violations which are not system or institution-wide. However, no decision rendered as a result of the_.adnlnistrative processing of a. grievance which does not allege a system or institution-wide violation shall be reviewable by any court. Kc resolution of any grievance offered as a result of this procedure shall be interpreted as an ad-issicn by ar.y defendant of any violation of the Consent Decree or cf state cr federal, lav;. C, The defendants agree to include Bureau of Correction Adr.inistrs.tive Directives 201 - Use of Force and Restraint, and 203 - Sez.rcr.es cf Inmates and Cells - in the Inr.ate Handbook.

—

"^

~

^- • . -^

—

fc~.

—

-

e .z - -z'. • . n•• r e . , ^ c n t r. e

1W

•*".

•w •

'

'I

•«• —

c

c.

• A . T h e H e a r i n g Cor--.it t e e .
(1) A Hearing CcrurJ.ttee panel shall be

of:' (a) A Major cr Captain cf the Guard Cb) A Casework Supervisor (c) A Schocl or Vces.tior.a.1 Supervisor
- :.-•••. • (In the case of the V o c a t i o n a l . • ,.-.. .
Supervisor he r:st te a ncnur.ife.r~e:: Suterviscr.) C2) A pcol oT nine (9) Hearing Ccr^-ittee members shall be cesigr.ated at each of the affected institutions, except for Graterford, which shall designate twelve (12) members. Hearing Committee panels will be selected fron these pools. All Hearing Ccrrjr.ittee ne-bers shall receive in-service training in relevant areas cf lav:. The curriculum will be cevelcpei ^cir.tly by defendants ana plaintiff-class counsel. (3) The position cf Chairr.an cf the Hearing Co.-_T.ittee is abolished. In its place shall . ..be established a Hearing Con-it tee Coordin-
rdinator shall be a Casewcr>: Suterviscr. The duties of the Hearing Ccrr.ittee Ccrrcinatcr shall i n d u c e , t ut not be 1ir.it?~ ** :

c
(a) Scheduling cf hearings, Cb) Determination cf relevancy of
witnesses and availability at the hearing, (c) Extent cf direct or cross-ezaxir.ation cf any witnesses, .,...- Cc) .. .The reading, and explanation of" -_ the charges to the charged innate,Ce) Ar.ncur.cin£ the decision and rationale of the Hearing Cc"ittee, Cf) All other functions previously. reserved to the Chairman of* the Hearing Coscnittee. C M No member of a Hearing Committee panel shall have a direct supervisory role over any other panel nerr.ter. Hearing Committee Kjer.bers who are related shall not serve on the sajr.e panel. C5) Each vote cf a Hearing Cor-.ittee ner.ber shall have equal weight. (6) Two C2) of the three (3) Cor^iittee ner.bers nust concur to -convict, an innate of ar.y r^sccnduct. A record shal 1 be r~.ade of how each render voted. This record shall be forwarded to the Program Keview Ccrr_-.ittee if they are tc review the -isccnduct. It shall not be disclosed to the ir.-ate. Cnlv

(
the vote count will be announced to
(7) No staff mer.ber who wrote or approved the misconduct charge(s) cr conducted the investigation into the charg=(s) shall • serve cr. the Hearing Ccr-T.ittee panel vhich hears that nisconduct.
(S) There shall be only one(1) uniformed person on any hearing panel.
(9) Cnly top-level r.ar.ager.ent persons shall be chosen to sit on a Hearing CoruTiittee panel.
(.10) The above-described changes in the Hearing panel shall be instituted within ninety(90) days.
B. Hearing Examiner. (1) Within one year after the entry of the An:end.-ent as an Crder cf Ccurt , the Hearing Committee shall be replaced by a single person hearing examiner who shall assu-e all the duties ar.d responsibilities cf the Hearing Connittee ar.c its coordinator. C2} The hearing exar.ir.ers shall be employed ar.c supervisee directly by the Central Office cf the Bureau cf Correction. (5) The hearing e>:=_-ir.ers , prior to assur.ir.g their duties, shall receive training in relevant areas cC la-.:. Curriculum, will te
r iT T

developed Jointly by the defer.dar.ts and plaintiff-class counsel. (4) The hearing examiners will be Qualified and hired pursuant to Commonwealth civil service procedures. Kccifications in Kisccnduct Procedures. (1) All misconduct reports are to be reviewed and approved by the ranking officer en duty who is hereby designated to be the
(2) Whenever practical, misconduct reports shai; be delivered to the inmate ty someone other than the charging staff member. The staff member who delivers the misconduct-report shall fill In the date and time of delivery in the presence of the inmate.
C3) Witness Recuest and Inr.ate Version Fcrr.s are to be delivered to the charged ir.-ate
fill out the Witness Request Form ar.d return it to the block officer no later than S'~0 A the next working cay. The block officer shai: deliver the Witness Request Fern to the hearing coordinator. The ir.-ate should bring the Ir_iateTs Version 'Fern with hi.-, to his hearing. C-) The i " = te shall be perr.ittei
i.e.-- rer.ber v;ho w i t n e s s e d th allege:: r.is-

r
con_u: t present at his r.iscenduc t he ar lr.£ .. If no staff ne-ber actually witnessed the
« v ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ L* L- —
to h_£.ve the charging staff nerber present. These elections must be rr.ade hy the inrr.ate prior to the hearing en the vitness fern provided to the innate* C5l 'If the Incite "has "selected an 'innate to
the Eearir.g Ccnr.ittee or exar.ir.er* The ini^ate shall have the right to call three witnesses in his own behalf. The Hearing Con.T.ittee or examiner shall deterr.ir.e if the requested witnesses ar*e relevant and available. The innate will be requested to make a stat er.ent as t o the relevancyzr.z. inportar.ee cr the recuestez witnesses en the witness fo™:, If the witnesses are relevant, they shall be produced unless the institut i :r.
Kearing Ccr_-i11 ee cr exazziner that the v;itr.es is unavailable or that a ccur.tervailln£ security concern exists. Fcr this purpose a countervailing security concern is estaclishe when the institution presents evidence t c s h:' that the rec-ested witness his a cercnstrEtrc histrry cf recer.: erratic, hc-stile £-.: dis-
. - o - _ L .. :

that the presence of the witness would unduly disrupt the progress cf the hearing. In the event that a requested witness who has no such history as herein described, exhibits a current state of mind such as would reasonably lead to erratic, hostile and disruptive conduct at the hearing, it shall be the duty of the Hearing Corr.--r.ittee
i.cc.uj.r.c-c. cr ey.s LT.S. t u t-'t-scn&iij e.Tc r.;
the requested vritness before the hearing-, to detern-.ir.e the suitability cT presenting the witness in person at the hearing. If the Hearing Committee Coordinator or examiner determines that it would be unsuitable to have the witness present, he nay at his election either continue the hearing until the witness nay safely be produced, take a written statement frc~ the witness, cr hear the testi-rny of the witness cut cf the presence cf the charged inr.ate. In the event that a witness has no such history as herein described exhibits erratic, hostile and disruptive behavior at the hearing, the witness :r.ay be removed. (7) Except in the case cf testir.cr.y heard i_n car.era as provided by section C (?) below, the inr.ate shall te permitted a reasonable opportunity tc question any -.."itr.ess v:h: has

testified against him. (8) If the inmate requests a staff cember cr
inmate witr.ess who is not available at the time of the hearing, the innate may elect either to waive the six (6) day hearing requirement to perr.it the witness to be present cr to have the witness execute a written statement under oath which will be presented in lieu of live testimony - If he elects tc have the- witness present, the hearing will be rescheduled at the earliest practical time after the witness is available. C9) When the nisccnduct is based upon information supplied by an informant whose" identity should remain confidential, the following procedure shall be employed:p (a) The ir.f orr.atior. given by the inf orr.ar.t,
but net th € identity c f th s in fc TZ~. Z. n t shall be disclosed to the inmate curing the hearing unless the institution has reascr. to"believe that the disclosure of the inforr.at ion itself wculd " disclose the icer.tity of the informant. In the latter instance, the information shall te presented to the Hearing Commit tee or examiner, in. car.era. (b) The reliability cf the informant v:ill
_ c_

c

I
D £ e 5 L. c w 1 - D ..c w *, ^
or ex; .ner by s.preponderance o: the evidence by showing: 1. The informant had the ability £-nd was in the position to observe. 2. The informant has knowledge of the subject matter of the violation, and " '" 3." The informant' has given reliable in?orcatien previously or that other witnesses have corroborated scr.e cf the information supplied by the informant. (c) The inmate shall be present during the

presentation of the reliability evidence unless the institution reasonably believes that the disclosure of the information describing the reliability of the informant vould present a threat to the institutionTs security, in which case the evidence shall be presented In. car-era to the Hearing Committee or examiner.

(10) If the inmate elects to plead guilty or waive t_is right to a hearing, no witnesses

. will be'required. •

-•-•-.•

(11) All testimony shall be under oath.

(12) The Hearing Committee or examiner shall make written findings of fact which ma!-:e reference
t o *"v e t e 5 t ' " c * v c? p ? - w w ' t - e c c r * *• e ^—J "?*"-' ^ -~c

(

r

cf credibility shall be left to the discretion cf the hearing ccrurJLttee or examiner. (13) If an innate is acquitted of the misconduct charge, all records of the misconduct shall be expunged fro- his institutional record. (1A) Any inmate who has been convicted of a misconduct by the Hearing Committee or examiner may appeal to the-Program Review Committee. The three -cases fcr an appeal by the ir_mate are: (a) The procedures employed were contrary
to the directive or to the Consent Decree; Cb) The punishment is disproportionate to
the offense; or (c) The findings of fact are insufficient
to support the verdict. (15) The Program Review Ccmr.ittee shall have- the
power to upheld, to remand cr to uphold but modify the puniEhr.ent. The PrtgrajL Reviev Committee r.ay r.c; ir.pose a greater punishment than has teen designated by the Hearing Committee or examiner. The Program Review Committee shall render its decision v.i-hir. five C5) wcrkir.r cays cf receipt cf an appeal.

three' bases fcr appeal listed In C (Ik) above. Ke ir.ay nake any disposition permitted to the Prcgrar. Review Cc™.lttee . The decision of the Superintendent shall be forwarded to the innate within three (3) working days of his receipt of the appeal. Any working day during this period when . the Superintendent is absent from the Institution for the entire cay, shall net te counted against his allotted tlr.e fcr response. (17) The final appeal permitted shall be to the attorney assigned as counsel to the Bureau of Correction in Central Office (hereinafter referred to as "Central Office Attorney"). The basis for such an appeal are li-.itec to C (1*0 (a) and C (lh) (c)
ab cv e •
(1) An Innate who has ccr.pleted his disciplinary sentence shall be released Into general population unless the institution presents evid e nc e to the Program Review Comr.lttee that there Is a valid security reason as defined in Section D (3) be lew to continue hirz in a dr.'n I strat 1ve cu s t c dy .

, .c t , ^

,,r. c _

V
•f
basis for the transfer is not anoutstanding nisconduct charge , a self-cczzr.it tal or confinement under investigative status, he shall be provided a hearing before the Program Review Ccrrr.ittee within six (6) days ofhis transfer. The innate has the right tcbe present at this hearing. The institution shall present evidence to establish that there is a valid security reason to confine the irjr.ate in ad~_inis — trative custody as defined in Section D (3) below. The innate shall then have the opportunity topresent the reasons why he should be returned to general population. He may request, but has no right to compel, the presence at the hearing of such members of the institution staff as be believes will

Valid security reasons for this purpose are: (a) Tr.eir.r. = :e is a danger to particular
person(s) ir. the institution who car.no

Cb)

a danger to hir.self;

(c )

Cc)

l C _ i- ^ .- — —C - —— •• "

—

endanger the inr.^ te's sifety cr welfa

.s c.

s uzn a

r e 1 c ; E : 1: r. c C ether i nd 1 v i t~ z ~~ r i

c
i institution who are a threat to him are unavailable; or
(e) 1hz inmate would likely attecpt escape if placed in a less restrictive envircnme:
The appeal of the decision of the Program Review Committee with regard to placement or denial of placement of any inmate in administrative custody shall be made by the inmate cr the Superintendent to the Deputy Commissioner who shall review the reccrc of the hearing and all other relevant documents.
C5) If the Superintendent elects to appeal
the determination of the Program Review Committee with regard to the administrative custody placement, he must give notice to the inmate, the Program Review Committee and the Deputy Commissioner ty the clcse cf the third working day following the hearing. The Deputy Commissioner3 or in his absence the individual designated to act in his steal, shall rule cr. the appeal within two (2) regular working days cf receipt of the appeal. The inmate shall remain in administrative custody curing this appeal process.
-) Any inmate in administrative custody at
a hfirir.r cr. '.he fact of his ccntinued :::.-'

finener.t ar.d to utilize the appeal procedure

provided by this section. Any innate thereafter

initially c—--itted to administrative custody

from general population or committed to

continued confinement in administrative

custody by the Program Review Committee

shall be committed for a specified period

or sentence after which an 'additional hearing

as specified in Section D shall be required

for further ccr. fir.erner.t teyend the original

period specified.

C7) The Program Review Committee shall submit

to the Superintendent a status report

every thirty (30) days detailing the

reasons the Progran Review Committee feels

that continued administrative custody is

necessary. The Superintendent shall review

these documents. and determine whether the "r> e s. s '"T*c ' s e t fc"""'1"' ""*" *"^ r c"rt ur*e "^ t s *u b —i 11 ~~

are v a l i d as.i reas cnat l e . I f t h e Superir.t er.ier.:

determines that the Frcgra.-. Review Commi t t e e s

findings are valid ar.c rea

e,

so notify the segregated inmate." If, however,

the Superintendf r.t feels that the reas ens set

forth in the ?r;p=r. Review Committee report

are r.e ler.ger valid cr reasonable, the

Superir.ter.fer.t shall cause the ?rrgr£_~ ?.e*."_r".;

Ccmmitt=e t: sch$e-le a centinuatien hearirr

• • • II • i "

ffiiPMT—n—T

li11; .,

TM

tion staff may present evidence. If after the hearing the Progran Review Coirjr.ittee finds no reason fcr continued segregation, It shall order the Innate's release to general population. Otherwise, the Inr.ate shall re-ain In segregation until the expiration of the tine designated by the Program Review Corrrlttee or until another ccntinuatic: hearing Is deerr.ed necessary by the Superintendent. Appeal by the.inrr.ate or the institution staff shall be as set forth in D (*0 above. III. The following Is added to Section 8 of the Stipulation (page 12): (g) Random cell searches shall not be conducted later than one hour after the institution has been locked In for the evening.
Xcr.e cf the previsions of this Az:er.drr.ent shall be . interpreted as ar. ad-issicn fcy any defendant of any violation cf state cr federal law, nor shall they create a private cause cf a::tier. ir. ar.y individual against any defendant.

c
/K^U~~$A
John T."~Snavely Attorney for Plaintiffs

cr
Kespectrully submitted,
Attorney

W
APPROVED;

Francis R. Filipi Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants
Ronald £/. Marks Corcrnissioner Bureau of Correction Dated :-2-V-y.2-
Snerree L. Sti/^gis
•6hief C C I I ^ S P ' / w f i c e cf General Ccu:

EY THE COURT: Dated :

 
 c.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ICU, ETAL.

CIVIL ACTION

FILED

Plaintiffs

v. SK3PP, ET AL.

By

O_S...C;p. Cler

Defendants

NOS. 70-305-4, 70-2545/71-513^3 71-1006^£> Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

AGREEMENT

•• •• ••

• • • • ••• • • • • • ( • • • • < • • • • • • • - - - - •— ——
PC-PA-005-007

The undersigned as representatives of their respective parties

hereby agree that the definition of theterm, cell search/ which is vised in the

ICU v. Shapp Consent Decree E.D. Pa. Civil Action Nos. 70-3054, 70-2545, 71-513

and 71-1006, stipulations and amendments thereto and the Bureau of Correction

Administrative Directives shall not include the procedure commonly referred to

as a cell check. A cell check is a procedure commonly utilized by theBureau of

Correction staff curing which they enter an innate's cell to inspect the structural

components of the cell. They examine the bars, windows, lights, electrical outlets,

plumbing and other structures in the cell to determine that they have not been

damaged and that they present no fire or safety hazards. The inmate's personal

property is not searched during a cell check. However, items of property which

obscure the structures to be examined will be moved. The procedures, restrictions

and regulations with regard to cell searches, which are detailed in the Consent

Decree, Stipulations andAmendments thereto, and theBureau of Correction Adminis-

trative Directives do not apply to the cell check procedure. This procedure shall

not be used for harrassment of any inmate. Plaintiffs do notwaive any right to

c

claiin that this procedure has been used for harrassnent.

For the PlaintiffqClass:

For the Cartronwealth Defendants

John" SnaVely^yt squire
Date jl/f^. 0a '

Francis R. Filipif, Esquire Deputy Attorney General
J. \M?-'L<VA erree L. St>irgis,, /CCccunsel, Bucea/u of Correction, f ice of General Counsel

in

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, ET AL.
v.
MILTON SHAPP, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

NOS. 70-3054 '

FILED

TO

71-513

71-1006

70-2545

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILLIAM F. HALL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

• • •• ••

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • ••

PC-PA-005-008

Now before the court is the defendants' motion for the approval of a stipulation

for dismissal of outstanding allegations of contempt and for dismissal of the plaintiffs

motion for contempt. The stipulation for dismissal contains terms of a settlement between

the parties which has been signed by counsel for the plaintiff-class and for the defendants.

For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the motion be granted.

This action represents the consolidation of several individual civil rights actions

brought by inmates in Pennsylvania correctional institutions and was brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1982, 19S3 and 1988 as well as the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Upon consolidation, a class was certified

which consisted of all inmates .then confined and all inmates to be confined in the future in

the state correctional Institutions at Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon, Muncy, Pittsburgh and

Rockview. On May 22, 1978 the ection was terminated by a consent decree '(Consent

Decree). Since that time the plaintiffs have filed a motion for the issuance of an order to

show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt for violations of the Consent

CLERK QE.COU.RI

Decree. In addition to the motion for issuance of an order to show cause, the court has received numerous letters from inmates in these Institutions complaining that the Consent Decree was being violated. In addition, many individual civil rights complaints have been brought by inmates in which the subject matter in eech of their complaints is within the scope of the Consent Decree.
The negotiations which culminated in the proposed settlement began in July, 1980. In March 1981, however, I was ordered by the court to determine the following issues:
L Whether violations of the Consent Decree are occurring; and 2. Whether any alleged violations are individual complaints or are either institution-wide or state-wide. I was further directed to prepare a report and recommendation upon the conclusion of of whatever proceedings I deemed appropriate. (Order dated March 31, 1981 by Chief Judge, Joseph S. Lord, m). In complying with that mandate, I referred the inmates' letters of complaint to counsel for the Bureau of Corrections (Bureau) and held hearings in January, 1982 during which testimony was given by several inmates. In addition, accompanied by counsel for the Bureau, I visited Graterford, Dallas and Huntingdon where I talked to the institutions' officials and their inmates. During the process, I received detailed reports of the investigation made by the Bureau in the cases of the more serious complaints referred to them. Counsel for the Bureau and the institutions' officials were extremely cooperative arid .diligently investigated the complaints, and in some instances took corrective action even when a complaint did not clearly fall within the purview of the Consent Decree. Counsel for the plaintiff-class was advised of the complaints made, and received copies of the investigative reports. In the main, the complaints of violations of the Consent Decree made by individual inmates involved disciplinary proceedings, cell searches, the adequacy of the

health care that they ere provided, and the physical condition of the institutions. The complainants, for the most pert, expressed dissatisfaction with the Inmate Complaint System (complaint system) presently maintained by the institutions. The results of my investigation tend to support the allegations of deficiencies in that system. Clearly, the prisoners appear to have no confidence in its fairness or efficacy. It should be noted here, however, that the Bureau's eighteen (18) month report for the period January 1980 through June 30, 1981 reveals a total number of complaints processed which would tax the most liberally estimated capacity of the institutions. The inmates' dissatisfaction with the complaint system and the institutions' performance in administering it were, in my view, crucial, for the unanswered, or inadequately investigated and answered responses to the complaints, and, of course, adverse responses to the complaints, have undoubtedly led to the filing of civil rights actions in this and other federal courts, and have contributed to their already burgeoning caseloads. The testimony which I took in court and the complaint letters received from the inmates provide convincing evidence to support this conclusion.
In addressing the complaints stated in letters to the court claiming violations of the Consent Decree, the determination of whether those complaints were valid could only be made through an inquiry such as the one I have been directed to make, because there were no procedural steps available to the inmates which would permit a prompt determination of the validity of their complaints end the implementation of whatever remedies might be warranted. An obvious alternative to conducting such an inquiry, of course, would have been to conduct individual hearings to determine, first, whether the complaints fell within the purview of the Consent Decree, and then to determine whether
1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction 18 Month Report, January 1, 1980June 30, 1981 (published October 1981 by the Public Information Office Bureau of Correction), passim. A review of the figures in the Report indicating a decrease in the number of complaints processed through the complaint system may reveal that there is a direct correlation between the decrease in such complaints and the Increase of inmates' civil rights filings in the federal district courts in Pennsylvania.

or not. the complaints were valid. Neither approach offers promise of significantly decreasing the inmates' dissatisfaction with the handling of their complaints of violations of the Consent Decree, or their other complaints, because the inmates' complaints would be neither promptly nor efficiently addressed, thus denying them redress in the case of complaints which are valid, which is aiso unfair to the prison officials who must contend with dissatisfied, disgruntled inmates who see the Consent Decree as having little value because of difficulties in its enforcement.
As I have previously mentioned, however, during the inquiry which I have made the Bureau has conducted an investigation of complaints and demonstrated that it is able to adequately investigate complaints and provide administrative remedies in appropriate cases. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, a new complaint system will be established, which draws upon the experience which the Bureau has had in handling inmate complaints, and which addresses the deficiencies in the present complaint system which have been identified during the settlement negotiation process. The component of the proposed settlement which is concerned with the resolution of inmate complaints or grievances is the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System (Consolidated System, a copy of which is attached), which has as its stated purpose that of assuring that every inmate in a Bureau of Correction facility is aware that he has an avenue through which he mey seek expeditious resolution of any problem which arises during the course of his confinement. The directive establishing the Consolidated System will apply to all state correctional institutions (and state regional correctional facilities and community service centers). Under the Consolidated System all inmates will have the opportunity to have their grievances addressed at three (3) levels, an Initial Review, which will include fact •finding and may include preliminary review of the fact finder's decision, Appeal from Initial Review, at the level of Superintendent or Regional Director, and Final Appeal to the

Central Office. The directive establishing the Consolidated System provides procedures .for reviewing inmate grievances not alreedy covered by other Bureau of Correction Administrative Directives and policies, and serves to integrate its procedures with those established by other directives. It revises the Inmate Complaint System, however, it does not supersede or repeal any part of any other directive or policy statement.
The Consolidated System provides that grievances and appeals must be in writing in the format of forms provided by the correctional institution and that they shall be presented individually. In preparing a grievance or appeal, the aggrieved inmate may seek the assistance of a staff member or fellow inmate of the same population status. The inmate may state any claims he wishes to make regarding violations of Bureau directives, regulations, the Consent Decree, or other law. Claims of the violation of the Consent Decree must be raised pursuant to the procedure established by the Consolidated System before they may be addressed by any court. Moreover, notice shall be given to the Office of Chief Counsel of any grievance or appeal which alleges violations of the Consent Decree, and Chief Counsel shall in turn notify counsel for the plaintiff-class. With the exception of grievances raising issues already governed by other specified procedures, the Initial Review of an inmate grievance will consist of an investigation by an Inmate Grievance Coordinator, including an interview with the inmate and others having personal knowledge of the subject matter. Within ten (10) working days of the receipt of a grievance or appeal, the Inmate Grievance Coordinator must prepare a written response to the grievance including a brief rationale of his conclusions and any action taken or recommended. The Initial Review decision is final unless an appeal is received.
An inmate may appeal an unsatisfactory decision to the Superintendent, in writing, within five (5) days. The Superintendent must notify the inmate and other interested persons of his decision within ten (10) days after receiving the appeal. His
-•n

f
decision may consist of approval, disapproval, modification, reversal, remand or reassignment for further fact finding, end must include a brief statement of the reesons for the decision. Chief Counsel will be given notice of the disposition of any appeal of a matter in which a violation of the Consent Decree was alleged, and Chief Counsel must notify counsel for the plaintiff-class of thajt disposition.
An inmate or other affected person may obtain Final Review by appealing the disposition of an appeal from the Initial Review decision to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) within seven (7) days of receiving the decision. The CORC will consist of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Counsel or their designees. Final Review is not permitted until Initial Review and Appeal from Initial Review procedures have been complied with, except for good cause shown. The CORC will issue its decision within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of an appropriate appeal. If there is no consensus, the decision of the Commissioner of Correction will control. Chief Counsel will notify counsel for the plaintiff-class of the disposition of the Final Review of any matter in which a violation of the Consent Decree was alleged.
The directive establishing the Consolidated System provides that all proceedings pursuant to the directive are in the nature of settlement negotiations and will, therefore, be inadmissible before any court or other tribunal in support of any claim made against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any employee. It further provides that no resolution of a grievance offered as a result of the Consolidated System procedure shall be admissible before any court or other tribunal as an edmission of violation of the Consent Decree or any state or federal law.
As the defendants state in their, brief in support of their Motion, the Consolidated System "permits an inmate to seek redress of a policy or practice as soon as he is affected by it without having to wait to gather enough evidence to show that it

crosses, the threshold of being at minimum an institution-wide occurrence." (pp. 13-14). The Consolidated System will also correct specific flaws in the present system of which the inmates have complained. They have complained that the present system denies prompt and adequate attention to their grievances. They have also complained that the present system fails consistently in correcting problem situations brought to its attention. In addition, they have complained that under the complaint system the initial inmate grievance is seldom the grievance to which the complaint system responds. They have complained that few inmates, if any, are made aware of the procedures which must be used in the filing of a proper inmate complaint.
By remedying the complained of deficiencies in the present complaint system, the Consolidated System will encourage and facilitate the administrative resolution by the individual correctional institutions and by the Bureau of many of the inmate complaints which now give rise to civil rights and other civil actions brought by inmates. By providing an administrative grievance review process which is perceived as fair and effective, the Consolidated System will divert from the court system those inmate complaints which can and should be handled administratively, and will thus maximize the ability of the court to address those complaints which truly require resolution through the judicial process.
While the Consolidated System will address-all manner of inmate complaints, it should be noted that it will serve to distinguish those complaints containing allegations which meet all of the criteria for complaints which may be brought pursuant to the Consent Decree from those which do not, and, with regard to proper Consent Decree complaints, requires exhaustion of its procedures as a prerequisite to the bringing of a court action. It would seem, therefore, as an added value of this system that those complaints which are ultimately presented to the court will consist of clearly articulated claims raising specific issues properly belonging before the court as alleged violations of the Consent Decree, which, of course, is a decided improvement over matters as they now stand.

The terms of the proposed settlement also provide for major revisions in the ocedures which are followed by the correctional institutions in placing an inmate in sciplinary custody or administrative custody. The problems with the disciplinary hearing id administrative hearing process have been described by inmates testifying before me id at my interviews with inmates during visits to the institutions; those problems have een attested to in the complaint letters received from inmates, and specifically numerated in the plaintiffs' motion for contempt. And, this court should have no .iflieu!ty in taking notice of the civil rights actions filed by inmates which raise many ssues regarding disciplinary and administrative custody proceedings. The United States supreme Court has recognized as laudatory the promulgation of the regulations providing for the procedures which are presently followed in segregated custody hearings. In a recent case determining whether compliance with Pennsylvania's regulations governing segregated custody hearings was constitutionally required, the court noted that, "the creation of procedural guidelines to channel'the decision-making of prison officials is, in the view of many experts in the field, a salutary development." Hewitt v. Helms, No. 81-638, slip op. at 10 (February 22,1983). The proposed settlement makes several improvements in the already comprehensive procedural framework for disciplinary and administrative custody hearings'; notable and praiseworthy among those improvements is the establishment of positions for trained hearing examiners to replace the present Hearing Committees, as more fully described below.
The proposed settlement provides that the disciplinary proceedings shall be before a Hearing Committee which is composed of three (3) members: a Major or Captain of the Guard; a Casework Supervisor; and a School or Vocational Supervisor. The Hearing Committee panels are to be selected from a pool of nine (9) Hearing Committee members designated at each affected correctional institution, except for Graterford which shall designate twelve (12) members. The Hearing Committee members will receive in-service
~wm-

; in relevant areas of law by means of a curriculum developed jointly by the ants and counsel for the plaintiff-class. The position of Chairman of the Hearing ittee is abolished end in its place there will be a Hearing Committee Coordinator all be a Casework Supervisor whose duties will include determining the relevance and :ility of witnesses, and the extent of direct or cross examination of witnesses; g and explaining the charges to the charged inmate; announcing the decision of the ;g Committee and the rationale for it; and all other functions previously performed Chairman of the Hearing Committee. The proposed settlement terms provide that imber of a Hearing Committee panel may hold a position in which he directly ,'ises another panel member. Decisions are to be based on the concurrence of two (2) 2 three (3) Committee members whose votes shall all have equal weight. The record ; Committees' voting will not be disclosed to the inmate, except the vote countj ver, it will be forwarded to the Program Review Committee when such review Is :L The Hearing Committee panel cannot include any staff member who wrote or Dved the misconduct charge(s) or conducted the investigation in the case before it.
The Hearing Committee will be replaced by an individual "hearing examiner", in a year of the court's order approving the settlement, who will assume the duties and or,s:bilities of the Hearing Committee and its Coordinator, and who will be employed supervised directly by the Central Office of the Bureau. The hearing examiners will be ified and hired pursuant to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania civil service procedures, will receive training in the relevant areas of law by means of a curriculum developed tly by the defendants and counsel for the plaintiff-class.
The present misconduct procedures are modified as follows. The ranking officer duty, who is designated to be the shift, or watch commander, must review all ^conduct reports, which reports are to be delivered to the inmate by someone other than i charging staff member wherever practicable. The inmate is to receive Witness Request

nrnate Version Forms along with the misconduct reports. The Witness Request must be ned by 9:00 A.M. of the next working day to the block officer who shall deliver it to .earing coordinator. The Inmates Version Form should be brought to the hearing by the ie. The inmate shall be permitted to have the staff member who witnessed the alleged Deduct present at the hearing, or, ff no staff was an actual witness, he shall be itted to have the charging staff member present. Any inmate assisting the charged te shall have a reasonable opportunity to address the Hearing Committee or examiner.
The inmate will have the right to call three (3) witnesses in his behalf, and he be requested to make a statement regarding the relevancy and importance of the isted witnesses on the witness form. Relevant witnesses shall be produced unless the cticnal institution can establish to the satisfaction of the Hearing Committee or iner that the witness is unavailable, or that a countervailing security concern exists, tablish which the institution must present evidence that the requested witness has a -y of recent erratic, hostile or disruptive conduct on a number of occasions such that -esence would unduly disrupt the progress of the hearing. In the event that a requested :ss has no such history but exhibits a current state of mind which would lead to erratic, .3 or disruptive conduct at the hearing, the Hearing Committee or examiner will nelly examine him before the hearing to determine the suitability of presenting him in n at the hearing, and if the decision is against presenting the witness, may either nue the hearing until the witness can be safely produced, take a written statement him, or hear his testimony out of the presence of the charged inmate. Witnesses who it erratic, hostile or disruptive behaviour may be removed from the hearing. The te shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity to question any witness who has "ied egainst him, except in the case of testimony heard in camera. When information irting the misconduct charges is supplied by an informant whose identity should remain dential, the information provided by the informant, but not his identity, shall be

disclosed to the charged inmate during the hearing, unless the institution has reason to believe that disclosure of the information would reveal the informant's identity. Informant reliability must be established to the Hearing Committee or examiner by a preponderance of the evidence, and the inmate shall be present during the presentation of reliability evidence, unless the institution concludes ^that disclosure would jeopardize the institution's security, in which event, the evidence shall be presented m camera. No witnesses axe required where the inmate pleads guilty or waives his right to a hearing. All testimony must be under oath. Determinations of credibility ere at the discretion of the Hearing Committee or examiner, who shall make written findings of fact referring to the testimony of each witness.
If the inmate is acquitted, all records of the misconduct shall be expunged from his institutional record. If he is convicted he may appeal to the Program Review Committee on any of three (3) bases: insufficiency of the facts to support the verdict; disproportionality between the punishment and the offense; nonconformity of the procedures employed with the directive or the Consent Decree. The Program Review Committee may uphold, remand or uphold with modification the decision of the Hearing Committee or examiner, but may not increase the punishment imposed. The Program Review Committee's decision must be rendered within five (5) working days of receipt of an appeeL
The inmate may appeal the decision of the Program Review Committee to the Superintendent upon any of the same three (3) bases, and the Superintendent may make any disposition permitted to the Program Review Committee. His decision must be forwarded to the inmate within three (3) working days of his receipt of the appeaL A final appeal, on
i
the bases of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict or nonconformity of the procedures employed with the directive or the Consent Decree, may be made to the
11

attorney assigned as counsel to the Bureau in the Central Office. The proposed settlement elso revises the procedures to be followed where an
inmate is to be placed in administrative custody. It provides, first, that an inmate who has completed his disciplinary sentence shall be released and cannot then be continued in administrative custody unless the institution presents evidence to the Program Review
t
Committee that there is a valid security reason for continuing him in administrative custody. When an inmate is transferred to administrative custody from the general population, and the basis fcr his transfer is not an outstanding misconduct charge, a selfcommital or confinement under investigative status, he shall be provided with a hearing before the Program Review Committee, at which he has the right to be present, within six (6) days of his transfer. At that hearing the institution must present evidence to establish that there is a valid security reason to confine the inmate in administrative custody. A valid security reason exists when an inmate is a danger to others in the institution who cannot be protected by alternate measures, a danger to himself, the instigator of a disturbance, or likely to attempt escape. Commitment to administrative custody may only be for a specified period, after which the inmate is entitled to an additional hearing before he may be confined beyond the original period. In addition, the Program Review Committee must submit to the Superintendent a status report-detailing the reasons why continued administrative custody is necessary. If the Superintendent determines that those reasons are valid, the Program Review Committee will so notify the inmate. If he does not, he shall cause the Program Review Committee to schedule a continuation hearing at which the segregated inmate and the institution may present evidence. The inmate or the Superintendent may appeal to the Deputy Commissioner the decision of the Program Review Committee with regard to the placement or denial of placement of an inmate in administrative custody, and the Deputy Commissioner must rule on the appeal within two
12

(2) working days of receipt of the appeal. The complaints of inmates regarding the conduct of disciplinary and
administrative procedures are substantially addressed by the revisions in those procedures provided for by the proposed settlement. Those complaints h&ve included allegations thet inmates have not been allowed to question witnesses presented in support of the charges against them, and that the charged inmates arid their inmate assistants are sequestered during the testimony of witnesses supporting the misconduct charges, and are not given summaries of the testimony of those witnesses. They have also complained that they are not provided with a detailed summary of the Hearing Committee's decision or the rationale for the decision. They have complained that the Hearing Committee often refuses to call necessary witnesses and that the charging staff member is seldom present to read the charges against the inmate(s). They have complained that although inmate assistants are allowed to confer with the charged inmate during the hearing, the assistant is precluded from directly addressing the hearing panel which, in rendering its decision, rarely considers the inability of the charged inmate to adequately represent himself before the paneL The revisions in those procedures are also responsive to the inmates complaints that the defendants have transferred inmates from disciplinary custody to equivalent isolation in administrative custody for an indefinite period.
The proposed settlement also provides for changes in medical care for the Inmates. The civil service class for corrections infirmary supervisors is closed, and any civil service positions which become vacant are being filled by registered nurses. Within one (1) year, every corrections infirmary supervisor is to be trained and licensed as either a registered nurse or emergency medical technician; within two (2) years there will be positions established in each institution to have registered nurses on duty twenty-four (24) hours a day. These changes are responsive to the inmates1 complaints that immediate
13

medical attention is not available in emergency situations, and is not available to all inmfites with injuries or illness who require such emergency attention.
By the terms of the proposed settlement, changes also will be made in the law libraries. Inmates in the Restricted Housing Units of their institutions will have access to specified statutes and they may request copies of cases which shall be provided at no cost, which they may keep for up to one (1) month subject to'!demand, and limits in the number of copies.
In addition, the proposed settlement establishes guidelines for the conducting of cell searches. In random cell searches, the selection of the cell will take place at a location removed from the block where the search is to be performed, and shall be randomly made and performed by a staff member unassociated with the administration of any block or blocks where a search is to be conducted. These searches may not take place later than one (1) hour after the institution has been locked in for the evening.
The occupant of the cell selected shall be notified before the search by the block officer, and he must be given the option of remaining during the search. He will be asked to sign a record to show that he was present during the search, or to show that he desired to be absent. Material taken during the search will be noted on a property receipt,a copy of which will be supplied to the inmate. Confiscated items must be kept In a separately secured area until a determination of their disposition has been made.
Investigative cell searches must be approved by the ranking officer on duty urJess there are exigent circumstances. If a search is to be made without permitting the inmate to be present, it must be determined that his presence would pose an immediate threat to security, that emergency conditions exist, or that his presence would impair an ongoing investigation of criminal activity or of the violation of institutional regulations. The implementation of the new procedures which the proposed settlement would establish for the conducting of cell searches will eliminate the basis for the inmates' complaints that
14

their cells are searched routinely without their presence despite the lack of conditions justifying such in absentia searches.
The proposed settlement contains provisions governing the administrative action to be taken when contraband is discovered. It provides that the Class I Misconduct of
« possession of contraband will be modified in its definition of contraband, and it provides the new definition of contraband. It also provides that the possession of items not authorized for retention or receipt by inmates, but not one of the items specified in the definition of contraband, will be dealt with as a Class 2 Misconduct, for which the only sanction will be confiseetion.
The proposed settlement further provides that it shall not operate as an admission on the part of thedefendants regarding the truth of any of the allegations made in the plaintiffs' motion for contempt, and that the plaintiffs agree that any failure by the defendants to comply with it prior to its approval shall not in and of itself create a cause of action for any party. Nor will the proposed settlement create a private cause of action for any individual against any defendant.
However, the plaintiffs reserve the right to contest in this court at any time by any appropriate legal proceeding any institution-wide or system-wide pattern of failure or refusal by the defendants or their agents to follow the provisions of the proposed settlement. The settlement is not to form the basis for contempt proceedings for any failure or refusal which is less than an institution-wide or system-wide pattern- The settlement provides that the defendants may only be liable to any individual for damages for failure to comply with it if the alleged failure constitutes a violation of state or federal law or if the court imposes such damages as part of a contempt proceeding pursuant to the settlement.
Notice to the plaintiff-class of the proposed settlement was accomplished by means of a method proposed by counsel for the defendants, agreed to by counsel for the
15

plaintiff-class, and which I approved. Notices were posted on inmate bulletin boards at all affected institutions from November 22 to December 3, 1982, explaining the status of the case, and informing the inmates that copies of documents detailing the terms of the settlement proposals had been placed in the institution library for their review. The notice instructed that if the inmates desired to object to the proposed settlement or any of its terms, they had to file a written statement detailing the grounds for their objections with the Clerk of Court by December 3, 1982, and send copies to counsel for the defendants and for the plaintiff-class. The notice further said that any person who did not file objections would be deemed to have waived all objections. Letters of objection v;ere submitted, which I have reviewed.
In evaluating the terms of this proposed settlement, I have recognized that the law favors settlement agreements and that because such agreements are a means-of amicably resolving disputes they should be upheld whenever possible. Miller v. Republic National Life Insurance Company, 559 F.2d 426, 428 (5th Cir. 1977), citing Pearson v. Ecological Science Corp., 522 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1975). In a class action the proposed settlement must satisfy the two-fold requirement that it be fair, adequate and reasonable, and that it be arrived at with no fraud or collusion. Id. While supervising the negotiation" which led to this proposed settlement, I have been mindful of the prohibition egainst the court attempting to modify the terms of the proposed settlement agreement or participating in any bargaining for better terms. Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 654. 655 n.l (2d Cir. 1982) citing In Re General Motors Corporation Engine Interchange Litigation, 594 F.2d 1106, 1125 n.24 (7th Cir.) cert, denied, 444 U.S. 870, 100 S.Ct 146 (1979).
I have given comprehensive consideration to all of the factors which are generally relevant to the determination of whether a class action settlement should be approved, including, inter alia, the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation;
16

the reaction of the class to the settlement; the stage of the proceedings; and the risks of establishing liability, City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, 495 F.2d 448, 452-463 (2d Cir. 1974). Moreover, I conclude that the class members have had notice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 23(e). That notice has more than satisfied the requirement that ^the notice given must be 'reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the ection and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' " Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 120 (8th Cir. 1975), quoting, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). That notice has also reasonably conveyed the required information end afforded those interested a reasonable time to respond. Id.
Bearing in mind that it is not the function of the court to substitute its «
judgment for that of the parties in reaching agreement on the proposed settlement, I have, nevertheless, felt compelled, because of the mandate of the order referring the matter to me, to go into some detail in analyzing its provisions, and to determine the extent to which it addresses the inmates1 complaints. In the evaluation of the proposed settlement, I have considered the complaints of the inmates as stated in the Motion for Contempt and otherwise, their testimony during the hearings before me, and their comments made during my interviews with them at the institutions. I have also considered the arguments of the defendants in support of their motion end the plaintiffs' objections to the proposed settlement, as well as the defendants' specific responses in their motion to the objections filed by members of the plaintiff-class. I am convinced that the proposed settlement is the product of arms-length negotiations by counsel who have aggressively end zealously represented the interests of their clients. I conclude that it is responsive to the complaints of the inmates, and that it is fair, adequate and reasonable, and I endorse it without reservation. My recommendation is attached hereto.
17

r
RECOMMENDATION AND NOW, this 9~ - day of May, 1983, it is recommended that the defendants' Motion for Approval of Stipulation for Dismissal of Outstanding Allegations of Contempt and for Dismissal of Motion for Contempt be granted, and that the compromise of the plaintiffs' action for contempt be approved and the action be dismissed pursuant to the terms included in the outstanding Stipulation, filed December 29, 1981, and modified by en emendment to the Stipulation, filed July 31, 1982. It is further recommended that pursuant to the terms of the compromise (settlement) that when the administrative procedure for inmate grievances is adopted, members of the plaintiff-class must exhaust that procedure before filing with the court any allegations of violations of the Consent Decree and/or any allegations of contempt.
WILLIAM F. HALL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
18

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, ET AL. :

CIVIL ACTION

V.

MILTON SHAPP, ET AL.

:

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp
HHIIM

NOS. 70-3054 71-513
71-1006

BLED.

ORDER

AND NOW, this l| — day of V\!\AM

1983, after review of

the Report end Recommendation of Magistrate William F. Hall, Jr., it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The court finds that the terms of settlement proposed are fair and

reasonable. Compromise of the plaintiffs' action for contempt is hereby APPROVED, and

the action is DISMISSED pursuant to the terms included in the Stipulation for Dismissal of

Outstanding Allegations of Contempt, filed December 29, 19S1, and modified by an

amendment to the stipulation, filed July 31, 1982.

3. Pursuant to the terms of settlement, when the administrative procedure for

inmate grievances described by Section I. B. of the Stipulation is adopted, members of the

plaintiff-class must exhaust that procedure before filing with the court any allegations of

violations of the Consent Decree and/or any allegations of contempt.

BY THE COURT:

& i\ Mi s

JOSEPH S. LORD, III

S.J.

 
 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

• I 111 111 III I I I I I I III I HII HIM • • ! • ! Bill I
PC-PA-005-010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN -DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, et a l .

-v-
MILTON SHAP?, et al.

M

K

CIVIL ACTION NOS. 70-3054
71-513 71-1006 70-2545

A N

U M

L. '_
cm;
MAY 1319??

Lord, S.J.

May II , 19 83

These actions are consolidated class actions, the first of which was filed-on September 15, 1970, and the others of which were filed on varying dates thereafter. The actions originally purported to be on behalf of all state prisoners in Pennsylvania and were directed at various facets of all state prisons in Pennsylvania. The actions were concluded by a Consent Decree which was executed on May 22, 1978.
Since that time, there has been a more or less constant stream of complaints from prisoners of violations of the Consent Decree. Some of these were purely alleged individual civil rights violations and were not covered by the terms of the Consent Decree. Others may well have been either institution-wide or state-wide and therefore in violation of the Consent Decree's state-wide reach. Some of these alleged violations have been accompanied by motions for conterr.pt. The result has been a morass of intermingled individual complaints
.i-ITERED: l(

r n:• / r\ r- • r. T
•Ml

(which would properly have been .brought as individual actions in the proper district), state-wide or institution-wide complaints, motions for contempt, and actions for damages.
United States Magistrate William F. Hall, Jr. undertook to cooperate with counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the Attorney General of Pennsylvania to settle all of these differences once and for all. After protracted negotiations and discussions the parties have finally arrived at a settle• ment which disposes of all of the outstanding complaints. I have reviewed the terms of the settlement. I find that the prisoners' constitutional rights are fully protected and in some instances, the agreements by the State go beyond constitutional mandates. I have therefore concluded that the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable and I will adopt the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Hall.
I also take this opportunity to commend in the strong• est possible terms, John T. Snavely, II, Esquire, counsel for
the plaintiffs; Sherree L. Sturgis, Esquire, of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections; and Francis R. Filipi, Esquire, of the Attorney General's office, for their singular and outstanding cooperation, dedication, and wisdom in arriving at this Decree which is of manifest importance to all citizens of this Commonwealth.

JoseVVhhlS. Lord, III -"

S.J.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IMPRISONED CITIZI:NS UNION, ET. AL : CIVIL ACTION

vs. MILTON SHAPP, ET. AL.

Nos. 70-3054 70-2545 71-513

III IIII III IlllllIlllll Iimll plriiislioilnlleldllliClliitniziuemnsmUiInIIiIoIInmviI.I

Shapp
Hil III!Illl

*

MEMORANDUM

71-1006

PC-PA-005-011
DUBOIS, J.

APRIL 27,1998

This matter is before the Court on defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ["PLRA" or "the Act"], Pub. L. No. 104-134,110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 3626), filed September 23, 1997 (Doc. No. 775), plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Preliminary Relief and in the Alternative to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Unconstitutional or to Certify the Transfer of This Action's Consent Decree with Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, filed September 24, 1997 (Doc. No. 776), plaintiffs' Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 8, 1997 (Doc. No. 778), and plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt, filed October 28, 1997 (Doc. No. 797).' In addition to the submissions of plaintiffs and defendants, the Court has considered the position of the United States government which intervened in the case
1 The Amended Motion for Contempt supplements plaintiffs''Motion to Have Defendants and-Tlicir Agents Held in Civil Contempt. The Court will hereinafter refer to these two Motions as plaintiffs' contempt motions.

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) and submiUed a Memorandum of Law Concerning the" Constitutionality of the Challenged Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Doc. No. 791). Oral argument was heard on November 19, 1997. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act at issue are constitutional. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief, deny plaintiffs' Motion to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act Unconstitutional and deny plaintiffs' motion to Certify the Transfer of the Consent Decree and Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Court will also deny plaintiffs' contempt motions.
I. BACKGROUND
1. History of the Case Between 1970 and 1971 four related cases challenging the constitutionality of conditions and policies at the seven Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions ("SCIs") then in operation2 were filed in this Court. On May 22,1978, after those suits had been consolidated and a plaintiff class certified, then-Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III approved a Consent Decree which settled the majority of issues raised by the plaintiff class. At that time, the Court expressly retained jurisdiction over the Decree. Since then, numerous issues
: SCI Gratcrford, SCI Muncy, SCI Rockvicw, SCI Huntingdon, SCI Dallas, SCI Camp Hill, and SCI Pittsburgh.

have been addressed in subsequent-opinions of the Court and various stipulations and amendments to the Decree have been approved by the Court.3
In its current form, the Consent Decree and its amendments govern'many aspects of the daily operations of the seven SCIs. The Decree required defendants to establish a code of conduct specifying both that behavior which was punishable - a misconduct - and the type of punishment which could be imposed. The Decree also gives inmates certain rights when charged with a misconduct, including written notice, a hearing, the right to prepare and be assisted in presenting a defense, and the right to written findings. Among its detailed procedures, the Decree governs such things as: the handling of inmate mail; the right of inmates to obtain and keep outside publications; minimum inmate health care requirements; the use of force, restraints and mace by prison officials; the information which must be provided to new inmates; the procedures for conducting cell searches; the right of inmates to visitors; the minimum inmate housing conditions; and the right of inmates to wear civilian clothing.
In 1980, the plaintiffs filed a contempt motion in which they alleged that defendants' were not complying with a number of the provisions of the Consent Decree. On December 30,1980, with the assistance of United States Magistrate Judge William F. Hall, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the motion for contempt and with the further assistance of Magistrate Judge Hall, the 1980 Stipulation was amended by an agreement of the parties and eventually approved by Judge Lord on May 11, 1983 [hereinafter the "1983 Amendment to Stipulation"]. Some of the procedures established by the Consent Decree
J These include a 1980 Stipulation (approved January 8, 1980), a 1981 Stipulation (approved May 13, • 1933), a 1981 Amendment to Stipulation (approved May 13, 1983), and a 1982 Agreement (approved May 13, 1983).

were modified by the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation, principally the grievance and misconduct procedures. The 1983 Amendment to Stipulation also addressed issues involving medical care, inmate law libraries, cell search procedures and administrative detention.
The current round of litigation began when defendants filed a Motion to Terminate, seeking to end their obligations under the Consent Decree pursuant to the termination provisions of thePLRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2)'. Plaintiffs countered with multiple filings: the first seeks to have the PLRA declared unconstitutional or to have the case transferred to the Commonwealth Court; the others seek to have defendants held in civil contempt.
2. Issues Presented The first, and primary, issue presented is whether the termination provisions of the PLRA are constitutional. Plaintiffs have mounted a multi-prong constitutional attack on these provisions, alleging that they violate the separation of powers embodied in Article III, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the equal protection rights inherent in the Fifth Amendment, and, in a passing reference, the Tenth Amendment's reservation of unenumerated powers to the states. If the Court finds that the termination provisions survive these challenges, it must decide whether, under the PLRA, defendants have satisfied the requirements for termination. Next, the Court must turn to the question of how plaintiffs' contempt motions interact with the PLRA's termination provisions and defendants right to terminate the Decree. Plaintiffs argue that even if the termination provisions are constitutional, defendants' contempt requires this court to stay application of those provisions, either by holding defendants' Motion to Terminate in abeyance or dismissing

it until the contempt is purged; plaintiffs premise this argument on the Court's inherent
contempt power. Alternatively, plaintiffs' seek to bar defendants from proceeding under the
equitable doctrine of "unclean hands." Defendants respond that there is no authority for
such action and reiterate their position that the Court should end its supervision of the
Consent Decree and its modifications by ordering termination of the Decree, Finally, if
. defendants are entitled to relief, the Court must decide what is appropriate:
a. The PLRA's Termination Provisions
The termination provisions of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), recite that
defendants are "entitled to immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief
was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is
narrowly drawn; extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right."4 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), a court may not terminate relief if it finds that there is a "current and ongoing violation of the Federal right"5 and that the relief is
narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary and is the least intrusive means
possible to correct the violation. (Plaintiffs in this case have expressly declined to
attempt to establish that there is a "current and ongoing violation" of a federal right.)
Moreover, the court must "promptly rule on any motion to modify or terminate
* Prior to enactment of the PLRA, it is unlikely iliac a court would have made such findings in any case involving a consent decree. No law prior to ihc PLRA required such findings and because a consent decree embodies an agreement between Ihc parties, there would have been no need for such findings. This case is no exception: no findings meeting the standards of the PLRA were made with respect to the Consent Decree or its amendments. 5 On November 27, 1997, the PLRA was amended by Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997) which, among other provisions, replaced "current or ongoing violation" -with "current and ongoing violation." Congress provided dial llic amendments "sluill take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to pending cases." Id. at § 123(b).

prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions'." l± at § 3626(e)(l).* Prospective relief is defined as "all relief other than compensatory monetary damages," id § at 3626(g)(7) and relief expressly includes "consent decrees." 14 at § 3626(g)(9).
b. Background of the Contempt.Mations Of particular importance to the current contempt motions is the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation. Plaintiffs' contempt motions involve the issue of whether provisions in the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation bind defendants to specific time lines for the resolution of prisoner grievances and misconducts. The 1983 Amendment to Stipulation states that "[defendants shall within 60 days of the approval of this Amendment submit to counsel for the plaintiff-class, a proposal for an administrative grievance procedure for the processing of allegations by any member of the plaintiff-class . . . . " 1983 Amendment to Stipulation % I.B.I. In addition, the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation clearly details procedures for misconduct proceedings, including the requirement that the "Program Review Committee shall render its decision within five (5) working days of receipt of an appeal" and that the Superintendent must forward his decision to the inmate within three working days of his receipt of an appeal of the Program Review Committee's decision.
In a Report and Recommendation dated May 5,1983, Magistrate Judge Hall made detailed findings with respect to, and recommended approval of, the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation. Included in those findings was a lengthy discussion of the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System submitted by defendants pursuant to the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation and the time line for this review; the time line required the
: Under the November 27, 1997 amendments, parties iruiy now bring a mandamus action "for any failure to issue n prompt r u l i n g . . . " Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123(;ij(3)(A) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(l)).

Inmate Grievance Coordinator to respond within ten days to a grievance; thereafter an
inmate was permitted five days to appeal a decision to the Superintendent who then had
to reach his or her own decision within ten days of the appeal. The Superintendent's
decision was further appealable within seven days to the three-person Central Office
Review Committee ("COR.C") which had twenty-one days to reach a decision. This
system, and these time lines, were codified in DC-ADM 804 and remained in force until
November 1, 1997. See Stipulation of Uncontested Facts U 25. Magistrate Judge Hall's
Report and Recommendation was approved and adopted by Judge Lord by Order dated May 11,1983.7
Plaintiffs contend in their contempt motions that the time lines are binding on
defendants, that defendants have failed to abide by the time lines, and that that failure
constitutes contempt on the part of defendants. In response, defendants argue that they
are not bound by the grievance procedures set forth in the Report and Recommendation
but only by those procedures contained in the body of the 1983 Amendment to
Stipulation itself which does not include the details of the Grievance Review System.
They have also stipulated that "[fjrom January 1,1996, through the middle of 1997, the
defendants and their agents have failed in a significant number of instances to respond to
inmate grievances and appeals therefrom within the time frames described in Magistrate
[Judge] Hall's Report and Recommendation." Stipulation of Uncontested Facts, ^ 24.
1 The Order of May 11, 1983 was signed by Judge Lord. Defendants liavc noted, however, iluit neither th: Court, the Clerks office nor any party have a copy of the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation which bears the signature of Judge Lord, although all copies of the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation do bear the signatures of the party representatives. Defendants suggest Uuit the failure of Judge Lord to sign the Amendment to Stipulation casts its legitimacy into question. The Court rejects this argument. All parties have, since 1983, treated the Amendment to Stipulation as binding; all parties signed it; Magistrate Judge Hall clearly recommended that it be approved and Judge Lord just as clearly approved it. The Court shall, therefore, treat it as a binding amendment to the Consent Decree.

As of November 1,-1997; defendants amended DC-AJDM 804 to require only one
member of CORC to participate in any given appeal. They argue that this step will
streamline the grievance procedure and thus will benefit the plaintiff-class by increasing the prison authority's response time to grievances.8 Plaintiffs contend that defendants
may not change these procedures because they are bound by the time lines detailed in
Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation. •
Defendants also acknowledge that "[fjrom January 1, 1996, through the middle of
1997, there have been instances where defendants and their agents have failed to respond
to inmate misconduct appeals within the time delineated in Magistrate Judge Hall's
Report and Recommendation." Stipulation of Uncontested Facts ^ 31. Defendants add
that the procedures outlined by Magistrate Judge Hall exceed those recommended by the
American Correctional Association ("ACA"), ii, atffij27-30, and that they intend to
amend the procedures and bring them into conformity with the ACA standards if the
Consent Decree is terminated. Id. at T{ 32. Defendants further insist that the instances of
non-compliance with the misconduct time lines do not amount to a system or institution-
wide violation and thus, under the terms of the consent decree, plaintiffs may not seek contempt sanctions.9
! Plaintiffs initially agreed to this new streamlined procedure, but withdrew their agreement because of concerns that the proposed procedure would limit the right of inmates to appeal adverse decisions to the Commonwealth Court under Kisner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 683 A.2d 353, 355-56 <Pa. Commw. 1996) (holding that the Central Office Review Committee performed "stale-wide policy making functions" and thus its decisions arc appealable to the Commonwealth Court). For the reasons discussed in Part III of Uiis Memorandum, the Court will not address this issue. 5 The Consent Decree provides that "[p]!aintiffs... reserve the right to contest in this Court, at any time, by any appropriate legal proceeding, any institution or system wide pattern of failure or refusal by the defendants or their agents or employees to follow the provisions of this Consent Decree." Consent Decree 1i XIX (emphasis added). The Decree also states that the "Decree slml! not create a private cause of action in any individual against any of the defendants. Nor, except as provided in paragraph XIX above, shall this decree provide a basis for contempt proceedings." Consent Decree \ XXIII.

In addition to the alleged Failure of defendants to abide by the time frames set forth in the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation and Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation, plaintiffs seek to prevent defendants from changing the regulation governing what type of clothing inmates may wear. The regulation in force until " November 26, 1997 allowed inmates to wear various types of civilian clothing, including T-shirts and sweatshirts with commercial logos. See DC-ADM 815; Stipulation of Uncontested Facts U6. The new regulation will effectively limit inmates to a narrow range of approved clothing that is either white or cocoa brown and which does not display any logo, trademark or brand name. See. Stipulation of Uncontested Facts ^ 16. The consequence is that prisoners were required to dispose of those clothes in their possession which did not satisfy the new regulation before that regulation went into effect on November 26, 1997. Possession of non-conforming clothes became punishable on December 26, 1997. Id, at U18.
Plaintiffs seek to have defendants held in contempt on the ground that the new clothing regulation violates the original Consent Decree. With respect to that issue, the Consent Decree provides that "[defendants shall permit residents to wear civilian clothing when the residents are housed in general population except to the extent that the superintendent of each institution requires institutional issue to be worn for work. However, defendants reserve the right to require residents to wear specific articles of clothing issued solely for the purpose of visitation during a resident's presence in the visiting areas of the institution. Furthermore, defendants reserve the right to impose reasonable regulations with respect to civilian clothing on the basis of safety, sanitary and security considerations." Consent Decree ^| XVII.

After the escape of six prisoners on January 8, 1997, Commissioner of
Corrections Martin Horn released a Report detailing the causes of, and concerns relating
to, that escape. See I d at ^ 9-14. The report detailed "Primary Causes of Escape".and
"security lapses that allowed escape." The parties have stipulated that "[t]he issue of
inmate access to civilian clothing is listed only thereafter in the report as a concern
related to the escape." Id. at ^ 14. Defendants cite this security concern as a principal
reason for the change in clothing policy.10
Plaintiffs also seek to have defendants held in contempt based on defendants1
alleged failure to provide inmates access to health care through sick calls on weekends.
The Consent Decree provides that at "all Bureau of Corrections facilities which provide
inpatient treatment for inmates, the Bureau shall provide twenty-four (24) hour medical
care to such inmates.... [And] [t]here will be daily sick call at all institutions by a
properly trained health professional." Appendix A to Consent Decree, ^ 4-5.
Initially, because counsel for the plaintiff class lacked evidence to support the
weekend sick call claim, it was voluntarily withdrawn. After the hearing on the pending
motions, however, members of the plaintiff class filed Plaintiffs' Objections to Portions
10 Six members of the plaintiff class- Jon E. Yount, David S. Kopac, Derek S. Smith, Guy Bicking, James Alan Romberger, and Kenneth W. Teatcr - submitted Plaintiffs' Objections to Portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts," filed December 16, 1997 (Doc. No. 828) in which they alleged that "agents" for the defendants delayed their receipt of the Stipulation of Uncontested Facts. As a result, they could not timely inform their counsel of alleged errors in the Stipulation. They have two principal sets of objections. The first is that there arc discrepancies and errors in the facts regarding the clothing regulations. These alleged discrepancies and errors arc used to support an argument thai defendants luvc amended the clothing regulations, not as a safely measure, but, because the newly required clothing is manufactured atw correctional institution, as a fiscal one. Plaintiffs' counsel did not advance this argument and h:is not moved to amend the contempt motions. By separate Order dated April 27, 1998, the Court has overruled this first set of objections. The second principal set of objections asserted by the above-named plaintiffs involves the conduct of sick calls - addressed in more detail below in the body of the Memorandum. At the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the Court has included this claim in its consideration of plaintiffs' contempt motions. Sec I i

of the "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts," filed December 16* 1997 (Doc. No. 828). In this filing, three members, John M. Payne, Stanley J. Hertzog and James (Sonny) Watson, stated in affidavits that in the past, it had been the defendants' practice to provide sick calls on a daily basis. Given this new information, counsel for plaintiffs' class seeks both to reinstate the contempt claim based on inadequate health care and to, have the affidavits introduced into evidence. The Court granted the requested relief.11'
3. Conclusion-Summary The Court has carefully considered both the oral arguments and written submissions of the parties and concludes that the termination provisions of the Prison . Litigation Reform Act are constitutional. As such, because the requirements of those provisions are met, the Court will terminate the relief provided by the Consent Decree and its amendments. The Court also concludes that it should take this action regardless of whether defendants are currently violating provisions of the Consent Decree. Therefore, to the extent plaintiffs seek coercive sanctions - that is, sanctions which force defendants to comply with the terms of the Consent Decree - the Court need not, and will not', reach the issue of whether defendants are in contempt. To the extent, however, that plaintiffs seek compensatory sanctions - that is, sanctions ordering defendants to compensate plaintiffs for the loss of their civilian clothing - the Court finds that defendants have not violated the provisions of the Consent Decree governing inmate clothing.
" The Court granted the requested relief by separate Orders dated April 27, 1998.

H. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF, THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT
Plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the'termination provisions of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act on many grounds. They principally argue that the PLRA:

violates separation of powers; denies due process; and abridges the right of inmates to equal protection of the law.12 The Court examines each of these grounds below. First,

however, it must address a preliminary issue. •

•

•

Plaintiffs argue that the Court must examine the statute as a whole in determining

whether it is constitutional. It would be improper, they contend, to examine the

termination provisions outside the context of the other provisions - such as the limits on

federally enforceable settlements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(l)(A), 3626(c), on the duration

of relief, id. at 3626(b), on preliminary injunctions, id. at 3626(a)(2), and on the right of

prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to name just a few. This

impropriety exists, they argue, because, while any one provision might withstand

constitutional scrutiny, when taken together, the PLRA's provisions unfairly burden

prison inmates and are thus unconstitutional. Plaintiffs cite Romer v. Evans. — U.S. —,

—, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1994) for the proposition that courts, when determining whether a

statute measures up to constitutional norms, should look at the entire statute.

The Court rejects the approach advanced by plaintiffs. It will not examine the

constitutionality of the PLRA in its entirety. Romer involved a facial challenge to an
11 To date, six circuits have examined similar attacks on the constitutionality of llic PLRA. Five of ihe six have rejected arguments like those presented by plaintiffs in the case at bar. Sec Hndix v. Johnson. 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998); Gavin v, Bronstad. 122 F.3d 1031, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 1997); Doiman v. Sintilclnrv. 129 F.3d 1424, 1427 f H * Cir. 1997); Inmalcs of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse. 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (I" Cir. 1997); Plvlcr v. Moore. 100 F.3d 365, 372 (4* Cir. 1996). The Second Circuit, although holding in ihc face of similar arguments that the PLRA is constitutional, did so only after construing the language of the termination provision as-requiring only termination of relief, not of ihc decree itself. Sec Benjamin v. Jncobson. 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 1997), rch'c; held en bane February 25, 1998. The Third Circuit has yet to speak to these issues.

entire statute and the Supreme Court therefore examined the statute as a whole. See ]4 at 1623; see also Douganv. Sincletarv. 129F.3d 1424. 1427 n. 15 (11th Cir 1997). In this case, only the termination provisions of the PLRA are at issue, and the Court will address only those provisions.
The Court turns, therefore, to plaintiffs' first argument: that the termination provisions violate Article Ill's separation of powers both by reopening a final judgment and prescribing a rule of decision.
A. Separation of Powers "In republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, predominates." The Federalist No. 51, 350 (James Madison) (J.E. Cooke ed., 1961). This truism has meant that the "Court has declined to adopt formalistic and unbending r u l e s . . . . [in order not to] unduly constrict Congress' ability to take needed and innovative action pursuant to its Article I powers." Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schorr 478 U.S. 833, 851 (1986) (holding that act giving Commodities Futures Trading Commission power to entertain state law counterclaims does not violate Article III) (citations omitted). At the same time, however, a court must examine legislation "with an eye to the practical effect that the congressional action will have on the constitutionally assigned role of the federal judiciary . . . [and must consider] the extent to which the 'essential attributes of judicial power' are reserved to Article III courts... the origins and importance of the right to be adjudicated, and the concerns that drove Congress to depart from the requirements of Article III." Id, (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue first that the PLRA is unconstitutional because the termination provisions violate separation of powers. After careful examination, however, the Court

must conclude - like six ctrcutts'feefore it -that the PLRA neither reopens a final judgment nor prescribes a rule of decision in violation of the Constitution.
1. Reopening Final Judgments Plaintiffs contend that by providing for the termination of consent decrees, Congress has violated separation of powers - unconstitutionally encroaching on. the judiciary - by reopening a final judgment. The proposition that Congress may not constitutionally reopen final judgments was recently articulated by the Supreme Court in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms. Inc.. 514 U.S. 211 (1995). That case involved an earlier decision, Lampf. Pleva. Lipkind. Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson. 501 U.S. 350 (1991), in which the Supreme Court adopted a national limitations period applicable to civil actions under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unhappy with the result of this uniform statute of limitations, Congress enacted a statute which required courts to . reinstate § 10(b) actions which had been pending before Lampf. but were then dismissed as a result of the Lampf limitations period. Plaut's case was dismissed as untimely in accordance with Lampf and no appeal was taken; only after Congress enacted the new statute did Plaut seek reinstatement of his case.
In Plaut, the Court concluded that Congress "exceeded its authority by requiring the federal courts to exercise 'the judicial Power of the United States,' U.S. Const., Art. Ill, § 1, in a manner repugnant to the text, structure and traditions of Article III." Plaut at 218. Congress did so by "retroactively commanding the federal courts to reopen final judgments," ia\ at 219, because once a judgment has "achieved finality . . . a judicial decision becomes the last word of the judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy, and congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law

.applicable to that very case was something other than1what the court said it was." Ia\ a t ' 227.
That Congress may not reopen a final judgment is a premise of law which cannot be questioned. The issue presented, though, is whether a consent decree is a "final judgment" for separation of powers purposes. Plaintiffs rely on Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367 (1992), for the proposition that a consent decree "is an agreement that the parties'desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees." Id. at 378. As such, the Rufo Court said that "a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires." Id. at 391.
It should be noted, however, that these broad statements of law in Rufo were made in the context of a discussion of the circumstances that permit a court to modify a consent decree: In general, a "party seeking modification of a consent decree may meet its initial burden by showing... a significant change either in factual conditions or law." Rufo at 384. Indeed, a "consent decree must of course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of [its] obligations has become impermissible under federal law." Id. at 388; see alsp Aeostini v. Felton. 117 S.Ct. 1997, 2006 (1997) ("A court errs when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of... changes" in decisional or statutory law); Landeraf v. USI Film Prods.. 511 U.S. 244,273 (1994) ("When the intervening statute authorizes or affects the propriety of prospective relief, application of the new provision is not retroactive."); System Federation No. 91 v. Wriuht. 364 U.S. 642, 652
(1961) (a "court will not continue to exercise its powers... [under a decree] when a change in law or facts has made inequitable what was once equitable"). In contrast to

prospective relief which may be: modified, ari'award of monetary damages is tnaly final, regardless of changes in the underlying law. As the Court put it in Plaut. a judgment is final for separation of powers purposes when it is the "last word of the judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy." Plaut at 227. A. consent decree simply is not the "last word" of a court on a particular case or controversy. .
The distinction - between prospective relief and final awards - is best demonstrated in the Supreme Court's early decision in Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co.. 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421 (1855) [hereinafter "Wheeling Bridge"]. In that case, the Supreme Court held that Congress could change the law such that the Court was required to end an injunction it had ordered in an earlier case.
Wheeling Bridge arose out of an earlier case in which the Supreme Court had held that a bridge was a public nuisance because it interfered with navigable waters and ordered the bridge raised or removed. After this decision, the bridge was destroyed in a storm; when rebuilding commenced, Pennsylvania sought enforcement of the prior order . in an effort to prevent reconstruction of the bridge. In the interim, however, Congress had passed a law making the bridge part of a post-road which could not be interfered with by riparian navigation. This, the Court held in Wheeling Bridge, was well within the powers of Congress although it dictated an outcome different from the one the Court had reached in the earlier case, namely,, that the prior injunction could not be enforced and the bridge could therefore be rebuilt.
Plaintiffs argue that Wheeling Bridge makes a distinction between "public" rights and "private" rights. Congress, they say, has the power to alter prospective relief only where it has plenary power over the underlying law, v/here, in other words, the

underlying law concerns a "public" right". According to plaintifFs, because the consent decree in this case is premised on the constitutional rights of inmates, private rights, Congress may not alter the scope of the Consent Decree. This argument derives from the Supreme Court's statement in Wheeling Bridge that: "it is urged, that the act of congress cannot have the effect and operation to annul the judgment of the court already rendered, or the rights determined thereby.... This, as a general proposition, is certainly not to be denied, especially as it respects adjudication upon the private rights of parties. When they have passed into judgment the right becomes absolute, and it is the duty of the court to enforce it." Wheeling Bridge at 431 (emphasis added). That is far from a holding that the rationale of Wheeling Bridge is limited to those cases involving a public right.
The "public" rights doctrine was explored by the Supreme Court in Northern Pipeline Const. V. Marathon Pipe Line Co.. 458 U.S. 50 (1982) in which it was explained that the "doctrine . . . draws upon the principal of separation of powers, and a historical understanding that certain prerogatives were reserved to the political Branches of Government." Id. at 67. The doctrine allows Congress to allocate certain types of adjudicatory authority to non-Article III courts hearing cases involving those public rights issues historically "reserved to the political" branches. See, e^g., Murray's Lessee v. Hobofen Land & Improvement Co;, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856); Crowell v. Benson. 285 U.S. 22 (1932). While Wheeling Bridge did, in part, rely on this public
rights/private rights distinction, the doctrine has no place in the instant case. The distinction made in Wheeling Bridce which is important to this case - and
one to which the Supreme Court referred when discussing absolute "private" rights - was the distinction between prospective relief and money damages:

Now, we agree, if the remedy in this case had been .an action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff For damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the power of congress. It. would have depended, not upon the public right of the free navigation of the river, but upon the judgment of the court. The decree before us, so far as it respect the costs adjudged, stands upon the same principles, and is unaffected by the subsequent law. But that part of the decree, directing the abatement of the obstruction, is executor)1, a continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins the defendants against any reconstruction or continuance, Now, whether it is a future existing or continuing obstruction depends upon the question whether or not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in the mean time, since the decree, this right has been modified by the competent authority, so that the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the court cannot be enforced.
Wheeling Bridge. 59 U.S. at 431-32 (emphasis added). It is this distinction which
ultimately determines the right of Congress to change the law in such a way that relief
must be altered or modified. The issue then- is not the source or validity of the legal rule
producing the judgment, "but rather the immunity from legislative abrogation of those
judgments themselves." Plaut at 230. The Court relied on this distinction in Plaut when it
rejected the argument that Wheeling Bridge was precedent for Congress* right to reopen
judgments. The Court noted in Plaut that the statute at issue in Wheeling Bridge "altered
the prospective effect of injunctions entered by Article III courts" and that "nothing in
our holding today calls [that decision]... into question." Plaut at 232.
For purposes of this case then, the only meaningful distinction is that between
judgments ordering prospective relief- subject to alteration when Congress changes the
applicable law - and judgments awarding damages - which cannot be reopened'by
Congress, The consent decree in this case provides only for prospective relief. Congress
has changed the law governing the consent decree.13 The Court therefore concludes that
13 Plaintiffs contend that because the Consent Decree settled a suit cluillcnging ilic constitutionality of prison practices, Congress in establishing icrininniion procedures, is altering the constitutional basis for the

the PLRA does not unconstitutionally reopen a final judgment. See Dougan. 129 F.3d at 1427 ("Consent decrees are final judgments but 'not the last word of the judicial department'" and are thus not final judgments for separation of powers purposes); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (8* Cir. 1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (1st Cir. 1997).14
2. Rule of Decision
In 1788 Alexander Hamilton wrote that "the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments . . . . " The Federalist No. 78, 526 (Alexander Hamilton) (J.E. Cooke ed., 1961). This principle is central to our constitutional system of government. Accordingly, Congress may not tell a court how to decide a specific case. See United States v. Klein. 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). However, Congress has a great deal of freedom under Article III to limit the jurisdiction of lower courts, see, g ^ , Sheldon v. Sill. 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850) ("[Hjaving a right to prescribe, Congress may withhold from any court of its creation jurisdiction of any of the enumerated controversies."), and, more importantly for the
relief awarded, which it may not do. The Court rejects this argument. Congress has not attempted to alter the constitutional basis of relief; indeed, under the PLRA plaintiffs are free to establish violations of a federal right which includes constitutional rights. They have not done so in this case. 11 Plaintiffs urge the Court to examine the liistory of Article 111, as Justice Scalia did in Plant, and argue thai by doing so, it must conclude tliai the intent of the Framcrs was precisely to avoid tlie type oflegislative entanglement in the judiciary as is represented by the PLRA. Indeed, it is true tliat the "sense of sharp necessity to separate the legislative from the judicial power, prompted by the crescendo of legislative interference with private judgments of the courts, triumphed among the Framcrs of the new Federal Constitution." Plant. 514 U.S. at 220. The abuses of prc-Rcvolutionary legislatures, however, were of the type found in Plant: legislative reversals of final judicial decisions. The Court cannot find a compelling reason in this, albeit fascinating, history to alter its conclusion that the Consent Decree is not a fiiuil judgment for separation of powers purposes.

purposes of this case, Congress-has the freedom to establish standards by which a court judges a case. See, e ^ , Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Snc'y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992).
It is true that the Constitution "commands that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded, and it provides clear institutional protections for that independence," Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.. 458 U.S. 50, 60 (1982), because the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist No. 47,324 (James Madison) (J.E. Cooke ed., 1961). Thus, it is the prerogative of the judiciary to declare "what the law is," and apply that law to the facts before it. Marburv v. Madison. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). This clear delineation of powers was the basis for the Supreme Court's holding that Congress had overstepped its constitutional bounds when it dictated a rule of decision in Klein. 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128.
Klein was decided during the complex political turmoil following the Civil War. A federal statute allowed citizens who had been living in the Confederacy to recover property seized during the war upon proof of their loyalty to the Union, which proof included a demonstration that they had not acted against the Union during the war. By another act, the President was authorized to extend pardons to former Confederates. The President did so in the case of V.F. Wilson whose estate, through its administrator Klein, sought to recover property confiscated by the United States. As proof of Wilson's loyalty, the claimant proffered the presidential pardon. The Court of Claims accepted this proof, although it also found evidence that Wilson had offered aid and comfort to

Confederates during the war. Nonetheless, the'evidence of the pardon was held to be sufficient demonstration of loyalty and restitution was ordered.
While the case was pending on appeal before the Supreme Court, Congress passed a new law which provided that a Presidential pardon could not be offered as proof in court where a party was advancing a claim against the United States.. The statute went on to explicitly strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction upon a finding that the pardon was the basis of decision in the lower court. Faced with a statute that stripped the Court of jurisdiction upon making certain findings, the Court held that the statute was unconstitutional, in part, because "the court is forbidden to give effect to the evidence which, in its own judgment, such evidence should have, and is directed to give it an effect precisely contrary." Klein at 147. The effect of the act, in other words, was to "prescribe a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way." Id at 146.
The "rule of decision" doctrine depends on the distinction between a rule prescribing an outcome - which would be unconstitutional - and a change in the underlying law which may of necessity dictate a new outcome - which would be constitutional. Thus, in Wheeling Bridge, the Court held that Congress could change the law in such a way that it dictated an outcome different from the one the Court had reached in an earlier case. This distinction, between a rule of decision and a change in governing law, was further explained in Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y. 503 U.S. 429 (1992). That case involved a legislative balance between preservation of endangered spotted owls and the economic needs of loggers in the Northwest. Before the change in law at issue in that case, two groups had challenged, in separate cases, certain logging in
the Northwest on the basis that the logging effectively killed or "took" spotted owls - an

endangered species - in violation of numerous provisions of federal law. During the pendency of these suits, Congress passed legislation which expressly named the two cases. See Section 318 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies . Appropriations Act, 1990, 103 Stat. 745, popularly known as the Northwest Timber Compromise [the "Timber Act"]. Provisions of the Timber Act - section (b)(3) and • (b)(5) - prohibited logging in designated areas. The legislation further directed that "management of areas according to subsections (b)(3) and (b)(5) of this section . . . is adequate consideration for the purpose of meeting the statutory requirements that are the basis [for the pending cases]." Section 318(b)(6)(A) of the Timber Act. The Ninth Circuit held that the Timber Act violated Article III because it directed a rule of decision, that is, it dictated the outcomes of the pending cases. Seattle Audubon Soc'v v. Robertson. 914 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the
provisions at issue merely modified or amended existing law but did not prescribe an outcome, reasoning that the courts were still required to determine whether the parties met the standards of section (b)(6)(A), namely that management of areas was in accord with subsections (b)(3) and (b)(5). Seattle Audubon. 503 U.S. at 438.
The distinction between a prescribed outcome and a mere change in governing lav/ can be difficult to make. See, ej*., Benjamin v. Jacobson. 124 F.3d at 174 (discussing difficulty of distinguishing between a change in law and a prescribed outcome). In the case at bar, however, the Court concludes that the statute at issue simply effects a constitutionally permissible change in law. That is, the PLRA establishes a new standard, but leaves it to the courts to apply that standard. In the words of the Fourth Circuit:

> , . While § 3626(b)(2) requires a district court to terminate prospective relief that was approved in the absence of a finding that the relief is no greater than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, it does not purport to state how much relief is more than necessary. In short, § 3626(b)(2) provides only the standard to which district courts must adhere, not the result they must reach.
Plvler v. Moore'. 100 F.3d 365, 372 (4th Cir. 1996). '
Plaintiffs in this case"could have presented evidence of a, "current and ongoing violation" of a federal right in an attempt to qualify under the new standard set forth in the PLRA. Had they done so, the Court would have applied the new law to the facts adduced - it would have determined whether the evidence established a current and ongoing violation and whether to terminate or modify relief under the PLRA. It cannot be said, therefore, that Congress is prescribing a rule of decision or that the PLRA is an unconstitutional encroachment on the judiciary because the Court is able to apply the provisions of the new law to the facts presented and decide what relief, if any, is appropriate. See also Douganv. Singletarv. 129 F.3d at 1427; Gavin v. BarnstadT 122 F.3d at 1088; Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse. 129 F.3d at 657-58.
B. Due Process 1. Vested Rights
Plaintiffs argue that under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, a judgment, once vested, cannot be abrogated by an action of Congress. S_ee McCullough v. Virginia. 172 U.S. 102, 123-24 (1898). While true, "the vested rights doctrine is really only the due process analogue of separation-of-powers doctrine that prevents Congress from reopening final judgments of Article III courts... [and] a judgment that is not final for purposes of separation of powers is also not final for purposes of due process." Gavin.

122F,3d at 1091. Thus, the Court's discussion of final judgments in the context of separation of powers above, amply answers this argument: a prospective order cannot become vested for due process purposes.
Plaintiffs also rely on cases holding that consent decrees "resemble" contracts, see, e.c. Local No. 93. Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters v. Cleveland. 478 U.S. 501. 519 . (1986), and analogize the vested right in a consent decree to rights in property which, once acquired, cannot be defeased without due process. However, injunctive relief of the type mandated by the Consent Decree has a prospective effect and litigants have "no 'vested right' in the decree entered by the trial court" Landsraf. 511 U.S. at 247 (citing American Steel Foundries v. Tri-Citv Central Trades Council. 257 U.S. 184, 201 (1921)). Moreover, "[fjederal regulation of future action based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation, the fact that its provisions limit or interfere with previously acquired rights does not condemn it." Fleming v. Rhodes. 331
U.S. 100,107 (1947). The Court therefore concludes that plaintiffs do not have a vested right in the
Consent Decree under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the PLRA, by authorizing termination of prospective relief, does not deprive plaintiffs of property without due process. See also Dougan. 129F.3dat 1427: Gavin. 122F.3dat 1091: Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 658 (holding that because a consent decree ordering prospective relief must be open to modification if there is a change in law or

circumstances, it cannot become vested); Plvler v. Moore. 100 F.3d 365, 374 (4l!l Cir.
1996)." '
2. Contract Rights Plaintiffs urge the Court to find that Congress has impermissibly impaired their contract with the Commonwealth - the Consent Decree- in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants counter that the Consent Decree is not a contract for purposes of the Due Process clause. The Court will nonetheless assume, without deciding, that the Consent Decree is a contract for purposes of this discussion. See Rufo. 502 U.S. at 378 ("A consent decree... in some respects is contractual in nature").
Normally when examining a federal statute which affects a private contract, a court must engage in a deferential analysis, finding the statute unconstitutional only if it is arbitrary and irrational. SeeNat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison. Topeka & Santa FeRv. Co.. 470 U.S. 451, 472 (1985). Plaintiffs argue that in this case, the Court should engage in heightened scrutiny because the state government, in seeking to terminate a decree to which it is a party, is impairing its own "contract." See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. 469 U.S. 528 (1985). The Court rejects this invitation to engage in an enhanced scrutiny of the PLRA. The federal government - the government which enacted the PLRA and thereby established the standard for termination - is clearly
15 Plaintiffs again make the public rights/private rights distinction in the context of their due process argument. They cite Hodncs v. Snvdcr. 261 U.S. 600,603 (1923), which limits the holding in McCullogh that once vested, a judgment cannot be abrogated by an act of Congress - by stating that for Due Process purposes, public rights may not become vested, only private rights. Tins issue is not implicated in this case, however, for if a party can liavc no property right in the underlying order - the order is not final for due process purposes - it matters not whether it confers a public or a private right because it cannot become vested in cither case. Sec Gavin. 122 F.3d at 1091 n.10.

not a party to the Consent Decree in this case and where "the Government [enacting the legislation] is not a party to the contract at issue,... there is no reason to argue for a heightened standard of review." Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. at 472 n.24. Thus, a heightened standard of review is not appropriate. Instead; the Court will examine the statute only to determine whether it is arbitrary and irrational, a test which is a Due Process equivalent of the rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause.
As the Court explains more fully below in its discussion of plaintiffs' Equal Protection challenge, the PLRA cannot be deemed to be arbitrary and irrational. Whether one agrees with the purposes motivating passage of the PLRA, for the reasons stated '•• below, it cannot be questioned that it is a rational attempt to limit the involvement of federal courts in the day to day management of state prisons. The Court therefore concludes that the PLRA does not unconstitutionally impair plaintiffs' contract rights. See also Gavin. 122 F.3d at 1091-92; Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 129 F.3d at 658-59.
C. Equal Protection Plaintiffs next argue that the PLRA unconstitutionally violates the equal protection rights inherent in the Fifth Amendment. See Mathews v. de Castro. 429 U.S. 181, 182 n.l (1976) ("It is well settled that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause encompasses equal protection principles."). Normally, a court will presume that legislation is valid and must uphold it unless it draws a classification that is not rationally related to a legitimate purpose. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.. Inc.. 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). On this issue, as in the context of their Due Process claim, plaintiffs urge this Court to employ a heightened scrutiny in this case because the PLRA

acts to burden inmates* fundamental right of access to the courts. '"[Classifications affecting fundamental rights are given the most exacting scrutiny.' Clark v. Jeter. 486 U.S. 456,461, 108S.Ct. 1910, 1914, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988) (citation omitted). Such laws must be 'suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.' CitvofCleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.. 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985).. .." United States v. Williams. 124 F.3d 411, 422 (3d Cir. 1997) (other citation omitted). However, where a statutory classification or distinction "neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,16 we will uphold [it] so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." Romer. 116 S.Ct. at 1627.17
1. Fundamental Rights It goes without saying that for equal protection purposes, access to the courts is a fundamental right. See Wolff v. McDonnell. 418 U.S. 539. 578 (1974V Plaintiffs argue that the termination provisions of the PLRA- by limiting the right of inmates to obtain prospective relief in a way that other classes are not limited - unconstitutionally burdens this right. The Court must, however, reject this argument because the PLRA does not close the courthouse doors to prisoners. In making this argument, plaintiffs conflate the right of access with the right to relief and they are not the same thing. The PLRA does not prevent inmates from presenting claims of constitutional violations to a court, nor
16 Plaintiffs do not contend that inmates arc a suspect class. " In the context of their equal protection arguments, plaintiffs assert that the PLRA violates the Tenth Amendment by limiting the right of state officials to settle litigation. Sec United Slates v. Bckins. 304 U.S. 27, 51-52 (1938) ("It is of the essence of sovereignty to be able to make contracts and give consents bearing upon the exertion of government power."). The Court rejects tills contention. The PLRA docs not prohibit slates from c-nlcring into "private settlement-agreements." 18 U.S.C. § 3G2G(c)(2). Instead, the PLRA merely limits Uic jurisdiction of federal courts with respect to enforcement of such agreements. Thus, suite sovereignty is in no way threatened by the PLRA.

does it prevent courts from remedying any established violations; it simply limits the
form and type of relief inmates may be awarded. This certainly gives inmate '"a
reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental
constitutional rights to the courts.'" Lewis v. Casey. 116S.Q. 2174, 2180(1996)
(quoting Bounds v. Smith. 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1977)); see also Gavin. 122 F.3d at 1089.
Thus, because the legislation does not burden a fundamental right, the Court will not
engage in a strict scrutiny analysis of the PLRA.
2. Rational Basis
Rational basis review is an extremely deferential form of review for it is the "role
of the political branches to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to
comply with the laws and the Constitution." Lewis, 116 S.Ct. at 2179. A statute survives
such review so long as it "bear[s] a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate
legislative end." Romer, 116 S.Ct. at 1627. Where "there are plausible reasons for [the
legislative] action, [the court's] inquiry is at an end. It is, of course, 'constitutionally
irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlay the legislative decision.'" U.S. Railroad
Retirement Board v. Fritz. 449 U.S. 166, 179 (1980) (quoting Flemming v. Nestor. 363
U.S. 603, 612 (I960)). Moreover,
the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts are compelled under rational-basis review to accept a legislature's generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. Heller v. Doe. 509 U.S. 312, 319-21 (1993).

A discernable - and legitimate - purpose of the PLRA is to preserve "state
sovereignty by protecting states from overzealous supervision by the federal courts in the
area of prison conditions litigation." Plyler. 100 F.3d at 374. This purpose is borne out by the PLRA1 s legislative history, which recites:
that the drafters intended the Act to 'address the alarming explosion in the number of frivolous lawsuits filed by State and Federal prisoners,'.to . cmak[e] it much more difficult for Federal judges to issue orders directing the release of convicted criminals from prison custody,' 141 Cong. Rec. 14,413 (1995) (statement of Sen. Dole), and to wrest control of state penitentiaries from federal courts so that states 'will be able to run the prisons as they see fit unless there is a constitutional violation,' kL at 14,419 (statement of Sen. Abraham).
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 129 F.3d at 660. The legislative history thus more than
adequately demonstrates at least one legitimate goal: the desire to limit federal court
oversight of state prisons. The way Congress has chosen to reach this goal - the PLRA -
is a perfectly rational means to that end. The PLRA therefore amply satisfies the rational
basis test.
Plaintiffs argue that in passing the PLRA, Congress was motivated by an animus
toward inmates and that where a statute "singl[es] out a certain class of citizens for
disfavored legal status or general hardship^," Romer, 116 S.Ct. at 1628, it violates the
equal protection clause. Plaintiffs have thus teased from the holding in Romer a new
constitutional standard of review in equal protection cases, something greater than the
rational basis test described above. The Court does not believe that the Supreme Court
established a new standard, for it found that the only purpose of the statute at issue in that
case was animus toward homosexuals, which is simply not legitimate:
Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the

incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons. Amendment 2 [the law at issue], however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts On them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it. We conclude that, in addition to the far-reaching deficiencies of Amendment 2 that we have noted, the principles it offends, in another sense, are conventional and venerable; a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose . . . and Amendment 2 does not.
Romer at 1628-29. The PLRA does not have the same sweeping effect/for § 3626(b)
simply narrows the protections afforded inmates to the constitutional minimum, it does
not eliminate those protections.
Even if plaintiffs are correct, however, and courts must engage in a form of
heightened scrutiny where there is evidence of some animus, the discussion of the
legislative history above sufficiently demonstrates legitimate reasons for the PLRA;
plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence that animus was the principal motivating
factor.18 Moreover, it has been established that in some contexts states may, without
violating the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, impose greater
burdens on inmates as a class; white prisoners are certainly not stripped of all
constitutional rights by the fact of their incarceration, see, e^g., Turner v. Saflev. 482 U.S.
78, 84-85 (1987), those rights may be limited and, in some cases, eliminated. See, e.g..
12 Plaintiffs argued that this district is uniquely situated to understand that animus to prisoners motivated passage of the PLRA because congressional unhappincss with Harris v. City of Philadelphia. 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir. 1995), served as a catalyst for the PLRA's enactment. The Court docs not doubt that prisoners arc considered by the public to be an unpopular class and tluit such unpopularity helped usher the PLRA through Congress. Nonetheless, even under a heightened rationality test, there is sufficient evidence tlial legitimate purposes motivated passage as well. Moreover, the evidence of animus submitted by plaintiffs such as fiery statements by members of the Senate like "criminals... deserve to be punished . . . . prjhcir lives should, on the whole be dcscribablc by the old concept known as'hard time.'" Sen. Abraham, 141 Cong.Rcc. at S14419 - must, in the words of the First Circuit, "be taken with a grain of salt - elected officials, after all, liavc been known to strike poses for public consumption - the most'that fairly can be said is that oratory of this sort may evince a philosophical shift; it luirdly betokens an impermissible animus." Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 1997 WL 685532 at *I2.

Richardson v. Ramirez. 418 U.S. 24, 54 (1974) (holding that convicted felons who have served their time may be disenfranchised by the state without violating the Fourteenth Amendment). In this case, the burden imposed by the PLRA - that inmates prove a "current and ongoing violation" of a federal right - is not unreasonable and does not violate the equal protection rights of inmates. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the PLRA does not violate the plaintiffs' equal protection rights. See also Douoan, 129 F.3d at 1427; Gavin. 122 F.3d at 1089-90; Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 129 F.3d at 659-61; Plvler v. Moore. 100 F.3d 365, 373-74 (4th Cir. 1996).
m. MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT Having concluded that the termination provisions of the PLRA at issue are
constitutional, the next question for the Court is what effect a finding of contempt will have on defendants' Motion to Terminate. Plaintiffs contend that regardless of the constitutionality of the termination provisions, if the Court finds defendants in contempt, it may stay defendants Motion to Terminate or hold it in abeyance until the contempt is purged. The Court may do so, plaintiffs argue, either pursuant to its inherent contempt power or through the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands."19
"[I]t is firmly established that '[t]he power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.' [Ex Parte Robinson. 19 Wall. 505, 510 (1874)]. This power reaches both conduct before the court and that beyond the court's confines, for '[t]he underlying concern that gave rise to the contempt power was not... merely the disruption of court
19 The contempt motions involve civil, not criminar, contempt sanctions against defendants. This distinction is important, not only because imposition of criminal, as opposed to civil, sanctions entails different procedural safeguards, but because the scope ofllic Court's power to order sanctions also differs depending on which type of contempt is found by the Court.

proceedings. Rather, it was disobedience to the orders of the Judiciary, regardless of whether such disobedience interfered with the conduct of trial.'" Chambers v. NASCO. Inc., 501 U.S. 32,44 (1991) (quoting Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S!A.. 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987)). This inherent contempt power is not unlimited, however. Indeed, "[bjecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion." Id, (citing Roadway Express. Inc. v. Piper. 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980)). Moreover, although the power to hold one in contempt is exercised at a court's discretion, it is not exercised absent standards.
The Third Circuit recently enunciated an important limit on the imposition of civil contempt sanctions in Harris v. City of Philadelphia. 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir. 1995). Unhappy with overcrowding at a Philadelphia prison, a group of inmates filed a civil rights complaint in 1982, alleging that prison conditions violated various provisions of the United States Constitution. In 1986, the suit was expanded to include the entire Philadelphia prison system. Later that year, the inmates entered into a settlement agreement with the City in which the City agreed to construct new prisons and to do so according to a specified schedule. This agreement was approved by the court in the form of a consent decree that same year. A second consent decree was approved by the Court in 1991, after it became clear that the conditions of the 1986 decree were not going to be met, and a further amendment was stipulated in 1992. The provisions of the 1991 consent decree and its amendment were at issue in Harris.
In Harris, the district court imposed civil contempt sanctions; the sanctions arose out of the failure of the City to submit two planning documents by a specified date. When it failed to submit those documents, the district court sua sponte found "a pattern

of contempt" by the City, imposed fines and ordered the documents submitted. After the City again failed to submit the documents - having received an extension of time for submission of one of them - the district court imposed a second contempt sanction. This second sanction imposed by the court against the City was dismissal of its pending motion to modify the consent decree. For the reasons discussed below, the Third Circuit held that this sanction exceeded the authority of the district court.
The plaintiffs cite Harris for the proposition that "[a] party may not rely on its unilateral interpretation of the requirements for compliance in complex institutional reform litigation as an excuse for noncompliance," id. at 1325 (citation omitted), and argue that by amending the clothing regulations and review procedures, defendants have done just that. Defendants note, however, that Harris also stands for the proposition that civil contempt sanctions must exert a coercive, rather than punitive, effect. Thus, "[i]f the contemnor cannot purge through an affirmative act, the sanction has no coercive effect and exceeds the appropriate bounds of civil contempt." Id. at 1328. Although civil contempt can also serve to compensate, the Third Circuit in Harris found that dismissal of the motion to modify was neither coercive nor compensatory and instead was purely punitive, an inappropriate basis upon which to issue a sanction for civil contempt. See
also Robin Woods Inc. v. Woods. 28 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 1994) ("Sanctions for civil contempt serve two purposes: 'to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order and to compensate for losses sustained by the disobedience.'" (quoting McDonald's Corp. v. Victory Investments. 727 F.2d 82, 87 (3d Cir. 1984))); Gregory v. Depte. 896 F.2d 31, 34 (3d Cir. 1990) ("We first consider whether this contempt sanction may be justified as civil. Such a sanction must coerce or compensate.").

Plaintiffs seek to have defendants ordered into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. In doing so, they maintain that the Court may either dismiss defendants1 Motion to Terminate, or hold that Motion in abeyance until defendants purge their contempt. It is clear, however, that should this Court find defendants in contempt, it may not sanction them unless the sanction is capable of either coercing compliance, or of compensating plaintiffs for past violations. Defendants argue that Harrig is precisely on point on this issue. Ordering their Motion to Terminate dismissed or held in abeyance, they argue, would impose a sanction which is purely punitive.
The Third Circuit in Harris concluded that the sanction of dismissing the motion to modify was not "designed to have a coercive effect impelling the City to submit at long last the tardy [documents]..., because it had no provision explicitly permitting the City to refile the motion once the documents were submitted." Harris. 47 F.3d at 1329. The court apparently, therefore, left open the possibility that had the dismissal of the motion to modify been without prejudice - allowing the City to re-file after complying with the order - the sanction would have had a coercive effect and thus would have fit within the framework of civil contempt. If so, it might be argued that in this case, holding defendants' Motion to Terminate in abeyance, or dismissing it without prejudice, would have a coercive effect since defendants would be able to seek termination of the
Consent Decree under the PLRA, after coming into compliance. While at first blush, this argument seems plausible, the Court must reject it. The
power to hold one in contempt is an equitable one and as such, "where the purpose is to make the defendant comply, the [court]... must then consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable

effectiveness of any.suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." United States v. United Mine Workers of America. 330 U.S. 258,304 (1947). In other words, there must be a balancing of the equities.
Keeping in mind first, that the Court has found the termination provisions of the PLRA to be constitutional, and second, that plaintiffs have not attempted to establish the facts necessary to meet the standard which would permit the Court to deny defendants' Motion to Terminate, the Court concludes that requiring defendants to comply with the terms of the Consent Decree at this time would be little more than an empty gesture. Accepting, arguendo, plaintiffs' position, and considering the Court's conclusion regarding the PLRA's constitutionality, as soon as defendants came into compliance, the Decree would lose all force in federal court under the terms of an order entered pursuant to the termination provisions of the PLRA. Thus, such an action on the part of the Court would not only be a Pyrrhic victory for plaintiffs, it would, in practice, be a punishment of the defendants: the effect would merely be to'temporarily force defendants into a possibly costly compliance with rules and procedures they will immediately thereafter be
in a position to abandon or restructure. This neither aids plaintiffs, nor compels defendants, and the Court will not order it.
In this respect, the Third Circuit's opinion in Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers. 545 F.2d 1336 (1976), is instructive. In that case, the district court had issued an injunction prohibiting a union from refusing to cross a "stranger picket line." When union members failed to comply with the order, the district court sanctioned the union in the form of fines payable tothe United States. On appeal, the circuit court found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the underlying injunction. The question

then became whether a contempt sanction can survive the invalidation of the order the
contemnors were charged with violating.- After concluding that the ordered sanction was
civil in nature, and that the purpose of the civil sanction was to coerce compliance with
the order the court concluded that "coercive contempt cannot survive the overturning of
the underlying injunctive order " Id, at 1348.
Moreover, there is precedent for refusing to impose a coercive contempt sanction
when a change in law invalidates a court order, even where the alleged contemnor has
flagrantly ignored that order. In Wheeling Bridge (discussed above) the Supreme Court
refused both to enjoin reconstruction of the bridge and to sanction the bridge builders for
their disobedience of the lower court order enjoining reconstruction:
A motion is now made for attachments against the persons mentioned for this disobedience and contempt. A majority of the court are of opinion, inasmuch as we have arrived at the conclusion that the act of congress afforded full authority to the defendants to reconstruct the bridge, and the decree directing its alteration or abatement could not, therefore, be carried into execution after the enactment of this law, and inasmuch as the granting of an attachment for the disobedience is a question resting in the discretion of the court, that, under all the circumstances of the case, the motion should be denied.
Idiat436.20
A somewhat different issue is raised with respect to plaintiffs request for
compensatory sanctions for violation of the clothing provisions of the Consent Decree.
The Latrobe Steel court explains that:
:0 Harris, plaintiffs contend, is inapposite becnusc, although the sanction of dismissing the motion to modify was deemed to be inappropriate, the City in that case continued to remain obliged to produce die documents at issue. Here, in contrast, their argument continues, granting defendants' Motion to Terminate, without holding them in contempt, will relieve defendants of all their current obligations. Tluil is true but in this case, unlike in Hams, the underlying decree is being invalidated. Thus, the situation in the instant matter is like lhnt in Whcclinu Briduc and, like ihe Wheeling Briduc Court, this Court will not find defendants in contempt.

Although the cases do. not fully explicate the reasoning behind the general principle that compensatory civil contempt does not survive the abrogation of the underlying decree, the precept is, in our opinion, a sound one. A compensatory contempt proceeding is similar in several particulars to an ordinary damage action, since it is in essence an action between private parties, with rights created by the injunctive order rather than by a statute or the common law. The invalidation of an injunction in such a setting is equivalent to a holding that the plaintiff never had a legally cognizable interest which the defendant was obliged to respect, a conclusion which should be distinguished from the nearly unconditional duty of obedience , owed by a defendant to a court. The United Mine Workers' doctrine thus recognizes that a private party should not profit as a result of an order to which a court determines, in retrospect, he was never entitled.
Latrobe Steel. 545 F.2d at 1345-46. In this case, unlike Latrobe Steel, the Court will
merely terminate the prospective effect of the Consent Decree; it is not finding that "the
plaintiffs] never had a legally cognizable interest" in the Decree. Thus, Latrobe Steel
does not answer the issue presented by plaintiffs' request for compensatory sanctions: the
question of whether, if, by violating the clothing provisions of the Decree, defendants
have deprived plaintiffs of a right, plaintiffs are entitled to compensation by reason of the
loss of that right even if the Decree is thereafter terminated. Neither can the Court rely
on Hanjs to find that imposition of compensatory sanctions would be a form of
punishment - compensatory damages, by their very nature, are not punitive. The Court
will therefore make findings with respect to plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to
compensation by reason of the amendments to the clothing regulations unilaterally
imposed on them by defendants in violation of the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree provides that "[defendants shall permit residents to wear
civilian clothing when the residents are housed in general population except to the extent
that the superintendent of each institution requires institutional issue to be worn for work.
However, defendants reserve the right to require residents to wear specific articles of

clothing, issued solely for the purpose of visitation during a resident's presence in the visiting areas of the institution. Furthermore, defendants reserve the right to impose reasonable regulations with respect to civilian clothing on the basis of safety, sanitary and security considerations," Consent Decree ^j XVII (emphasis added).
Defendants have presented evidence that, after the escape of six inmates, they amended the clothing regulations out of a concern for the safety of the public and security of correctional institutions. Plaintiffs argue that this concern was not a primary motivating factor for the change in regulation. A report released by Commissioner Horn detailed "Primary Causes of Escape" and "security lapses that allowed escape." The ... parties have stipulated that "[t]he issue of inmate access to civilian clothing is listed only thereafter in the report as a concern related to the escape." Stipulation of Uncontested Fact at iJ 14. Defendants cite this security concern as a principal reason for the change in clothing policy. .
The Consent Decree does not require that safety and security concerns be the sole or even primary motivating factor. It expressly reserves to defendants the right to alter clothing regulations if the alteration is "reasonable" and the concern for safety or security is a "basis" of the alteration. See id at ffl| 9-14 (detailing Report of Commissioner Horn on escape of prisoners). In this case, the fact that inmates' possession of civilian clothing contributed to the escape is ample proof that the defendants' safety and security concerns are "reasonable." The Court further finds that those concerns served as one of the bases for the amendment to the clothing regulations. The Court therefore concludes that defendants have not violated the Consent Decree with respect to the amended clothing
regulations and will not order compensatory sanctions.

In light of the Court's earlier conclusion - that even had defendants violated other provisions of the Consent Decree it will not hold them in contempt for the purpose of making them comply with those provisions of the Decree - the Court will not make findings as to whether defendants have violated any other provisions of the Consent Decree or its amendments.21 Although the Consent Decree has not yet been terminated, absent a finding of a "current and ongoing" violation of a federal right - which plaintiffs have expressly declined to attempt to establish - the Court must promptly terminate the Decree.
IV. APPLICATION OF THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF "UNCLEAN HANDS"
Relying on their contentions with respect to defendants' contempt, plaintiffs assert that defendants are invoking the termination provisions of the PLRA with "unclean hands." Thus, even if the Court will not order contempt sanctions in this case, the question remains whether defendants may be barred, under the doctrine of "unclean hands" - from seeking the equitable relief of termination of the Consent Decree pursuant to the PLRA's termination provisions. A court acts out of concern for its own integrity when it refuses to hear a claim because the party seeking relief enters with "unclean hands." See Gaudiosi v. Mellon. 269 F.2d 873, 881-882 (3d Cir.1959). To succeed with the defense of "unclean hands," the conduct of the party seeking relief must be
21 The Court's conclusion that it need not reach the issue of whether or not the defendants violated provisions of the Consent Decree or its Amendments moots a number of subsidiary issues, such as whether the body of Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation was incorporated into the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation and the proper interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) in the coiUcxt of this case. For-thc samcTcasons the Court declines to reach the question of whether defendants arc in contempt, it will not reach the merits of these subsidiary issues, although it commends the parlies on their thorough and able briefing and argument on these issues.

inequitable and must involve the subject matter of his or her claim. See Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co.. Inc.. 747 F.2d 844, 855 (3d Cir.1984). "What is material is not that the plaintiffs hands are dirty, but that he dirtied them in acquiring the right he now asserts, or that the manner of dirtying renders inequitable the assertion of such rights against the defendant." Carney v. School District of Philadelphia, 633 F.Supp. 1273, 1285 (E.D. Pa. 1986). This doctrine has been defined as barring a claim "only if '(1) a party seeking affirmative relief (2) is guilty of conduct involving fraud, deceit, unconscionability, or bad faith (3) directly related to the matter in issue (4) that injures the other party and (5) affects the balance of equities between the litigants.'" Tanu v. Hwang. 799 F.Supp. 499, 505 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (quoting Castle v. Cohen. 676 F.Supp. 620, 627 (E.D. Pa. 1987), affd in part and remanded in part on other grounds. 840 F.2d
173 (3d Cir. 1988)). Federal courts clearly retain broad equitable powers under the doctrine of
"unclean hands." See, e ^ , Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co.. 324 U.S. 806, 814-15 (1945) ("The guiding doctrine in this case is the equitable maxim that 'he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.' . . . This maxim necessarily gives wide range to the equity court's use of discretion in refusing to aid the unclean litigant.") (affirming dismissal of patent suit in which plaintiff entered court with "unclean hands"). A court may exercise those powers in many circumstances, even in cases in which a party is proceeding under statute. Of course, the requirement remains that the misconduct alleged by those invoking "unclean hands1' must relate to the subject matter of the statute at issue. SeeToomerv. Witsell. 334 U.S. 385, 393 (1948.).

In the context of congressionally created injunctive remedies, the Supreme Court has said that "[u]nless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied." Porter v. Warner Holding Co.. 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946) (absent a "clear and valid legislative command" courts retain their powers of equity). See also Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo. 456 U.S. 305 (1982). Courts may, nonetheless, be barred by statute from exercising some or all of their equitable powers. See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local Union 3 v. Burroughs. 417 F.2d 370 (9lh Cir. 1969) (holding that "unclean hands" defense was not available where union employee sought relief under federal statute but had failed to exhaust union remedies); United States v. Martell. 844 F.Supp. 454 (N.D. Ind. 1994) (holding that doctrine of "unclean hands" does not apply when proceeding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") because the "unclean hands" doctrine cannot be used to
frustrate the law or public policy). The Third Circuit has also been reluctant to find an "unclean hands" exception in statutes. Thus, when the government argued that there was an implied "unclean hands" exception to the statute prohibiting introduction of unlawfully obtained .wire tap. evidence to the grand jury, the Third Circuit held that no such exception applied. See In re Grand Jury. Ill F.3d 1066, 1077 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Smith Land & Improvement Corp.' v. Celotex Corp.. 851 F.2d 86, 90 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that "doctrines such as caveat emptor and 'clean hands,' which in some cases could bar relief regardless of the degree of culpability of the parties, do not comport with congressional objectives" as codified in CERCLA and thus do not apply under that statute).

The Supreme Court has also recently spoken to this issue. In McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co.. 513 U.S. 352 (1995), the plaintiff, Christine McKennon, sought a remedy under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), a. statute which explicitly provides that a court has discretion to "grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purpose of [the Act]." 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). After firing her for purportedly illegitimate reasons, her former employer discovered that McKennon had engaged in conduct that would have provided legitimate grounds for dismissal.22 This evidence, they claimed, barred her from proceeding under the ADEA, a form of "unclean hands".
The Supreme Court in McKennon held that the reason the employer had initially given for firing McKennon was in violation of the ADEA. It then went on to refuse consideration of the "unclean hands" doctrine: "Equity's maxim that a suitor who engaged in his own reprehensible conduct in the course of the transaction at issue must be denied equitable relief because of "unclean hands", a rule which in conventional formulation operated in limine to bar the suitor from seeking the aid of the equity court,. .. has not been applied where Congress authorizes broad equitable relief to serve important national policies." Id. at 360 (emphasis added). Thus the Court has "rejected the unclean hands defense 'where a private suit serves important public purposes.'" Id. (quoting Perma Life Mufflers. Inc. v. International Parts Corp.. 392 U.S. 134, 138 (1963) (holding that "unclean hands" defense does not apply in Sherman Act and Clayton Act
Antitrust actions)); see also Pan-American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States.
K Plaintiff McKennon admitted during a deposition tliat in her last year of employment, she had copied . several of her employer's confidential documents. While the Supreme Court held tkit this evidence did not bar her ADEA claim, it was nonetheless relevant to the question of damages.

273 U.S. 456 (1927) (rules of equity "will not be applied so as to frustrate purpose of

laws or thwart public policy").

. .

The PLRA serves important national policies, and because barring defendants'

Motion to Terminate under the doctrine of "unclean hands" would serve to frustrate the

purpose of the law and thwart public policy, the Court concludes that plaintiffs may not

invoke the "unclean hands" doctrine to bar defendants' Motion to Terminate.

V. RELIEF Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), a court should not terminate relief if it finds that
there is a "current and ongoing violation of the Federal right" and that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary and is the least intrusive means possible to correct the violation. The statute clearly defines prospective relief as "all relief other than compensatory monetary damages," id. § 3626(g)(7) and relief is further defined to include "consent decrees." Id. § 3626(g)(9). In combination with the legislative history discussed above, the Court concludes that the statute is unambiguous: pursuant to the PLRA, consent decrees are to be "terminated" upon motion unless there is a showing of "current and ongoing violations" of a federal right.
Because the Court has determined that the termination provisions of the P.LRA are constitutional, because it has denied the contempt motions, and because it will not bar defendants' Motion to Terminate under the doctrine of "unclean hands," the Court will terminate the Consent Decree under the provisions of the PLRA.
In applying these provisions, the Court will follow the literal language of the statute and "terminate" the decree, not vacate it. The Second Circuit in Benjamin v,

Jacobson. 124 F.3d 162 (2dCir. 1997), reh^ held en bane February 25, 1998,23aftera complicated analysis of the language of the PLRA, chose to read § 3626 of the Act such that "the statutory definition of relief, which includes consent decrees, should preferably be read to mean that it includes remedies arising out of or issued pursuant to the consent •decree," but not the consent decree itself. 14 at 168. The.consequence of this interpretation is that the obligations and agreements under the consent decree are left intact, even when the relief ordered by the decree is terminated. Otherwise stated, the Benjamin court held that the PLRA merely strips federal court of jurisdiction over nonfederal remedies. With this understanding of the termination provisions, the court in Benjamin proceeded to find the PLRA constitutional, noting, however, in several instances that that conclusion was "predicated on our interpretation of the termination provision as limiting federal jurisdiction over the non-federal aspects of the Consent Decrees rather than as making those aspects of the Decrees void." Id. at 170.
While the Court does not adopt this interpretation of the PLRA's termination provisions, "Congress chose to use the verb 'terminate1 and to eschew the verb 'vacate.' The distinction between these two words is clear: 'terminate' means 'to put an end to' or 'to end,' Black's Law Dictionary at 1471, whereas 'vacate' means 'to annul' or 'to render . . . void,' id at 1548." Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 129 F.3d at 662. As the First Circuit has noted, "this distinction may well possess practical significance." id.; see also Benjamin. 124 F.3d at 178-79. While terminating the Consent Decree ends its future
2J The Court notes that the Second Circuit grunted rehearing en bnnc in Benjamin; the rehearing was held on February 25, 1998 and the Second Circuit has not yet issued an opinion.

injunctive effect, the decree itself is not "annulled," as it would be if it were vacated. The Court will therefore, as it has said, "terminate" and not "vacate" the Decree.
Having reached this conclusion, the Court must turn to plaintiffs' alternative requests: to have this Court "certify" transfer to the Commonwealth Court and "not divest jurisdiction" pending any action in state court. This latter request will be treated as one to stay implementation of the termination order. Plaintiffs seek to have this case transferred so as to give them an opportunity to attempt to enforce the Consent Decree under state law, free of the termination requirement of the PLRA. Plaintiffs point to no statute or rule which would authorize this Court to "certify" such a transfer and it declines to do so. Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that plaintiffs may have valid arguments that the Consent Decree creates binding obligations under state law - although it expresses no opinion as to the merits of such arguments. It will therefore examine the question of whether the Court should stay termination of the Decree pending either state court action or appeal of this decision.
After engaging in the analysis outlined above, the Second Circuit in Benjamin concluded that it was appropriate to maintain a stay, keeping the consent decree at issue in that case in force. Mindful that the issues at stake in the litigation before it had closely divided those courts which had addressed them, the Second Circuit ordered the stay maintained "until the Supreme Court has acted on any possible petition for certiorari." Id. at 180. Although in one respect this Court reaches an outcome not too dissimilar from that of the Second Circuit, the Court must respectfully disagree with this part of the Second Circuit's holding and will not order a stay in this case. Because the statute is.

unambiguous on this point and the Court has concluded that the termination provisions of the PLRA are constitutional, the Court will not stay termination of the Decree.
VI. CONCLUSION Based on all of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the termination provisions
of the PLRA are constitutional and therefore grants defendants their requested relief. The Consent Decree will be terminated. The Court also has determined that plaintiffs' contempt motions should be denied. Plaintiffs have requested two types of contempt sanctions and the reasons for denying their motions is likewise twofold: with respect to the request for coercive sanctions, the Court has concluded that in the circumstances of this case, such sanctions would be punitive in nature and thus will not impose coercive sanction regardless of whether defendants have violated provisions of the Consent Decree; with respect to the request for compensatory sanctions arising from defendants' amendment of the clothing regulations, the same reasoning does not apply and the Court therefore found that the amendments to the clothing regulations did not violate the Consent Decree. The Court additionally declines to bar defendants' Motion to Terminate based on the equitable doctrineof "unclean hands." Finally, the Court will neither stay
termination in this case, n.or order the case transferred to the Commonwealth Court. An appropriate order follows.

 
 TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, ET. AL. : CIVIL ACTION

vs..

MILTON SHAPP, ET. AL.

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

.

., . . .

: Nos. 70-3054

70-2545

:

71-513

71-10.06

mil ii ii ii m i mini II nil
PC-PA-005-012

ORDER

AND NOW, to wit, this 27th day of April, 1998, upon consideration of

defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief pursuant

to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134,110 Stat. 1321 (1996)

(codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 3626), filed September 23, 1997 (Doc. No. 775),

plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Preliminary Relief

and in the Alternative to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act Unconstitutional or to

Certify the Transfer of this Action's Consent Decree with Related Orders to the

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, filed September 30,1997 (Doc. No. 776),

plaintiffs' Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed-

October 8,1997 (Doc. No. 778), defendants' Brief in Support of Constitutionality of

Section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, filed October 7, 1997 (Doc. No. 779),

defendants' Memorandum in Further Explication of the Relationship Between Plaintiffs1

Motion for Contempt and Defendants' Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief, filed

October 10, 1997 (Doc. No. 781), defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs

Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 16,

1997 (Doc. No. 783), plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum, filed October 20, 1997 (Doc. No.

784), Defendants' Corrected Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 21, 1997 (Doc. No. 788), Intervenor United States of America's Memorandum of Law Concerning the Constitutionality of the Challenged Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, filed October 22,1997 (Doc. No. 791), plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt, filed October 28, 1997 (Doc. No. 797), and defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of. Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt, filed November 6, 1997 (Doc. No. 805), after oral argument on November 19,1997, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), are constitutional.
2. Because the Court has found the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), to be constitutional and because plaintiffs have not.made a factual showing of a.current and ongoing violation of a federal right as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief is GRANTED and the Consent Decree, as amended, is TERMINATED.
3. Plaintiffs Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Preliminary Relief and in the Alternative to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act Unconstitutional is DENIED.

4; • Plaintiffs Motion to Certify the Transfer of this Action's Consent Decree with Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is DENIED.
5. Plaintiffs Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt and Amended Motion for Contempt are DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
P . yyX
JANE.DUBOIS

 
 3 ~-

-11 *- -

r
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IKPRISONED CITIZENS UNION P.O. Box 4731 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19134. and
HERBERT LANGNES, J R . , and HILTON TAYLOR, and JACK LOPINSON, and
KA:KEY R. CHOICE, a : the
State Correctional Ir.stitJficn G r a t e r f o r d , Pennsylvania, ar,d
RICHARD 0. J . KAYBE^RY, and FRA;;K PATTERSON, and DANIEL DELKER, and HAROLD A.X.BROOKS, at the State Correctional Institution D a l l a s , Pennsylvania, and
EARLINE COEFIELD, and Th'tLMA SIMON, and AUDREY MASON, and SHARON WIGGINS, at the State Correctional Institution Muncy, Pennsylvania, and
DOMINIC CODISPOTI. and PHILIP HOUSEHOLDER, and JAKES KARBOLD, anfl JOSEPH OLIVER, at the State Correcticr.sl Institution Huntingdon, Per.nsyl van-i a , and
PAUL LYONS, and ROSERT BROWN, at the Stete Correctional Institution Rockview, Pennsylvania, and
JAMES S2ULCZEWSKI, and GERALD KAYO, and tfELSLEYKARRIS, at the State Correctional Institution Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION NO, 70-3054

v$, Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp
• •• •• •• • •
PC-PA-005-013

c

MILTON SHAPP, Governor State Capitol Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
J . SHANE CREAMER, Attorney Gene-al State Capitol Herrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
AILYN R. SEILAFF. Conrissioner of Corrections Bureau of Corrections Camp H i l l , .Pennsylvania , and
ROBERT L. JOHNSCN, Superintendent Stete Correctional Institution Graterfo'"d, Pennsylvania, and
LEONARD MACK, Superintendent State Correctional Institution Dallas, Pennsylvania, and
JAMES NURPHY, Superintendent State Correctional Institution Huncy, Pennsylvania, and
ERSKINE DEREMUS, Superintendent State CorrectfonaJ Institution • Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, and
DR. JOSEPH P. KAZURKIEVICZ, Superictendent State Correctional Institution Rockvtew, Pennsylvania, and
JOSEPH BRIERLT, Superintendent State Correctional Institution Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 70-3054

-2-

JURISDICTION 1. The j u r i s d i c t i o n of this Court 1s Invoked pursuant to and 1n accordance with
the provisions of T i t l e 28 United StUes Code. Sections 1343, 2201, and 2202; 42 United States Code, Sections T9S2, 1963, 19SS, and the Constitution of the United States, •specifically but not limited to the F i r s t , F i f t h , Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments thereto.
PARTIES 2. P l a i n t i f f , Imprisoned Citizens Union is Tn unincorporated association com-
posed' of persons who are prisoners of the Cocnonwealth of Pennsylvania and who ire Incarcerated 1n the six penitentiaries of the State penal system located at Graterford, Dallas, Money, Huntingdon* Rockview, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
3. P l a i n t i f f s , Herbert Langnes, J r . , Hilton Taylor, Jack Lopinson, and Kactcey R. Choice t r e prisoners of the CotnmonweaTth of Pennsylvania who are presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania.
• 4. P l a i n t i f f s , Richard O.J.Mayberry, Frank Patterson, Daniel DeUer, and Harold A.X. Brooks are prisoners of the Corrmonwealth of Pennsylvania who are presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania.
5. P l a i n t i f f s , Earline Coefield, Thelma Simon, Audrey Mason, and Sna-on Wiggins are prisoners of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who are presently incarcerated at the State Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n at Kuncy, Pennsylvania.
6. P l a i n t i f f s , Dominic Codispoti, Philip Householder, James Harboid, and Joseph Oliver are prisoners of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who are presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
6. P l a i n t i f f s , Paul Lyons, and Robert Brown are prisoners of the ConmsnweaKh of Pennsylvania, who are presently Incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Pennsylvania.
8. P l a i n t i f f s , Junes Szulczewski, Gerald Mayo, md Welsley Harris are prisoners of the Conmorrwealth of Pennsylvania, who ere presently Incarcerated at the State Correcticnal I n s t i t u t i o n at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
-3-
•wr\

9. The Defendant, MiUcn Shapp, is the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and as such 1s responsible unier law for the actions of the Attorney General of the CorrtnonweaUh and a l l other administrative personnel to whom this coro'aint pertains.
TO. The Defendant, J . Shane Creamer, 1s the Attorney General of the- Co-Ttrowealth of Pennsylvania and as such is the chief legal officer of the Department of Justice which Includes the Bureau of Corrections.
11. The Defendant, Ai'yn R. .SeHaff, 1s the Corrnssiorier of Correctors of the Ctxxionwea >th of Per.r.zyivir.ii, &nd as such Is the adrcinistratf ve head of the state prison system.
12. The Defendant, Robert L. Johnson, Is the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania.
13. The Defendant, Leonard Mack, 1s the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania.
14. The Defendant, James Murphy, Js the Superintendent of the State Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n at Muncy, Pennsylvania.
15. The Defendant, Erskine DeRemus, 1s the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution »t Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
16. The Defendant, Dr. Joseph P. MazurViewicz, 1s the Superintendent of the State Coj-re.ctional I n s t i t u t i o n at Rockview, Pennsylvania.
17. The Defendant, Joseph B r i e r l y , is the Superintendent of the State C o r r e c t i o n Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
18- The Oefendant, Hilton Shapp 1s being sued in his o f f i c i a l cs?scTty cn!y. A l l other defendants are being sued 1n their Individual and o f f i c i a l capacities.
CUSS ACTION 19. P l a i n t i f f s bring this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civi
Procedure, on behalf of themselves and a l l other persons who are now or w i l l be incarcerate fn the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at uraterford, Dallas, Hunt*rqden, **unc Rockview, »nd Pittsburgh. The persons comprising the class are so numerous that joinder of a l l members is Impractical. There are questions of fact and law cormon to the class, the
-A-

claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class and representatives will fairly and adequately protect the Interests ofthe class. Adjudication with respect to Individual members of the class would, as a practical matter, bedispositive of the Interests ofthe other members not parties to the adjudication. The parties opposing the class have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final fnjunctive relief orcorresponding declaratory relief to the class as a whole. The questions of law and fact conmon to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual mergers, and a class action 1s superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Prosecution ofseparate actions by individual class members would create a risk of Inconsistent or varying adjudications and would establish Incompatible standards for the defendants and their agents; 1naddition, Itwould result inmultiplicitous litigation with a consequent overburdening ofjudicial resources.
FACTS
20. Defendants, t h e i r agents and employees, acting In concert and under color of U* as s t a t e o f f i c e r s , have conspired aM agreed amongst themselves to violate the civil and human rights of the P l a i n t i f f s and the class they represent by causing them to be subjected "to grievous bodily harm, barbaricaTly cruel and unusual punishment, end violations of their rights under the F i r s t , Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, as more fully set forth 1n the following statement of f a c t s .
21. The State Correctional Institutions of the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania are administered by the Bureau of Corrections which is a sub-division of the Department of Justice.
22. A majority of the adult prisoners in the state who are serving sentences of two years or wore are housed in the State Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n s at Graterford, Dallas, Huncy Huntingdon, Roctv^ew, and Pittsburgh.
23. Each State Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n is under the supervision of a SuperiMender and a Deputy Superintendent who are responsible for the daily operation of the i n s t i t u t i o n and for supervising and directing the a c t i v i t i e s of the employees of the I n s t i t u t i o n
-5-
~wn

r
ing custodial personnel, treatment s t a f f , and nedical and religious s t i f f . 24. Judges in Pennsylvania nay not sentence ma'e persons to a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e
correctional I n s t i t u t i o n . The place of Incarceration of a r a l e person sentenced to a s t a t e correctional i n s t i t u t i o n 1s decided according to regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Corrections. A male prisoner is subject to t r a n s f e r , without n o t i c e , from one s t a t e correctional i n s t i t u t i o n to sny o t h e r , including Muncy, at any time during the service of his sentence as more fully s e t forth below. Female prisoners are presently housed only at the State Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n a t Muncy and are not subject to such t r a n s f e r s .
25. P l a i n t i f f s are Incarcerated 1n walled, f o r t r e s s - l i k e i n s t i t u t i o n s where they spend most of t h e i r t i n e working at menial and meaningless Jobs, such a s , keeping the grouncs clean, ( " l a w n - d e t a i l " ) , mopping the floor of the cetlblock, ("blocfc-detail"), or running errands for the guards, ("range-runner*), for an average salary of &pproximite)y fifty cents per day.
26. Defendants fall to furnish Plaintiffs with many of the necessities for maintaining personal hygiene, such as deodorant, shampoo, razor blades, razors, toothbrushes and toothpaste; and Plaintiffs are forced to purchase these Items from the prison commissary out of their meagre wages.
Z7. Prisoners in State Correctional Institutions may be housed witWn the Institutioi either in the general population or in some type of solitary confinement, known officially as:"admin1strat1ve segregation", "punitive segregation", or "seclusion."
28. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be placed in solitary conMnenent for periods of as long as seven yezrs, under Illegal and unconstitutional conditions, for an infraction of one of the so-called prison rules, or because the prison administration wishes to separate them from the general poDulation.
29. Plaintiffs receive no notice of the rules and regulations which govern their conduct 1n prison.
30. Plaintiffs receive no notice of what constitutes an infraction of such rules and regulations.
31. Plaintiffs receive no notice of which punishments are permitted to be imposed for Infractions of such rules and regulations.
-6-

32. There is no existing comprehensive codification of the rules and regulations governing the administration of the various state correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s , nor is there a comprehensive codification of the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the Plaintiffs in prison.

33. Defendants and their agents on the custodial staffs of the i n s t i t u t i o n s , actir.c i n disregard of, or without any rules and regulations governing the conduct of P l a i n t i f f s , are free t o , and do in f a c t , make daily ad hoc decisions regarding what i s , and is not, an Infraction of so-called prison regulations, and a r b i t r a r i l y and capricious"/ punish P l a i n t i f f ; for violating thereof.

34. P l a i n t i f f s who are charged with such infractions are itrcnediately placed In s o l i tary confinement without notice and without a hearing.

35. P l a i n t i f f s who have been so confined may remain 1n s o l i t a r y confinement without tver being given a hearing, or 1f granted a hearing, such hearing may be delayed by as much as one to three weeks.

36. P l a i n t i f f s who have been placed in s o l i t a r y confinement may be given a hearing before a three iwnber panel consisting of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, end t senior member of the custodial or treatment s t a f f . Such panel 1s called a behavior c l i n i c . The purpose of the hearing is to decide I f an Infraction has been cormitted and to impose punishment, ( i . e . , some type of solitary confinement.)

37. There are no adequate regulations governing the conduct of the behavior c l i n i c . hearings, and no regulations governing the type or-length of punishment that nay be imposed for a particular Infraction.

38. At the hearing before the behavior c l i n i c the P l a i n t i f f s :

a) receive no notice of the charges against them; b) are not permitted any kind of representation;

c) are not permitted to examine witnesses or present witnesses on t h e i r own behalf;

d) are not entitled to an Impartial t r i b u n a l ; e) are not permitted to have i record made of the proceedings;

:

f ) are not advised of the maximum length of the punishment imposed;

'

g) are not permitted to confront the witnesses against then.

39. There is nD appeal from action of the behavior c l i n i c . 4 0 . P l a i n t i f f s found s u i l t y of rules infractions are placed in s o l i t a r y confinement f'

-7-

an unlimited duration subject to the whir of the Defendants and their agents. P l a i n t i f f s so confined i r e entitled to have their status reviewed by the bahavicr c l i n i c from time to time, however, such review is meaningless 1n that:
a) P l a i n t i f f s are not afforded a personal appearance be'ore the reviewing body; b) there are no rules and regulations governing the review procedures; c) the review procedure is as cor^'etely lacking in due process as the original hearing; • 41. P l a i n t i f f s placed in solitary confinement are subjected to the less cr limitation of one or more of the following:
a) human contact;
b)mail delivery, sometimes delayed u n t i l the P l a i n t i f f 1s released from solitary confinement; c) access to attorneys and Courts - with the exception of pending actions; d) access to government o f f i c i a l s ; e) access to commissary Hems; f ) access to physical exercise, both Indoors and ourdoors; g) access to showers and other necessities of personal hygiene; h) access to leca) materials; i) access to reading natter of any kind; j ) medical attention; k) loss of job, thus resulting In loss of seniority and pay.
42. Defendants maintain certain areas within the institutions which are reserved for prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement. These areas <j-;^f*r significantly in their physical attributes from the cells 1n which those prisoners in the general population are housed. For each type of solitary confinement the'e is a different type of c e l l and a different set of lost privileges, growing more confininc and onerous as you progress from administrative segregation to seclusion.
43. P l a i n t i f f s who are placed in solitary confinement because of so-called rult infractions.may be placed in any one of three degrees of solitary confinement,at the v
-8-

and the caprice of the defendants arid their agents.

At. P1*intiffs who have been placed in solitary confinement because of such Infrac-

tions, are subject to transfer from one degree of solitary confinement to another, at the

arbitrary whim and caprice of the defendantsand their agents without the opportunity to

be heard.

AS. The worst degree of s o l i t a r y confinement is that of seclusion. P l a i n t i f f s

confined 1n seclusion are placed In dungeon-like c e l l s such as the "Sweat Bcxes" at C a l U s ,

the 'Glass Cage" a t Huntingdon, Clinton Cottage at M.uncy, "Big Max" at G r a t e r f o r d , and

"trie Sole" at P i t t s b u r g h . P l a i n t i f f s confined 1n seclusion, i n a d d i t i o n to the loss of the

p r i v i l e g e s enumerated above, further suffer from:

a) confinement 1n f i l t h y , vermin-infested subterranean dungeons-

b) Tack of v e n t i l a t i o n ;

c) lack of bedding;

d) lack of adequate clothing

e) starvation d i e t s ;

f j . l a c k o f adequate s a n i t a t i o n and means of personal hygiene, due t o being placed i n c e l l s t h a t lack a washbasin and water faucet and t h a t contain plumbing f i x t u r e s t h a t can only be controlled by custodial personnel outside of the c e l l .

g) harrassnent and assault at the whim of custodial nersornel armed with weapons or chemicals such as mace; such chemicals are used in such manner as not merely to subdue p l a i n t i f f s but to Injure then by, for'example, spraying mace d i r e c t l y into the mouth of a p l a i n t i f f or directly Into his eyes at close range.

h) brutal and unjustifiable physical assaults by goon squads of custodial personnel often for sadistic purposes.

1) severe limitations on. physical exercise- i n sorr.e cases none at a l l .

j ) complete lack of any l i g h t source withfn the c e l l ;

k) total Interruption of educational programs such as,

:

correspondence courses or vocational training.

46. P l a i n t i f f s are further subject to arbitrary ar.d capricious punishment by means

of being transferred from one correctional I n s t i t u t i o n to another without notice and withoj,

i hearing. There are no rules and regulations regarding such transfers. Demotions! trans-

f e n result in the loss of privileges gained through seniority, such as job placement, end

r
pay, and are made without any regard for disruption and/or teminttic-n of rehabi 1-; u t - v e programs, such as, attendance at educational institutions and correspondence courses. SucL. transfers often result in prejudicing the rights of p l a i n t i f f s who are scheduled for parole hearings, and result i n a delay of such hearings.. De~:tional transfers often involve a change in status fnyn general population to solitary cor.finerr.ent, again without any notice or hearing and t o t a l l y at the arbitrary whim and caprice of the Defendants and their agents ind employees.
47. Defendants use such devotional transfers to harass p l a i n t i f f s by isoleflnc frer from their families and attorneys and to intimidate and prevent them f r o r exe^cis^ng their constitutional rights.
45. P l a i n t i f f s who are transferred temporarily to local Jails for Court appearances, either as a result of pending charges,-or as a result of having f i l e d post-conviction reliep e t i t i o n s , are subjected to permanent loss of seniority with the resultant loss of oay and privileges.
49. Defendants have refused to promulgate rules governing demotions! transfers, and continue to permit t h e i r agents and employees to use such transfers to harass P l a i n t i f f s and to prevent them from engaging 1n constitutionally protected a c t i v i t i e s .
50. Defendants permit t h e i r agents and employees to read and censor P l a i n t i f f s ' outgoing and incoming mail. Including correspondence to and from attorneys and government o f f i c i a l s . Although attorneys may have confidential communications with the p l a i n t i f f s by v i s i t i n g them in person at the prison, as the institutions are located, for the msst part, at an inconvenient distance from places where P l a i n t i f f s ' attorneys maintain the'r offices the denial of total confidentiality of correspondence between attorney and client is a g.-ointerference with the right of p l a i n t i f f s to have such confidential corrr.unicatio-s with th> attorneys.
51. Defendants permit their agents and employees to unreasonably and a r b i t r a r i l y re: t r i c t the reading material available to the p l a i n t i f f s and their means of obtaining such material.
52. P l a i n t i f f s are required to obtain a l l reading matter directly fror, the publishe which 1s an unreasonable and arbitrary requirement, and places an undue burden on their a b i l i t y to obtain reading material In accordance with their wants and needs.
-10-

53. Defendants have a r b i t r a r i l y restricted P l a i n t i f f s from receiving the total output of my publisher whose single publication they find unacceptable, even though the part i c u l a r publication requested by P l a i n t i f f s is within the bounds proscribed by Defendants' rules and regulations.
54. Defendants and their agents have continually denied P l a i n t i f f s the right to receive and read books, magazines, newspapers, Instructional materials, public documents, and other reading matter of great Interest and value to P l a i n t i f f s , Including but net l i r r i t ed t o : The Catholic Worker, Daily World, Muhmad Speaks, Pittsburgh Fair Witness, PhiladelD*.Free Press. Resist Newsletter, Penal Digest, Prisoners Free Press, WIN, Liberated Guardian, M i l i t a n t , and other p o l i t i c a l newspapers and l i t e r a t u r e of general circulation.
55. Such denials have not been based on, nor have they been 1n furtherance of, any objectively valid c r i t e r i a , and have not 1n any way, been rationally related to the goals of the prison system as a whole, the particular prison involved, or the individual prisoner, Rather, they have been a r b i t r a r y , discriminatory, and based solely on whim and caprice, as well as deliberately repressive.
56. P l a i n t i f f s who have been denied access to reading matter have no means of aDpealing such action.
57. P l a i n t i f f s who have been denied access to reading natter are not informed of the reason for such denial.
53. Defendants f a i l to furnish P l a i n t i f f s with adequate law libraries necessary for the exercise of P l a i n t i f f s ' constitutional r i g h t s ; and instead, furnish their institutions solely with editions of Purdens Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated, without up to date pocket parts.
59. Defendants do~not permit p l a i n t i f f s to communicate by correspondence or by personal Interview with representatives of the news media.
60. Defendants refuse to recognize the dietary needs of P l a i n t i f f s whose r e l i gious beliefs prevent then from eating certain foods, and Defendants deny said Plaint i f f s even minimal dietary requirements. P l a i n t i f f s are thereby forced to supplement their diet with comissary Items purchased with t h e ' r s * t ; r e wages.
-11-

61. Dependents fail to provide proper diet and medication to Plaintiffs who

have, or develop, chronic physical ailments requiring dally special attention, such

AS ulcers or diabetes.

62. Defendants fail to provide adequate medical care 'or Plaintiffs ir, that:

a) treatment is unduly delayed;

b) there is lack os continuity of treatment, (e.g. medical charts fail to follow a prisoner, who has been operated on from hospital to the prison;

c) there is inadequate follow-up, even when there has been treatment;

.

d} there is inadequate access to treatment, in that medical

personnel are not continuously available on a twenty-four

hour basis;

e) there 1s no adequate medical record keeping, records are poorly made up, by untrained personnel, and are lost when a prisoner Is transferred from one Institution to another.

•

f) there Is totally Inadequate psychiatric treatment for

• . Plaintiffs suffering from acute psychosis. Plaintiffs so

suffering are treated with a combination of solitary con-

:

' f-fnement and drugs, which 1s inappropriate treatment for

that condition.

63. Defendants permit their agents and employees to arbitrarily and capriciously

require Plaintiffs to Ingest tranqu1l1z1ng drugs, such as Thorazine, and to impose pun-

ishment upon Plaintiffs who refuse such medication. The ingesticn of such drugs,. oft fir:

on a continual daily basis, has, and will continue to cause, permanent mental Imbalance

in Plafntiffs.

Si. Defendants permit inappropriate treatment to be administered tc Plaintiffs,

such as the administration of placebos, which can and have, resulted in the encou-eser.e-

of drug addiction on the part of Plaintiffs, by making them psychologically dependent

on pill-taking.

65. Defendants penrit drugs to be given to Plaintiffs in forms whicr, cause ther;

to lose their therapeutic value, such as, by Insisting that they be dissolved in water

befors being Ingested.

66. Defendants permit the existence of conditions 1n their institutions which

create and foster deviant behavior, by denying to Plaintiffs human contact, contact

with the opposite sex, adecuate physical exercise, and adequate environmental space.

-12-

r
free 67. Defendants f a i l to provide/prosthetic devices such es false teeth and to P l a i n t i f f s who require them. In order to obtain such devices, free of charge, i t 1s necessary for P l a i n t i f f s to apply to the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitaticri. 68. The Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, acting on behalf of the Defendants, has no established standards for the granting or denial of sucn prosthetic devir.es, end P l a i n t i f f s in need of them have been denied such devices under standards which are arbitrary or capricious. 69. Defendants have failed to insure that P l a i n t i f f s ' medical records are confid e n t i a l , and have allowed then to be examined witno-'t P l a i n t i f f s ' consent, by persons who are untrained, unlicensed, and unprivileged. 70. Defendants, although ultimately responsible for the penal system of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, have continued to permit the existence of such unconstitutional conditions as are described above. • 71. Because of this conduct on the part of the Defendants, P l a i n t i f f s are forced to l i v e 8 daily existence 1n a hostile environment where they are completely uncrotected front arbitrary harassment by Defendants' employees and other Inmates. 72. Such rules and regulations as have been promulgated by Defendants for the administration of the penal institutions of this CommonweiHh have been promulgated without any notice to P l a i n t i f f s , and without any provision to insure that such rules and regulations w i l l be administered properly, correctly, and in the same manner throughout the penal system of the Conroonwealth. 73. Defendants continue to confine P l a i n t i f f s in prisons that are control's;; by racist prison o f f i c i a l s who deliberately instigate and provoke racial tensions, r i o t s , and interracial violence between Inmates by reason of the discriminatory and racist policies that they enforce. 74. Defendants continue to deny P l a i n t i f f s the rights declared in the "Standard Minimum Rules For the Treatment of Prisoners And Related Recommendations'' of the United Nations, even though such rights were adopted by the Commonwealth of Pe*r<yH*nia b v Order of the Defendant, J.. Shane Creamer, fn a memorandum dated October 4, 1971. 75. P l a i n t i f f s art denied the r i g h t to wear c i v i l i a n clothing and are forced to wear dr*b, worn, jecond bind clothing that is Inadequate to keep P l a i n t i f f s warm in win
-13-

r

months, and which 1s deliberately designed to destroy Plaintiffs' self respect and

Individuality.

76. Defendants force Plaintiffs to submit to "strip searches", at the arbitrary

whim and caprice of the custodial personnel. During such searches, Plaintiffs are

forced to strip nude, open their mouths, lift up their anrs, expose their genitals,

show the soles of their feet, and bend over at the waist so that custodial personnel

can visually examine their posteriors. In addition, the custodial personnel assault

Plaintiffs by putting their hands into their hairanc en their heads and bodies, unde--

the guise of searching for contraband.

77. Defendants permit custodial personnel to vandalize Plaintiffs' cells, a^d

destroy Plaintiffs' books, papers, and other property while Plaintiffs are absent fr~-

their cells.

,

78. Defendants unreasonably restrict the number of visitors Plaintiffs may re-

ceive while they are Incarcerated in State Correctional Institutions. Plaintiffs

so confined are not permitted to recefve more than ten (10) visitors.

79. Defendants continue to employ persons on the custodial and treatment staffs

of the Institutions who have and continue to, engage 1n sadistic practices and whose

presence constitutes a continuing threat to Plaintiffs' safety.

80. Defendants continue to operate a prison system which results in the daily

oppression and degradation of the Plaintiffs and the total denial of Plaintiffs' basic

constitutional and hur.an rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION Disciplinary Proceedings 81. The actions of Defendants in failing to provide a comprehensive code of
regulations under which the penal institutions shall be operated, .and in fa-.*;ir$ tc provide a comprehensive code governing the conduct of the Plaintiffs within the Institutions* and 1n failing to provide a code containing information regarding which Infraction shall be punished by which punishment, ar.d 1n falling to give notice to Plaintiffs of such rules and regulations and punishments, constitutes a denial to Plaintiffs of their rights to due process of lew under the Fifth and Fourteenth

•

-14-

amendments to the United States Constitution, 82. The actions of Defendants 1n a r b i t r a r i l y and capriciously punishing Plain-
t i f f s for infractions of so-called rules end regulations of the •Institutions, of which P l a i n t i f f s have been given no notice, by placing P l a i n t i f f s in various degrees of sclita confinement, without allowing them notice of the charge, a hearing at which they mey be represented, a right to confront the witnesses against therr., & right to an impartial panel, a right to present witnesses on their own behalf, a right to have a reccrd rate of the proceedings, and a right to be advised of the maximum length cf pyni'staent imposed, constitutes a denial to P l a i n t i f f s of rights guaranteed them by the F i f t h , Sixth, Ei;hth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
83. The actions of Defendants in f a i l i n g to grant any appeal from the action of the behavior c l i n i c , and in f a i l i n g to grant a meaningful review to P l a i n t i f f s who have been placed 1n solitary confinement, 1s a denial of rights guaranteed to P l a i n t i f f s under the F i f t h Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
84. The actions of Defendants 1n placing P l a i n t i f f s , for purposes of punishment, in cells which contain limited v e n t i l a t i o n , space, l i g h t , and a i r , and 1n forcing them to wear Inadequate clothing, e.id depriving them of bedding, and control over their plumbing f i x t u r e s , and 1n denying them access to mall delivery, human contact, attorney: government o f f i c i a l s , commissary items, physical exercise, necessities of personal hygiene, ?egal material, reading matter and medical attention, is a denial to the P l a i n t i f f s of rights guaranteed them under the F i f t h , Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
85. The action of Defendants in permitting P l a i n t i f f s to be transferred from one I n s t i t u t i o n to another at the arbitrary and capricious whim of the Defendants and their custodial personnel, without notice and without an opportunity to be heard, resulting i n the loss to P l a i n t i f f s of job seniority, and disruption of rehabilitative programs, and the loss of contact with family and friends, is a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed to them by the F i f t h , Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth imendments to the United States Constitution.
86. The actions of Defendants 1n refusing to promulgate rules governing such demotion*! transfers, and to continue to permit their agents to use such transfers to
-15-

harass Plaintiffs and to prevent then from encaging in constitutionally protected activities, 1s a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed then under the first, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
S7. The actions of Defendants in permitting Plaintiffs to suffer less of job, pay, and other privileges as a result of being temporarily transferred to local County jails for appearance 1n Court- as a result of pending charges or post-conviction relief hearings, is a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
Censorship
88. The actions of Defendants 1n Interfering with the confidential relationship between Plaintiffs and their attorneys, by allowing censorship of attorney-client mall. Is a denial of rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs under the First, Tifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
89. The action of Defendants In imposing unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on the reading matter available to Plaintiffs and on the manner in which they may obtain such reading matter, is a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them under the Firstt Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Coustitution.
90. The action of Hefendants in failing to provide any reasonable procedure by which Plaintiffs who have been arbitrarily denied access to certain reading matter may have such decision reviewed, is a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
91. The action to Defendants in failing to furnish Plaintiffs with adequate law libraries is a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed then by the First, Fiftn, Sixth, Eighth, ind Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
-16-

r
Medical Cere
92. Theactions of Defendants 1n providing Inadeauate medical care to Plaintiffs, by failing to provide adequate treatment, by permitting delay in treatment, by falling to provide Draper access to treatment, by permitting inappropriate treatments, and by permitting conditions which encourage drug addiction and create deviant behavior, constitute a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them under the Fifth, Eighth,'and Fourteenth amendments to th,e United Stated Constitution,
93. Theaction of Defendants fn delegating to theBureau of Vocational Rehabilitation the total responsibility for providing free prosthetic devices to Plaintiffs and in permitting theBureau to administer such responsibility arbitrarily andcapriciously, is a denial to PUInftffs of rights guaranteed them under theFifth, EiQhth, andFourteenth amendments to theUnited States Constitution.
94. Theaction of Defendants in refusing to secure to Plaintiffs theconfidentiality of their medical records 1s a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments to the drifted States Constitution.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
95. The actions of Defendants in continuing to keep P l a i n t i f f s in confined areas within fortress-like institutions where they are not provided with any means of rehabilitation or education, where they are cut off from reasonable access to the outside world and tc their families, where they are subjected to demeaning treatment such as constant s t r i p searches and forced to dress in ludicrous looking clothing, and where no attempt 1s made to provide a meaningful program for change, a l l of which constitutes an environment which can only be char«cteri2»d as cruel and unusual punishment is a denial to Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed them by the F i r s t , F i f t h , Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
-17-

WHEREFORE, P l a i n t i f f s pray this Honorable Court t o : a) Issue a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants to prepare and f i l e with t h i s Court a co~;;rerersive Code of rules and regulations concerning standards of behavior to be expected of each innate and the miriinvjr and maximum punishment to be accorded those who v i o l a t e any of said rules and regulations. Such code to cover all aspects of an inmates' l i f e in the I n s t i t u t i o n , and f u r t h e r , ordering Defendants to promulgate procedures whereby such cods shall irnr.ediate'y be d i s t r i buted to a l l persons who are presently Inmates of the penal system of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to insure C a t such code shall be immediately d i s t r i b u t e d to any person hereinafter admitted t o a penal i n s t i t u t i o n of the Conrocnw a l t h of Pennsylvania, fnriediately upon hfs admittance thereto.
b) Enter an Order granting a preliminary and final injunction p r o h i b i t i n g , r e s t r a i n i n g and enjoining Defendants, t h e i r
• i . successors and agents from causing any prisoner 1n the penal system of the Connonweaith of Pennsylvania to be placed in punitive or administrative segregation or seclusion withe.t prior notice of the charges against him, witneut a pri-C"administrative hearing at which he can present eviderce *~ his own behalf, cross-exarine his accusers, be- represented by * person of his choice, and be given a record of the heading and the means to appeal an adverse decision. If, however, the p r i s o n e r ' s actions present sucn a grave threat of i r r a d i a t e and pressing danger t h a t a hearing prior to punishnert Is not f e a s i b l e , then the prisoner shall be given the above described notice of charges and a hearing within twenty-four bours of being placed in such s o l i t a r y confinement.
-18-

c) enter an Order granting a mandatory Injunction providing that any P l a i n t i f f presently placed 1n solitary confinement who has not had a hearing in accord with procedural due process, be given an iircr.ediate hearing or be returned to his former status in the general population of the prison.
d) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents, from causing any prisoner to be placed in administrative or punitive segregation or 1n seclusion In Isolation from the general prison population so as to endanger such prisoner's mental and physical health by not providing adequate exercise, by not permitting ade- " quate personal hygiene to be maintained, by r e s t r i c t i n g his v i s i t s , by. interfering with his r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , and by v i o l a t i n g , i n any other way, the prisoner's right to be free from cruel and unusu*! punishment, as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
e) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors i n office and agents, from causing any prisoner to be transferred to any other penal i n s t i t u t i o n within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without prior notice of the charges against him, or the reasons for the transfer, and and without providing the prisoner with a prior administrative hearing at which he can present evidence of his own, call witnesses In his own behalf, cross-examine his accusers, be represented by a person of his choice, be given a record of the hearing, ind the means to appeal an adverse decision. .
-19-

L

r
f) enter an Order granting a ore!iminary and final Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining the Defendants, their successors 1n office find agents from continuing to keeo Plaintiffs In various degrees of isolation without a meaningful means of review at which they can appear in person, be represented by a person of their choice, cress-examine witnesses, present witnesses in their own behalf, and be given a record of the hearing and the means to appeal an adverse decision.
g) enter an Order granting a mandatory Injunction providing that any prisoner transferred without the guarantees of procedural due-process be returned to his former status in
' the general prison population at the prison from which he was transferred if he so chooses, or to the general population at the prison to which he has been transferred, if he so chooses,
h) enter an Order granting a preliminary and final Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors In office and agents from threatening, punishing, or otherwise retaliating against Plaintiffs, the class they represent, and all others cooperating with then for initiating, prosecuting, and investigating the present action.
1} enter an Order granting a preliminary and final injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from continuing to censor mail sent and received by Plaintiffs to and from their
. tttorneys and government officials.
J) enter an Order grinting a preliminary and final Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from continuing to arbitrarily and unreasonably restrict the reading matter of Plaintiffs
-20-

and to a r b i t r a r i l y and unreasonably r e s t r i c t the source frcm which P l a i n t i f f s may obtain such reeding material.

k) enter an Order granting a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants, their successors In office and agents to Immediately establish objective and rational c r i t e r i a for the obtaining of reading matter by the P l a i n t i f f s so as not to Infringe upon their Constitutional r i g h t s , end to Implement appropriate procedures to see that such c r i t e r i a are duly observed and enforced through ^-'t the penal system of the Coononwealth of Pennsylvania.

1) enter an Order granting a mandatory injunction ordering

Defendants, their successors In o f f i c e and agents to

Inmedlately furnish each correctional I n s t i t u t i o n with an

adequate law l i b r a r y containing 1n addition to an up-to-

date edition of Purdens Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated

trtth current pocket parts, a set of the Pennsylvania Law

Encyclopedia, Moore's Federal Practice,

State and

Federal Reporters for the past ten years, the complete set

of the Criminal Law Reporter, Black's Law Dictionary, and

a complete set of County, State and Federal Court Rules.

n) enter an Order granting a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants, their successors in o f f i c e and agents to provide adequate medical care to Imates of the state correctional institutions Including, but not limited to:

ljadequate diet for those persons who because of chronic I l l n e s s , require a special diet or because of religious persuasion,or because they are vsgetarians are unable to eat the ordinary prison diet;

-21-

2) hire enough mental personnel to ensure that there shall be no delay 1n the treatment of any Inmate;
3} Implement procedures tc er.sjre that there shall be adequate follow-up for inmates who have been released to other institutions for treatment and are then returned to their home i n s t i t u t i o n ;
4) Implement procedures tD ensure that there w i l l be adequate medical record taking and record keeping within the I n s t i t u t i o n and proper procedures for Insuring that medical records follow an inmate whenever he Is transferred to another I n s t i t u t i o n ;
5) Issue prosthetic devices Including but not limited to faiseteeth and eyeglasses to any and a l l inrjtes 1n need of ther- free of charge; such issuance to be made directly by the Bureau of Corrections and net to be delegated to another agency of the Corx;cnwealt!*.;
6) Implement procedures to ensure that persons suffering from acute psychoses w i l l be transferred to I n s t i t u tions that are designed to treat persons with those conditions, and w i l l not be retained within the correctional I n s t i t u t i o n s , but that no prisoner shall be so transferred without notice and a hearing at which he •ay be represented by counsel;
7) cease forthwith from requirinq P l a i n t i f f s who are not In need of them to ingest drugs such as Thorazine;
8) implement procedures to Insure the confidentiality of the medical records of the inmates of the Pennsylvania correctional institutions.
n) enter «n Order granting a mandatory Injunction ordering the
Defendants, their successors in office and agents to i r r e d -
l a t e l y implement procedures tc prcvide for meaningful employ-
ment of the P l a i n t i f f s ' time with opportunity presented for
a l l who require them for higher education and vocational
training.
o) enter an Order granting a mandatory injunction ordering
Defendants, their successors in office and agents tD immed-
i a t e l y screen applicants and current correctional officers
for psychological or psychiatric d i s a b i l i t i e s according to
eethods which w i l l ensure that correctional officers with
• personality defects which would Interfere with their functions

rr-TB r

T T

1n the prison i r « net hired, or allowed to remain in their present capacities.
p) enter an Order granting a preliminary and final injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendir.ts, their successors 1n office and agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of the right to receive conjugal v i s i t s from their wives, husbands and cannon-law spouses and further cocr-anding Defendants and their agents to set up f a c i l i t i e s in a l l the state correctional institutions where prisoners r,ay vis^'t with their wives, husbands,conrcon-1aw spouses and families In privacy,comfort and decency.
q) issue a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants, their successors In office and agents to grant to P l a i n t i f f s the right to seal a l l their outgoing mail.
r ) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors 1n office and agents from preventing P l a i n t i f f s having contact with agents of the news media by l e t t e r s , interviews or other means of communication.
s) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of essential preventive medical treatment and specifically commanding Defendants to provide P l a i n t i f f s and other prisoners with physical examinations at least twery six months and oftener 1f the state of the prisoner's health requires 1 t , x-rays I f desired, »nd adequate and sound medical, dental and mental health care.
-23-

TI

•wr

t ) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors 1n office end agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of their right to wear c i v i l i a n clothing or to grow their facial hair to any length, as long as i t 1s not i n t e r f e r ing with the reasonable operation of the I n s t i t u t i o n .

u) enter an Order granting a preliminary aid final Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of having the continuous opportunity to talk and associate with one another.

v) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors i n o f f i c e and agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of the right to prepare and f i l e p e t i t i o n s , l e t t e r s , reports end other written communications to the Courts, l e g i s l a t o r s , and executive branches of the government on behalf of themselves and each other.

w) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining1 Defendants, their

successors 1n office and agents from using physical force or

violence against P l a i n t i f f s except to prevent injury to the

prisoner, his fellow prisoners or institutional personnel or

other persons.

:

x) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction p r o h i b i t i n g , restraining and enjoining Defendants, v . t i r successors 1n office and agents from using Mace, chemical g«s, tear gas or any other poisonous or noxious gas against P l a i n t i ' f s .

y) enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors 1n office and agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of making at least two phone calls per week at the P l a i n t i f f s ' expense to the P l a i n t i f f s ' families, attorneys, friends, v1s;tsrs and business associates.
z) enter an Order granting a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants, their successors 1n office and agents to cease forthwith from forcing P l a i n t i f f s to submit to s t r i p searches absent reasonable cause therefor.
aa)enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors 1n office and agents from searching the cells and belongings of P l a i n t i f f s unless the P l a i n t i f f s are present to observe the search at the time that the. search is conducted, and specifically commanding Defendants not to destroy P l a i n t i f f s ' property or mutilate, deface or damage P l a i n t i f f s ' property and papers for any reason.
bbjenter an Ordsr granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from depriving P l a i n t i f f s of clean mattresses and beds, complete sets of bedding and clothing Including socks and undergarments to be changed at least once per week, adequate towels, proper cleaning ecuipment and other personal necessities such as toothpaste,tooth- .. brushes, cr*nbs» razor blades, razors, etc.
cc)enter in Order granting i preliminary and f i n a l Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from continuing to confine

P l a i n t i f f s 1n substandard cells and further commanding Defendants to repair end renovate a l l cells ind buildings 1n the several State Correctional Institutions to make them safe and f i t for human habitation, Including but not limited t o , the following particular improvements:
1) hot and cold running water in a l l c e l l s ; 2) at least a one hundred and f i f t y watt e l e c t r i c Illumination in aJl c e i l s ; 3) natural lighting for a l l c e l l s ; 4) adequate heat and ventilation for a l l c e l l s ; 5) a t o i l e t that can be flushed by the occupant in all cells; 6} a bed, a table and a chair 1n a l l c e l l s ; and s p e c i f i c a l l y , ccmnanding the Defendants to close the dungeons and sub-terranean cells that they make use of i n the state correctional Institutions at Dallas and Pittsburgh, tnd further conroanding the Defendants to close the "Sweat-Box" cells at Dallas, the "Glass Cage" at Huntingdon, the maximum security and punishment cellblocks at Graterford, and Clinton Cottage at Muncy.
ddjenter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from confining the P l a i n t i f f s 1n cells and buildings that are f i l t h y , vermin-infested, unsafe, dilapidated and dangerously substandard.
ee)enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l Injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from obstructing P l a i n t i f f s In their purchase and receipt of law books and legal publications that they require as determined by P l a i n t i f f s for preparing their legal actions, appeals, petitions and Court
-26-

. !
i

i i

i

-.

•

•

actions, and further commanding Defendants not to nterfere

;.

with the right of Plaintiffs to purchase and receive any and

•

all educational bocks, novels, fiction and non-fiction books

;

available to the general public.

ffjenter an Order granting a preliminary and final injunction

prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their

successors In office and agents from subjecting Plaintiffs

;;

-( to an Inadequate and nutritionally deficient diet, and

further commanding Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with

a diet that includes-the following minimal nutritional values:

2900 calories per day; 70 grams of protein; .8 grams of calcium;

10 fniniarams of Iron; 5000 Int. units of vitamin A; 1.2

»UMgrams of thiamin; 1.7 milligrams of riboflavin; 19 milli-

grams of niadn; 70 milligrams of ascorbic acid; 400 Int. units

of vitamin.D; and further commanding that all of these nutri-

. tional values be part of the daily diet for all prisoners con-

fined 1n all of the state correctional Institutions under the

control of Defendants.

•

..

;

;

'

gg)enter an Order granting a preliminary and final injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors In office and agents from restraining Plaintiffs In handcuffs, strait - jackets, or other forms of physical restraint while Plaintiffs are locked In their cells or inside the prison confines except in such cases where i t fs necessary to use restraints to prevent violence or injury to others end then only when there 1s a clear and present danger of such violence occurring.

-

hh) enter an Order granting a preliminary and final Injunction

prohibiting, restraining and enjoining the Defendants, their

successors 1n office and agents from refusing to comply with

-27-

M •

• ••!!• 1

1 • • ! 1 . 1 ' | ; 1; i ra

the provisions of the "Standard Minimum Rules For the Treatment of Prisoners and Related Recommendations" of the United Naticns as proclaimed to be adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by the Defendant, J , Shane Creamer.
11)enter an Order granting a preliminary and f i n a l injunction prohibiting, restraining and enjoining Defendants, their successors in office and agents from confining prisoners in cells or buildings where they are l e f t unattended and where they are prevented from obtaining release from their confinement in the event of an emergency, and further commanding the Defendants to post at least two guards on a l l cellblocks continuously, twenty-four hours per day, and to direct said guards that i n the event of an emergency such as f i r e , f l o o d , accident or sudden illness that threatens the l i f e or health of the prisoners the guards must release the prisoner from his c e l l or room 1n which he 1s confined, and 1f necessary, surrmon medical treatment for the prisoner Immediately.
j j ) enter a declaratory Judgment declaring that the d i s c i p l i n a r y procedures presently practiced in the state correctional Institutions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania offend the provisions of the F i f t h , Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth a~er,iments to the United States Constitution, and m-jst cease an_ desist forthwith.
kkjenter a declaratory Judgment declaring that the conditions uncewhich P l a i n t i f f s are presently placed in administrative or punitive segregation or seclusion are violative of P l a i n t i f f s ' rights under the Eighth amendment to the United States Constit u t i o n , and must therefore be changed forthwith.
-28-

ri~nr

III:

fr
11)enter a declaratory Judgment declaring that the procedures practiced by Defendants for censoring mall and reading natter are violative of the P l a i n t i f f s ' rights under the F i r s t , F i f t h , Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and therefore must cease and desist forthwith.
em) enter a declaratory Judgment declaring that the health cars furnished P l a i n t i f f s by Defendants insofar as i t f a i l s to give adequate treatment, gives inappropriate results, and inappropr i a t e medication and treatment, results 1n delay In treatment, results 1n inadequate follow-up and preparation of medical records, results 1n Inadequate care of persons with acute psychoses or with special chronic conditions, is violative of the P l a i n t i f f s ' rights under the F i f t h , Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and must be changed forthwith.
nn)enter a declaratory Judgment declaring that the correctional system of the Cornnonwealth of Pennsylvania is violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and must be changed forthwith.
oo)enter an Order under the authority granted to this Court by T i t l e 28 U.S.C. S 1651 vacating a l l sentences Imposed upon members of the P l a i n t i f f class pursuant to convictions on charges that have been brought against then arising out of actions they have taken to relieve themselves from the degrading, oppressive and unconstitutional conditions of their imprisonment, including but not limited to sentences imposed on charges of Prison Breach, Holding Hostages, Riot and Assault By a Prisoner.
ppienter i n Order granting to P l a i n t i f f s damages in an amount of to be determined by this Court that 1s equal to the
-29-

(f

(c

•mount lost by P l a i n t i f f s due to being placed 1n administrative or punitive segregation, or In seclusion, or being subjected to a demotional transfer without due process of law. qqjenter an Order-granting to P l a i n t i f f s punitive and compensatory damages and counsel fees in an amount determined by this Court.
rr)such other r e l i e f as this Court nay deem appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,

CAROLYN ENGEL TEMIN
TEMIN.WALLIS & COHEN 640-42 Rodman Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147

THOMAS B. HARVEY. I l l
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION 260 South 15th Street Sixth Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

OF COUNSEL:
RAYMOND 0. BRADLEY 12th Floor Packard Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
RDEERT H. FIEBACH IZth Floor, Packard Bulldip.; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
PHILIP HIRSCHKOP PENAL REFORM INSTITUTE T10 N. Royal Street Alexandria, Virginia

JACK LEVINE 1427 Walnut Street • Second Floor - Suite 200 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 SI02 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
-30-

 
 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

PC-PA-005-014
IN T-II. L ! . . . ^ j S ' L A T I S DISTRICT CO-
'C'r. TK£ LJ-\S~^T'•' 3* S~Kr r~ 0 " -r'>".'S'-

;>CNEJ CITIZENS 'JN:: vs
SHAPP, ec a l .

CIVIL ACTION
70-J CS71-513 71-1CC6 7C-25-5

The parches hereto are mutually desirous of dispis'.r.g o: as many of the issues raised by this suit as possible without further litigation, and for chsn reason plaintiffs and defendants are willing to consent to die entry of the following Judgment. The pLainciffs ackr.owltdge chat defendants already have instituted voluntarily many of the programs and procedures described herein. This Consent Decree shall in no way be interpreted as an admission by defendants of iiry violation of state or federal law.
The cour; bei~g fJI . V advise.; in :r.e y r e n s e s , srj h-svir-,; conferred wirh the parties and their a trcrneys herein, havir-g r£ vie::ed all aspects of chis case cc daze, having fully considered che dtsirabiliry of disposing of che maccers concaired herein by ctc.-.r.s of a consent judy-rei: and kr:owing the sarce :o be freely agretc to by che plainciffs and defendarrcs herein as is tv-cercct by cheir si,iu:ures ocid/ot che si^r.arures of their counsel hereto does KER£BV Vf.i'.ii, ,\-JJi-OC,Z AKD DLCRi: =•-: ere frllou-irg judg-ie.-: be ari :ne sz.~e !^ :.• •. c-'y e;;icre.! 3 s che ; u : p e n : cf chis CO--:': ir. ;."is .TJ : :<e:

Defendants will pro-u:;j:e » rcde of Cor.c-ct : j v e r : r j ell ii,:f.:« c: i.-.5;ic-: :c:-i: life r e l a r i * ; :c c.he ; : r c . : : c 5 res;:tr.

sr-_ :•c jcntl-Jtr of custodial and adn-ir.i? tra rive pt ;s^r.:-,t 1 .

A. S-2id Code TIUSC specify ir:er alia . cr.e type of purlsn

r.ei-c :c be i-r^cse'- f J C the infraction of a n / re^u 1 a tior. ccr.ta ir.e d c L e : e . n , where sucr. punishment is che rer.ovai of a re s ider. c : r - T

c •e te..eral

the prison where i.r. he is c2r.fir.e2, the

C^de shall provics fcr s T.ar.datory periodic r e v . e - iy the sentencing

panel , but no longer than thirty (30) days or after one half of the

sentence is served, or w h i c h e v e r is less. D e f e n d a n t s a c k n o w l e d g e

Chat che primary aim of segregation from che general prison popula-

tion is co a l l o w inmates to control their behavior so cb&c chey

may be returned to che general population without further danger

co the staff, other ir.raaces or che segregated inmates t h e m s e l v e s .

Def ei^cisr : s ' policy is to return segregcted irr.ates to the general

poo-: la tico as sc rn a s s-:r. inr.a tes have sc r.ofidied their fcehavirr.

E. Said Czd? c c s : specify m r&r a 1is ;.-.e type a~.c r,::-re

c; a prisoner's co-duct that would constitute ar infraction o: the

Ccdtr, arid such c m d j c t CJSt be defined so as CD a p p r i s e the prisoner

of the conduct that is prohibited. No conduct will be punished

unless i: constitutes an infraction of the C o i e .

C. Following approval by the court said Code shall be

repr.u jied in fjll a~- distributed to the entire inr.ate p c p u l a c i o n

o: r'.'. s;a*.e c o r r c r : i.-n.i 1 ir.s:i:u::cr.s anc tc all c-Sl^iiel and

t . •. • -i . t.. i.1 :;:-..•..•- e L 1 " : C : U t ; n e w i n - a t e s *"- s t a f f .

r u I 1 J W Lii>; . i p ' - i L w . - l o f Ctio C u " s e o t [ J e r : " v c , LJLf C u c J j n t i

s ' - . i i ; - j - . c i »<J f \ r . . . i : i i s L ; • - L : v c U i r c c i i v c 3 C - A i j r . 2 0 1 , A J J U S C ^ C U o f

S t . : . . ; . : o i , t u ' r T j t f i J t . :*•.;: a ' . l r e s i d e n t s c h o r ^ s J - i : h a v i o l a t i o n

j i m o C o d e o f Coini-«c t w m c h i s o r inay b e p u n i s h a b l e by cne l o s s

oi j . i y p r i v i l e g e 1 o r p ^ n t i v e c h a n g e o f p o p u l * c i o : > s c a u s ( i n c l u c

( H i - . i i . c i . v e t r a n s f e r zz ar.czV.er

i n s c i c u c i o c ) s h a l l hd\-e the f o l l o w i

A. U'ricter. notice of the charges agains: cht B. A hearing before an impartial panel, which p.Hnel sha11 not include any participants in the incident or incidents from which Che charges arise;
m
C. The r i g h t to q u e s t i o n w i t n e s s e s presented in support of che c h a r g e s , p r o v i d e d however, chjc Che r i g h t s h a l l be l i a i c e d to the r e s i d e n t who i s c h a r g e d :
D. The rig-.c to c a l l u-irnesses in h i s or her own d e f e n s e , : : : ^ i i £ : hewever, tha t ro r e s i d e n t sha11 have the r i g h : ;o compel cesiirr.oriV frctr, ar.y o t h e r r e s i d e n t who does not wish to t e s t i f y ,
£. A d e q ^ t e oppor ;ur.i cy to p r e p a r e a d e ; er.se, 7. The r i g h t co a s s i s t a n c e and a d v i c e in p r e p a r i n g ir.d p r e s e n t i n g a d e f e n s e fizrz any r e s i d e n t in g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n or s'-e'{ TieT i e r a ; the i~s t i t u z i s r . where the h e a r i n g i s h e l d , p r c ^ i - e c cha: »uch. r e s i d e n t or s t a f f member i s w i l l i n g co s e r v e in such an advisory capa c i t y for the resident so charge-; C. The r i c ' i c to s C e c i s i o n based upon a prepc-cerar.ee •~>f ii L e .'idiiTi. e , fliid , if s a : i d e c i s i o n i s a d v e r s e :o :he res iccr. t .
- ' » . • • " ; - • • : LZ u T i t t r n n c : : c e o f t h e d e c - s i o n j c r c . T . p a r . i c d b y a j a . i r . a r y : . . ; : t - a »', - i r s j r p r r : : h e r t ; f ,
-3-

:;-.c :••. ;-.t to j u b r i
s . . e i i be- r.odft d pe

.i SU~-.-_J : y o : ihe hearing . c ?r cii* su-Tjry cf cSe he a
-. en t p d c : o£ the file.

:es shs II

Pur.ish.xenc fcr c m or aces of taisconduc c shai 1 be ir. accsrdsr:ce with Air.ini.s cracive Directive 301 (Rev. 2-7T).
I . ; . HE.-LTH CAT£
Defc-danz*, s z r z e t o : h ecenzirtuszior c r , i i r.oz s l z e z d y ir. tfffe;:, t^e i r p l e a e : : a : icr. o5 the Healed Care p r e v i s i o n s zcr,czLr.Zil in Appendix A of c.-.is Co.-.senc Decree wiz'r.irt the p e r i o d of cime s p e c i f i e d in s a i d Appendix A.
V. CC^^LUNCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PIF.ECTIVE5
Defendants shall comply wicti the regulacions of the Bureau of Correction (hereinafter the "Administrative Directives") and the amendments and additions thereto.
Defendancs shall expend cheir best efforts Co assure compliance --ith ti-.is Cor.ser.c Decree and wich Z>.e Adxir.iscrstive C'irecrives snd the ane^d^enzs sr.d additions :here:s ty all insti:-jzional sta cf tr.esrers, and all other persons subjecc CJ defercsrts' jurisdiction.
VI. fJ-ll
A. A d m i n i s t r a t i v t D i r e c t i v e EC-ADM 6 0 3 R e s i d e n t M a i l P r i v i l e g e s s h a l l be amended to provide:

-C-

"Co rrfcipouLfcT.LL'or other writings co.-.tai^irg chreacar. in;; uusctfL.c- rr.^terial are p r o h i b i t e d . A breach of tr.t oi>jvt :e.^\.lj rio;: rsv r u s u l : in action being caiier- ur.ac Section lv cf tr.is Z i r e c c i v c . "
B. D e f e n d a n t s sgree to permit prisoners :o correspond ly with Che news m e d i a . Such c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ;nay be resiric^ed oi-i-v if i: can be sho-.n C D c o n s t : : u : e an azzer.pc cc have rce.tters c: :"~'t: -IL'WS n=^i.a a i s i s ; ir tz a r. sfe rrir.g cor. t rsbar,d , partici.paci.rg in escape a c c e - p e s , or i"aii5a:in£ a rioc virgin* che ir.stiiucicr1..
C. Defendsnts shall aaer.ti che aforesaid Adiiristracive Direccive co permit: non-privileged, outgoing mail co be sealed and placed d i r e c d y in Che mail boxes provided in each housing unit, except chac defendants reserve Che righc co "spot-check" all outgoing mail where chere exists a reasonable belief chat security is being impaired by such mall or chac such mail is being used in cht; cormission of a crime. Inmates shall be given che opportuni:y co be presenr when cheir privileged m a i l - i s " s p a c - c h e c k e d " , e.^cepc in circur.s:ances w h e r e che i n r ^ u ' s presence would create a serious 5e:-:i;y ris"'. or i r : e: icre with an or - g o i ~ £ ir.ves cigjCiDn zz alleged c r i m i n a l acci-.i:;.1.
A log shall be kepc of such instances where such oucgoirg aail is s p o c - c h e c k e i and the resident whose mail is bei>-.£ spoc-che =kfed shall be notified ioniediately, unless such notification vould impede i n v e s t i g a t i o n of c r i m i n a l activity in vluch cast he or shu shall be notified at Che completion of the
-5-

P-1 s-. j •: to ;*-. i*. ;-.-"ge i" rts-ia:iont poscazs-free e-.v elopes shall be subs tit uted fcr pot tats-free le;terr.eads.
Notwithstanding the above, the sending of outgoing sail u;-. i c". v Lola :es 3C-A^^'. £C3 constitutes an abase of the oa il privilege, a~- proceedings may be ir.scituced under Che applicable provisions of chj Code of Conduct against residents who so abuse the nail privilege
D. Residents shall continue to refrain from vricing to persons who have indicated that they do not wish to receive call fr^n s-ich resiJef.es, provided ho-ever, that this regulacior. sr.all not be interpreted co restrict Che righ: of residents zo correspond witr, public officials --itn respect to the letter's official duties.
E. Defendants shall notify the sender of mail which.is non-deliverable pursuant to BC-ADM 803 chat such mail Is nondeliverable, and such mail shall be returned to the sender. VII. PUBLICATIONS
An amended BC-ADM 814 Administrative Directive or Incoming Publications shall be promulgated as follows;
A. rU It is Che policy of the Bureau of Ccrreciicn to give vide lutiruce to residents in selecting publi.csii.or s arc subscribing to ptriodiccls in order chat educational, cultural, infor=u tion, rtligirus, legal and philosophical needs of individuals will be
Ic is che purpose of Zfris Directive tc establish proregardir^ incc.i:ing publications which shall be applicable c; all ioscitJtio.is in che Bureau of Correction.
-6-

s •:::•:
prrtcJ-:ri-3 o u : l l - e i i:: Liu s D i r e c t i v e sr.jll ; ; , c : e-.'ifoT re^cif/t of i l l o u ^ i i d e p u b l i c a t i o n s ir.cludi.i; e r : I ru." 1: C T tiJ:-. * , fi z11 or a r c no-i - f i c :i o n b o o k s p a p e r -'~>e CKS , r ic-ipcr.-Jer!:e c o u r s e s , trair.;-.r ai^r.-a is . r e f e r e n c e :r;teri«ils, £.-:: ie», n e w s p a p e r s , r e l i g i o u s t r a c t s a n d pa-.plile C s .
C. CZ'.'-ZT^L PP.OCLD'J-'X-
1. A i l pur.li.cn ti-r.- excepc newspapers ar.c sugaiires m^y r t . e i v t j f r D ~ any s c u : : s , '-".th the following crevise: Covers h c r c - b c j p d p j b l i c - C i s r s rec.ei.vei fr~"a sources otr.er t"ar. c^.e i^i-jl soorce (e.g., publisher, b o o k s t o r e , distributor or dep3icme;':Z score) may be dacca^tC or removed where inspection of the cover is deemed necessary and no reasonably available alternative form of inspection is adequate. Magazines and newspapers must be mailud directly from che original source (e.%.t publisher, bookstore, distributor or department score) wich che following proviao: Staall l e t t e r - s i z e d p a m p h l e t s m a y b e received in regular corresponer-ce frcn family mesibers, frier, ds or religious a d v i s o r s .
2. T h e staff c s c a i t t e e shall rule on resident recjests :c rect:1 e pusiics tions withir. :ei (10) days after receivirg such publiuti'jr s-.c sholl izinediatcly c^ncuricate ics decisisr to t^e res;:;- : wiin che reasons for che decision if trie publication is di s a?pr:v £c .
3. U e s i d e n c s shall r.ave the right to apF^al tc the Supevlr. ter.der.c any s t a f f cox^ictee decLsior. disapproving publica "i-r. The Super i r*. c e n c c r : shall cocnur.icat e his desisior. to the reside r.; within fifteen ("5) days after receiving such »r. a p p e a l .
i*, Shoald the Superinr endinc concur with t^e staff cocr-.:. t:^i c:i?'.):irovji, a rssideft cr-c-- Myc-e&l to the Cosxzisslonei* of Cocre;:::-i \.'.;s she 11 LVfilua'_c CS'.e pubiic3Cior ir. conjunction. ^ i : h t!-.t O i f i c e of t.-i.«\;:w.rc/ Cc -eral. T-.e fir^irgs of che Cotrraiss icrer a^-^ the K'.:r'Ly -..crt.r;l sh-.H L-L- ;z-c....^. i ;p ted CO all i,ii :itJtic -s , a-z r . <„•*... .^si^-vi's 't. v;.^- b*c". 1 tt corrr_- i:a:ei cc ell T V S I - C : ; .

1. Rcquesrs shall be approved unless :he p~tlLczzior.s cO'iCjin one or more of the following:
a . I:iforrr_=tion regarding the manufacture of explosives, incendiari.es, weapons or eszsoc devices; or
b. Ins:ruecions regarding the ingrecier.ts and'or manufacture of poisons or drugs; or
c. Writings which advocate violence, insurrection or- guerrilla warfare against Che goverr.cenc or any of its ir.s ti cu tiens or which create a clear and present d^r.zer within the context of Che correctional ins:lcu:icn; or
d. Judicially defir.ed cbscenicy, 2. No publication shall be prohibited solely on the basis chiC such publication Is critical of penal institutions in general, of a particular institution, or a particular institutional staff member, of an official of the Bureau of Correction or of a correctional or penological practice In this or in any other jurisdiction. 3. The above Criteria should not be interpreted so broadly as to affect recognized textbooks Ln chemistry, physics or the social sciences.
1. A reasonable qusnii-y of reading ciaterials shall be permitted to be retaine- by an innate. Neatness and good order should be of primary concern rather than a specified nu.-s.oer of publications. Excessive quantities shall be disposed of by amicable agreefrer.t with tr.e resident if possible. The following shall be considered as a guide:
-8-
II ••!

1 I

r ~ i s y p c n a d n s s i o n fin- r e p i - s c r ? ? : • ; *

11

. s : : ; : : . ' e D i r e c t i v e s NJsiual (riancbojV}.

r-: r r : : Le t ccr.'-.eads

Trousers
i'9» Shires (10> H^ndXerchief

o r Toochpowcer fe:y rlaior
^ . or BrusMess
- • : ? r i a l ; r ; s-^

f.'er..jr.:s f_r :r.ei agree

they -ill nc; charge

C. Ce:tncjn;s a^ree nc; co deprive any resident cf any c: i'c Jb.^e i:e~s unless Che pessessioc cf any such i:e^. by a ji^r.J-^l-ir resident c: residents presents a clear and present danger Co the hecuricy of the Ins:itution or a clear and present danger co t!-e se tecy of the resident or others wi chin the institution.

Before the signing and final approval of this Consent O'scvee, iefencar.ts vclur.tarily adopted or proxised to adopt an ar.ended Ad-iiiniscracive Directive governing use of restraints by staff members. Plaintiffs .have reviewed this Directive, which is actached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Appendix C, and agree that it meets or exceeds present legal requirements with respect to the matters contained therein. XII. USE OF f-ACSl
Before the signing and final approval of this Censer.: O-cvf; , d;::r,c;r.;s vcl'^r.tariiy adepred cr premised to adept en anienJcd A-i-T.inis ZZ2.1 ive Dire-tivc governxng use of tLace by staff ronrbei. s . Plaintiffs have reviewed chis Directive, which is attached heteco and incorporated by reference herein as Appendix D, and agree tiiat it rocecs c-r exceeds present legal requirements with respect :: t'>e ir»- :ievs ccntcincJ there in . X1 : I . S'.-\*<CME5 Of REStrrrTS AND CELLS
Lefort %'.•- siw-:irg and final apprsv.il of this Cons en: Decree u* •>..-•:•;<; v: 1 j - : jr-.ly a-J;^:ed or precised :c adapt *n arencec A:.T:.T i i.:"... f .".rr ::iv* ;;:.r:r.:rg searches of resider. :s ani cells by

sz&il j > e i ' i t r s . F l i m c i f : s rs^e r e v i e e : e n s ^ : e : : i . v e , w h i c : i i a:; •c^e-_ here cc o n e i:iLOi"pcrc : c - by reference h c r t i - J S Apper.Jix £ , «-.rJ a u r e e c h ; : i c x e - c s : r e x c e e d s p r e s e n t L e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s w . : , . : ; : ? * : : : o : h c :-.s t t e r s c : r , ; i i . i - j t h e r e i n .

x:v.
Bureau of C o r r e c c i o n ' s Adxinis t r a t i v e D i r e c t i v e BC -ADM

£12, R e s i d e n t V i s i t i n g P r i v i l e g e s , s h a l l be arcrdsd as f e l l o w s .

A. S p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s v i 11 b« a c i e c to e n a b l e resider;L£ Co visiz wi:h v i s i t o r s r.c: or cr.e r e s i i e ^ c s ' approved l i s c who r.ay CCTC frcr. subs c^r, : i a 1 d i s i i r . c e s ac i n f r e q u e r . : i n c e r v e Is to v i s i c Che r t s i c e r . c .

B- The number of approved v i s i t o r s which each r e s i -

d e n t may d e s i g n a t e in advance s h a l l be i n c r e a s e d to

twenty ( 2 0 ) . R e s i d e n t s who can show chac they have more

than cwenty r e g u l a r v i s i t o r s may add ^ a d d i t i o n a l names

to c h e i r approved l i s t s . Members 'of a s i n g l e family

l i v i n g a t the same a d d r e s s s h a l l continue t o . b e counted

as one v i s i t o r for t h i s purpose.

' '.

C. The p r o v i s i o n s governing frequency of v i s i t s

shall be amended to allow v i s i t s ec lease as frequen cly

a s one per week. A d d i t i o n a l v i s i t s .nay be p e r m i t t e d

unless the c s s i d e r : ' s procrara status nakes i : impractical.

c

XV.

A. Wi chir. beer, the f u l i i l l x e r c of s o u r i o b ; e c : i v e s iz

chc bureau of C o r r e c t o r , ar.d che c p e r s t i r g budj;-: of the Bureau,

d e f e u d j n t s s h a l l expend t h e i r b e s t e f f o r t s on a p r i o r i C y b a s i s to

ec,jip and furnish All c e l l s within the subject i n s t i t u t i o n s which

a r e used to house r e s i d e n t s on a d o i l y b a s i s to a s i m i l a r e x t e n t

and In a s i m i l a r manner. The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s prograrr a r e t o :

(1) p r o v i d e the c-.a x i rrurr arr.cunc : f a r t i f i c i a l i l l u m i n a t i o n f cr each c e l l --•.-. ich : r e e l e c t r i c a l sys : e - of Lhe p a r t i c

(2) where n r : a I r e;c . p r o v i c e i , p r : :ce i n i l v i c u c 1 1 i'-ec t c i l t : £2 z : 1 -. : : e 5 tzz ez zt c = "-1

, - ) w h e r e n c : a i : e ; i ; ' ? : : - . • : • > ; , p r : v ; : e i.-.i i v : . -&'.I,. ; ; r , : ; o i > - h=t or.cc o , : r-r.nine w j i t : f : r e : : h c e l l '

til prsv;Ce o w;it;r.s ties', a r d c;,2.r f : r eech c ? l l , c r e p t i - t - e t x ; ; - . ; : : . » :the s e c u r i t y c;' t h e ir.s'.i:.:;;.-. d ; c*. a : es o t r,e: w ;s e? ar. ±

(S) p r o v i d e t h e r-axi^.ur. etrci-r t cf - a c u r s l I'.lur.ir.at .or. a n - v e r . : : l d : ; 2 r . f o r each ceI i w;*.:.:r. t h e i r . h e r e r :

i;.s t i t u t i c r . s .

of the s - t ; e : :

B. Defendants shall continue to refrair. frcr. us m q

the fcI lowing cells fcr the housing of residents, unless defendants

£.: st ei -a m ccurt arprcval for the use of such ceils:

(1) the cells Iccatei in t_-.e east v.r.c of the baserr.ent of the Rcckview Institution;

<2) the two psychiatric cells in the *nd the "big cell" at the Huntingdon Institution;

(3) the "•west-box" c e l l s at the Dallas Institution.

XVI. TRANSFER OF RESIDENTS. When a r e s i d e n t has S«en t e m p o r a r i l y t r a n s f e r r e d from one
i n s t i t u t i o n to another i n s t i t u t i o n within the Commonwealth's c o r r t c t i c r . a 1 systen for ar.y purpose except punishment of the r e s i d e n t , cefer.cants s h a l l er.deavcr. s u b j e c t to char.ces ir. the r e s i d e n t ' s trsir.i n ; prorra-T1., to p l a c e si^ch r e s i d e n t s :~ the sar-e c-r s i r i l e r i . - s t : : . : : : ;ob a t the sarr.e c r s i m i l a r wage, bcth at. t h e t r a n s f e r e e ir.sci Tu tier, a; at the transferor institution when the resident is re'-rr.ei.

X".'; 1 . CI*."I1I* .'•' CLC~r.. :•" Defendants s h e l l permit r e s i d e n t s t o wear c i v i l i a n cloth-
1-5 when r e s i c « n : s a r e h o u s e d i n g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n e x c e p t t ot h e ey.^:-.t t h a 1 t n e S j p e n r . t e n d e r , t. o f e a c h i n s t i t u t i o n r e c - i r e s : m t : t j t : o - ' i l i ' j t t t t c w ; - - ! s r worV. However. Clefer.dir.ts reserve the
-13-

r;__'i iz ier „ «.Lc :e s :«»c •;i .z i , e : : b ^ e c n . c a r t i c l e s c : c l i c h i n ^ l a j u ; ; i ic i ; iv f u : L ' r f".: p c=f o : v i s i t a t i o n d u r i n g a r e s i - e n t ' s p r c bc:ic e i.p t h e v i « . . : i L i h a r c s j o f t h e ir,s : i : u t i o n . F u : ; . k i . e r ^ c r e , de f cr.Jr.r.r s r e s e r v e ;he r x ^ h t to i r p o s e r e a s o n a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s w i t re spec : C J ci.v: 2iar- c ! : : i - : r j zr :,-« b a s i s o f s^ie :y , sar.: :a ry a r c sccuriLy considerations.
xviti. U S E o r
Defcrndaiis a b r : t ;r.i: they vi.1l take no acci^n a g a i n s : a.-.y resi'_-r;i teca^se c: s_:h rer.-tr.c's pzr Cic ip£ cior. in c M s or any ocl'.er civil li ui^s t lor. , nor •-ill d e f - n d a m s sake eny adverse teuoiwiendacion a g a i n s : ary r;s:::n: :D the Parole 5oard, Beard of Pardons or any oclier a g e n c y because of such residenc's parcicipacion in this or any ocher civil litigation. X I X . R I C H T TO' A M E N D A D M I N I S T R A T I V E D I R E C T I V E S •
Dcfendanc Cometssloner of Correction reserves che right co «roend, suspend, alcer or modify any of che Adtniniscrative Direccives and the additions and a^endroencs chereco as provided in this D e c r e e , and plaintiffs reserve tr.eir right to contest in this C c u r : any SJC.^ airencjj'ent , susper.iior, i l t e r a i i r n or c o d i f i c a t i o n of t^e previsions of this Consent Decret. Fcr a period of three (3) years following the Court's approval cf this Consent Decree, defeniar.: Corrmiss loner of Ccrreccior shall not an;end, suspend, alter or nodify any Directive, ruis or rec-_iaricn covered by this Decree uithcut f-rs: a d v i s i n g counsel i c : p l a m c i f f s of his or her intention in this regarJ and providing counsel with fiit.eer.(IS) days notice prior to issuing ar.y s-rii m r r c : i v e , rule or re,;j".a:i:ri w i t h i n whicr, plaintiffs cay nc.e C'is C J V V C lo pvo':'i'cil z'.\e prrpesed *Te-id-e-.t cr Doiif icatior.. 1:

1 J J • ! „ Li" 1 > p l . ' j c c : C J i r -• b - L l > p r o o o s e d a r r - e n t i r c r c o r r: o d L f ; c a : i o n , e . ' t " - , ^ - c s s . ^ a l l n ^ c i-*j>: i : - - ce : h c p r o p o s e d c h j n g e w i c . k , s j c f : r s c jLj.i'in^ approval cf this Court upon , o o d cause sno^n .
P l a i n t i f f s c l s o reserve the r i^ht to c o n t e s t in this . . b r i , a c r.ny t i - e , fc y ar.y a p p r o p r i a t e l e g a l p r o c e e d i n j , a n y i n s : i : . i ^ n ,>r s y s c e r - ' w i i e p a t t e r n c f f a i l u r e o r r e f u s a l b y d e f e n d a n t s o r c^eii- a^cr-.CJ or employees to follow che p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Ccr.senc Decree .

CTTVES
Plaintiffs accept che Administrative Directives ar,d

the Jrcend.T.en cs and addicicns chereco «s provided in this Decree

as a complete sea temenc as of the dace of this Decree of their

riches and privileges in chose areas covered by chis Decree.

K.\ 1 . REPORT

•

Uichin ninety (90)days of the approval of chis Consenc

Decree, defendancs shall submlc to the Courc and counsel for plain-

tiffs a wricren report of any new procedures, directive^ etc. which are inienied c= effeciuace the provisions of the Decree. •Nil C"1**" E*™ n 5 r ? f ~ - \'O A Z£* Ic S "^**

This Decree shall not operate *s an admission or. the

p.irt of defendants of the truth or any of the allegations cf piair.-

tiffs' Complaint- Plaintiffs agree that failure by defendants to

tL,-i:!y with the provisions of this Decree occurring prior to the •r^u1) of this Decree shall not in and of itself create a cause cf

a. •. i •••.• in any ,iar:y. Plaintiffs reserve their rights to SJe fcr

.*! ' ir u^ viclj:i:r;s of s;.-»: e or federal law.

-15-

•

T ' •i s L > r ; r t t i i . i l 1 r „ : ; r u 1 1 e a p r i . a ' . L - : « - - e o ; a > ; i j r.

i n *»••> i r - . u ^ i J u a I a ^ M i t a i . y o f s h e d e f t i d a r r s

N - r, e\;i,-: as

p r a v t . i j ir: ]is r a ^ r a p ^ \ IX : t ; . - e , s h a 11 t h i s Dec r e e p i / o v i ^ e a b a s i

f - r L : . : : L pc p r j : e e : . : . . s

N c : s~a'_ 1. < r y o f i'..e izisr.^zr, c <; t t 1 i s

Co a r v i r . J i v i - u c 1 f o r c a r . a . e s f i r f a i l j r e t o ct>n- 1;. v : : ! - , : h i s D e -

c r e e u n l e s s t h e a l l e g e d f a i l u r e c o n s c i c u t e s A violdiLi-

cf i ^ a : e •

f e J e r a 1 l a v , o r u n l e s s t h e C s ^ r : i x p o s e s s u c h a a r . o j e s a s pa r t ' of

a C J ' ; E J ; : prrcted.r.^ p^:s.£-: ;; this decree.

The Court shall ncc approve chis Decree un:il plaintiff class has been nocified of the proposed Decree and tnerabers of the class have been given Che opportunity Co subtnic to the Court any objeccions to the provisions contained therein. XXV. DEFENDANTS' APPROVAL OF DECREE
The Csurt shall ncc approve this Decree until the Attorney General of the Cormc-r.-ea 1 ;r. of Pennsylvania ar.d :he Corr.r. is sior. er cf Cirretricn have agreed in ---r- :i.*:£.
xxvi. ^:T:CE
Notice of che prc-^csef Ccr.sent Decree shall be giver c all members of the class ir the ctar.ner soerified bv the C-'-r: .

"TT

•xvn. c'v-Trvv" -"."^".s:::":::'1 cr TVI

*he

ic cior. of :his

K.I :

BY TK£ CC.7.T:

Caccc

•it csepr. S. : : ; : , I I I , C.J.

Ve hcrebv c:r.se.-.: cc the en cry cf the Jcregci.Te Dscr
'/A -u.-,'-' V- t
rrc P. Kane, Esq ity General

ri. Cantor Attorney for Plaintiffs

n Lerner.^sq. Attorney General Chief, Office of Criminal Law
Attorneys fcr Defendancs

Siewari «e:r,er Cocnissloner, Suresu cf
L"K'T£R£D: CLERK Or COURT
-17-

HEALTH Z-.F.Z FSOVISZON'S

I c is ur.dtrscocc m e agreed by and beewe en plaintiffs a:-c de: -r.iar,:s tr.2: el".,.:-, iu'er.tiincs will atcsrrpt 'o i.T.ple:r.er.c chose provisiors or A??er,;;x A which are noc already in effect within ninety (90) days cf cl-.e iaie of che approval of this Consent Decree, chere m * y be sons provisions which require eicher addicional funding or major construction or both, which cannoc be in-ple^enced wichin che ninecy (90) day period. A.S to such provisions, defendants agree Co creac the implenencation of chese programs and procedures as a priority item and co laiplemenc chem as soor. as reasonably possible.

1. Defendants --ill r.»We special diecs available to all

:;'.r",a: es when such ctczs s:: prescribed by che ins cic-icicn ' s physLzLtr

2. Defenc2n:s -*ill noc use isolation cells for long Cerr

t;ur.:ion of psychiatric czs.es, Defendancs w i l l , as scsn as possible

transfer such cases co coonunity mencal health facilities or ocher

trsn;al healih hcspiCiis w * s : e v e i a de terrcina cion is xade chac apccisl

housing of psychiatric cas-s is fiecessary. For erer^er.cy psychiat.i.c pr^-hleTs, w!;en a prisoner n - s : be isolaced per.zLr.g crsnsi'er, the ror1.

•JSC. fjr sjch isol-t-wH -.11 - e r - *c-ep:ed scarc^ris fcr such fa: i.'. i.:

z . ;-c pa-.i-r: w . 11 t; '•>*,* -r;er a:-ir:oriite surer visior. iy hea i ;'r

•'..•ic-aiv-.'ils c : ;vr;r f.-];, :r«:.-fd ciisio^ial s u f : or

!

j, De f e. '::;•:» u;'.1 con cirue their policy cf net per r,.::•.;.;•_. trei.cully uc.ie-.es s J ;•;,- surgical procedures and tre.- L -•=:•;. T«e prescription cf placets and che use of dr a.;* -ill continue to be done only under the strict supervision cf
ii. Ac ail 2«reau of Correction facilities which provide inpa L i e m treatment for inmaces, the Bureau shall provide tventytOs.r (2-) hour medical care to such inaates. The standards for :73i:-.ir.g and qualification of medical personnel such as incace nurses and stiff personnel wcricirg in such hospitals will be developed and irplev.er.teci by the Bureau in consultation with outside professional sources.
5. There will be « cUlly sick, call at all institutions by a properly trained health professional.
6. The Bureau will continue its policy of permitting all residents, no macter where they are housed in the institution, to have access Co health professionals at the institution.
7. All medicines prescribed and given to innates shall be pr;?<rrl> late led and i certified. Medication shall be ground, pulveri^-d or delivered in a fluid suspension only at the d i r e c t - " of tt-e mc\a ce's physician.
8. Institutions' physicians have been and will continue to be authorized to make che final decisions regarding rresical
T*:'. C for LncrjLc patients. 9. prosthetic devises, including but not -limited to
:.-* ,i;V heai'i::.* iids, shell continue to be furnished fres cf
-2-

chjrft = to the
i-fii)e:c to eyeglasses, the 5 - ; S J U of Correccicr -ill pay the c:s; cf the prescription grsur.c ler.s in a standard, p'.asiic frace. H c ever, if the in.T.a :e desires a -ore expensive fra-ing, the difiers-ce be L we en t.he total price arc t~c Bureau's allot~er.t will be deCuc teO fru.n the innate ' s ir.s cit-itur. ac count.
10 . Ac each ins ticvitisn a physician w. 11 con due t a ccrchly inspection of til :'oc: preparation ar.d food storage sp:c:s , the institution hospital and in;ir-r.ary, and all other facilities connected with health care and health care delivery. The physician shall submit a report of his inspection co his superintendent ircsrediately after his inspection, and these reports shall be maintained at each institution.
11. All persons who handle food at any institution shall be inspec ted daily by che steward in charge of rhe section, Any evidence that any such person is or tcoy be suffering fron a cocrrunica^le d i s e a s e sh-a 11 t-c isr.~e^Lz zsly reported z: the =(-diral ciszersiry and to the superintendent.
12. The Bureau cf Correcti or.will continue iC£ atzc~: z i co obtain funds for a program which will enable the Bureau cc pc:v.ce every innate with a full ciedicel evaluation. The purpose of such eva luacion shall be to ceterr.ine the present he a 1 :h status cf each innvate and to establish ar. arpropriate plan of crearmer.c for any rteuicol problems which are diagnosed is the result of the evelu-ati-r. .
13. The Bureau c: Correction will establish a ur.ifarr sick-call procedure in each irs ;i :utior, wr. :ch «i 11 cc-. tir^e :s pe rr : c
O-
"•"

i:-w :ei ~~. - 2-.e ::-?:.;'.c " t C ; : : l atcer.tier, in er-ergency situ.se ion» :._ ..M-:! i.iil pe rr -: Lrrztes, to see a hejl:r care professional within Lv.fntv-iour (--/ '.i--* s following request ioz routine rr.eCical c a r e .
li . Eat1"- ir.siKJCior, whj.c* does net already exploy a ul i-: i. .e irsti:-_:;c-il p h a r - a c i s ; shall erploy a registered
s: fron z^e ar=a cr, a pa r c - ?iaie-c onsul tanc basis for che of a d v i s i n g che i.nsciiucion scaff or. che proper manner of .Jling I'r.e prison p " ^ r - ^ : y ,
15. T^.s H--rsi'j cf C:rre;::cr. will develop and i=plrxenc plan for Clie r e i u l a : ir.specti-sri of food preparation and Dedi^al factiiries w i t h i n each ins cicution by public health personnel or oicher e x p e r t s nor d i r e c t l y related to the prison system.
16. The Bureau of Correction will establish and implement a plan for handling intake physical examinations of all new inmates and for providing follow-up treatment when appropriate.

17. The Bureau of Correction will develop and impletcen; a m e d i c a l reccra syszez: thac will provide for uniionsicy of rjeccrds cr.roughcut z'r-c stete ard w i l l protect the inaace's right to

r Z-z'.Lzy of s-cr. :c:ir-Js. 16. The Bureau of Correction will continue irs procedures
fjee h a n d l i n g dentil c a r e of inraa tea stressing the preventative aspects of such care.
19, The Bureau of Correction will continue to develop a|nd i n ^ l e ^ e m p l a n s far a d e q u a t e staff training programs for health pjrcif eba ional s and custodial o f f i c e r s assigned to work in the prison hieilcr, sys:sr. Tt-5 prrgrar has included and will continue CO include
t: ^i-i-.'U pr:z,:z7- uire = :eJ a: enarlir.g ir.s:it-j:ional health profes-

5 1 J :•"!

tcJ".*I personnel in teccgr.ijing ererger.cy heal ;h pz ztl e~i

-4-

2 0. T1"'* b-: s e - - f C c r r e c r i j n will continue to utili :'.c C^1. trier's he* 1 :'~ T : S N Force as 6 civi.li.jr: resource cu:side t :-.e pri 5cr. sys :er.- ir criJ-r to regctarly evaluate Lhe quality oi
lt!1 care bc;-^ 'Jelivere-J w i c n t n the priscn syster..

f

•

APPENDIX 5

CO

CONSENT DECREE

' •

,' :

USE OF FORCE kr: Acr-ir.is'r^iive Directive governing the Use of Force

shall be promulgated as follows;

!

A. Force may only be used againsc a resident, in one

or the following situations:

.

;

(1) A staff member si ay use force against a reside r. t w:-.-r. he reasonably believes such force is necessary for self-defense, in orier Co protect hinself fron bodily harm.

(2) A staff member may use force against a resident when he reasonably believes such for^e is necessary for che defense of ochers, In order co protect others from bodily harm.
(3) A staff member may use force against a resident when he reasonably believes such force is necessary for the defense of properry, in order to protect such property from damage or destruction.

(4) A staff member m*y use force against a resident when he reasonably believes such force is necessary zo prevent the escape of a resident or co recapture an escaped resident.

B. A szaii member may not use any greater force

against a resider.r than is necessary to protect hi-~self, to protect

ache cs or to protect property.

i

C. A staff member may not use force against a reside:

for purposes of punishment or revenge,

:

D. A staff member may only use deadly force aga^r.st

a resident, i.e. force which could reasonably be expected to result

in Oe.-ith, when such fore- is necessary to prevent death or »er;ous

l>->Oi.ly lur^ co hinseif cr :o another person.

E. A staff member may not use deecly force tc prctec:

pt'w;*f i Ly irsi, c*c s crue : ior. or d a ^ t c . A staff me-, ter may or.1y use CZJ •-'>.)• faiie co p r : : : : : p " per cy fr or Jescrutcian c L" dixa ^e w n e r : die scaff ser-.lier re2s.0i-.ably believes :ha; clie des;ruL:icn or .damage of pi/uj'ercy will result ii: death or serious bodily harm co a p e r s o n .
F. Deadly fo::e rray r.oc be used if sctrs lesser degree of f^rce will likely safeguard against dea:h cr serious budily harr,.
C. A staff m e m b e r ciay use deadly force againsc a r e s i i e m to pre-venc an escape or co recapcure an escaped resider,z in conf?rT.ity wi:h scare law. H o w e v e r , a siaff r.'-r.ber ray n o : use cc2-Iy fcrce co prever.c an escape or to re:ap:ur: an escaped resideni: if seme lesser degree of force will likely prevent the escape or enable recapcure of an escaped resident.

APPENDIX C CD
CONSENT DECREE

USE OF RESTRAINTS

;

. within nlnecy (90) days after approval of Che Consent

Decree, an Adsinis era rive Directive governing che Use of Restraints

shall be promulgated as follows:

A. Ins crurcnts of restraint shall never be applied as punishment.

B. Instruments of restraint designed to Inflict pain or humiliation shall never be used.

C. Except as otherwise provided herein, instruments of restraint may only be used aa a precaution against escape or as a protection against a resident Injuring himself or other persons.

D. Inscrumentx of restraint may be used on coedical grounds at the direction of a medical officer.

E. Inscrmnencs of restraint may be used when a
resident is confined in a cell only on medical
grounds at the direction o: a physician, or by
order cf Che superln tender, t or his designate::
representative, ii the physician is unavailable,
if other methods of control fail in orzer co
prevent a resident from inj urtng hir.self or oc!^ er persona or from damaging property. The superir,ter.cer;: or his deaignee shall immediateiy consult a me- lea1 officer as well as promptly reporting the vise o f such restraint to che Conezissioner of Correction.

n nr i

!f

:

to

•!

CONSENT DECFCI

. :

USE OF H*CE The foilcwi^S procedures shall be standard policy for che use cf cherr-ica I Mace at ail state correct ional in sti Cue ions: A. W h o n c o be L'sed. The use of Mace shall be restricted to such instances where a resident barricades or arns hiaself and cannot be approached u>i;hcL--t definite dagger zo perse.-;-el or to ni.iLself ar.d wher, it is determined that a delay in apprehension would constitute a serious hazard to the resident or other persons or result in a major disturbance or property damage. Mace may also be used in situations where the use of force is permissible as provided by Paragraph DC of this Consent Decree so long as there is immiment danger of bodily harm or of substantial property damage.

B. >WallabiIicy and Storage 1. Mace shall not be carried by personnel except as specifically provided herein. It shall be stored in a secure area cf the control center, accessible to authorized personnel only. 2. If in the opinion cf che Superin tendent (or, in his absence, the highest ranking p r i s m official present and available), a schedaled or unscheduled gathering of residents, general instiru:i; climatd or the conditions in a specific area of che institution, presen t a danger to staff or other residents, the Superintendent or suc^ official may decide to arcs officers with Kace. In these instances, the Superintendent or such official shall supervise Che issuing of che Mace and its collection and storage when che danger subsides.

cs a r e CJ te c r a n s f e r r - d to ocher ir.- . , . . - j r : , h o p s i t a i o r oclier a u t h o r i z e d sicverr.snc c u t s i c e <•*-' •' ; o n , a~d a d e t e r m i n a t i o n has been made cha c t h e r e s it's1-• d p r e s e n t a danger co scaff or o t h e r r e s i d e r . c s , t h e dec*"' : Mace tray be ?-s_».
<*. TV~.e cf i.'. -p". - i n- c h a r g e of t h e Benavisr Ad \ usL==••-.- '.; - J s r : ; » ' c'' "K.e S ^ p e r i n t e r i d s n c , c r such ocher c f ; . ^ - . i
j .-^* •.'-.-flp^ 2 h e r e i n , s h a l l decerrsine c.K.e n r - • • -a'.ed ; • .e or the use chereof during the m o v r . T
-•"•• . e , b a t h i n g , and s i m i l a r a c t i v i c l e s b a s c t 'J-; . - • . - • ; • * s > t y p e and a c c i t u d e of Che r c s i d e n c i r v o *
<flfe7y of himself and of h i s fellow o f f i c e r s . ' "Q ^e ','sed. * •' - " ' •• u i n c e n c i o n a l l y be d i r e c t e d a t che -y«
• • . - -an h i t t i n g che eye but rathe-* a:-1'". t a l n e d ' a t Che f a c ^ , Perxaner,i ••. - . • -..- • — '• . cy i s d i r e c t e d i n t o t h e e y e s . - • ' -101 be d i s p e n s e d a t ranges c l ^ s r * ~. • •
oi be used in small rooms where the: : 'rcreaie cases and then * ! ' per siracuated iarnediately, for *everr d inhalation of Mace. p,.'*en K-. soce, che screarr shoulJ be i"
in

«c~Leved ulihir. fifteen f!5,seconds ifrer the first firing, a

second burst may be fired.

•

"

•

• ,

', D- Medical Stiff Rol*

1. Except '-hen Che circumstance requires Lcnediats

action, the Medical Staff shall be contacted prior ro the use c£

Kace to determine whether or not the resident has any disease or

condition thac would raske the use of Msec particularly darjircus.

2 . If the reside r. t hi s respiratcry or cardie vase-lar

disease, chronic dermatitis or psychosis, y.ace nay be extre-ely

haraful. Use of it on any resident with any of these diseases

is prohibited excepc In Che most exigent of circumstances where to

refrain from Its use could cause death and other lesser means to

•ubdue the resident have been considered or attempted and deter-

mined to be ineffective. Also, if Che resident is already known

by che psychiatrist, the psychiatrist should, whenever possible,

be consulted regarding the best method of aanaging a resident.

3. The resident's eyes shall be flushed with ccld water

when possible, within five (5) xir.utes after exposure. All exposed

surfaces shall be washed and contaminated clothing shall be changed

4. The resident shall be exaclned immediately by a nesbe:

of the medical itaff and at ewency-four (2*0 hour intervals for a

oiniauni of fourteen (--) days.

E. Resorting I'se of Mace

In all cases where Mace is used, a f*:ll written report of

the circumstances including oedical reports, shall be s-bri:ted t;

':

'

-3-

',

che

! f c r-jrucJ co Che

icker of Correc;ion-

F.
Ail personnel shall receive training in the prsper use

of n^ce c: :he crsininii schools or dulng che ins ci:uciona 1 orienta-

tion phase. Trair.irg shall include che review of che directive and

ac'.ual use of M.ace ccnniscers.

!

.4.

,'• .

i; ' • •

i

•

APPENDIX E
CO
CONSENT DECREE '

.

;

:
; •

'

SEARCHES OF ?.Z~ZJZ:~S A:T c m s ; :

An Administrative Directive governing sea relies shall be is s'.i1- J by the Corliss loner c; Correction to tl-.e Su?*rint£ncs::ts

of the subject ir.s ti :-tiers :cr distribution tc all ins citutier.al

stiff r.:rb:rs ar. i provide sJts i a r. L~_a IL y uj; fol_--..-s:

A. P-:::::t

_———_

.

|

The introduc tier, or presence of weapons or other contra-

band can have a serious or dangerous effect on the security end

proper rainafcement o£ t correctional institution. Of concern also

is that szcizhzz fsr such cencraband be appro.iriacely ccrducccd ta

avoid indignities co end harassment of the person seer-chad. Accord

ingly, it is the purpose cf this dircctiv- to tstablish g--idclir,es

for the searching cf reside-r.ts and thei- ceils to rscucc zzr.T^ctar.t rc ths"

1. Strip Search:

"

a. A strip scorch shall b : c m due ted only upcr. the following circumstances:

.

(1) Before *r.d after every cents ct or open visi:.

{2) Upcn residents' returr. fror outside activities

':

.

lupervised outside leave ar.d furloughs .

(3) Vpcn reteption, rsturr. fr^T ccurt ar.d retcrr.

after resident has left the institjr. er.

'

:*-cn fcr r.r.y otl-.cr rcc::n.

()

win? ai(.ivi:its.':i*.rre r?si.*-.:s r.i:r.

mingled fveely •.-•it1.-, cuisiii g:u;:S , pcrv.i--

1ar 1 y whei't tne:s are large nui-Lcrs o: *rJ p1 e

under minimal supervision.

(5) Periodically fci* residents in a trusty status

who have the fireedcz: re cove the gate areas.

:nc o^: oi

(6) When a resign:, is reasonably suspected I D be

involved in z.i~. escape plot or to ba in pes-

-..--. _.sessioa.of.contrabaud.

#

b. S f i p searched shall be cor.iuitid in ar. area stpr-:r:: frOil othei res.iiia:iis crd tc ? ss-:• e privacy a-.roinir^'-r eibarra ss=ant. Tercl 2 r esirier.-;s 3 ha 11 zz searched by fa-T.ale corrcccionr.l personal ar.c r.ales, by male correctional perscr.;;cl. At nc tiT= (::•;:::: for c (2) belcw) shall it be necessary tor « siafi person to place his hand(s) on chc resident. Ths search shall be conducted In a tactful, professional manner.

c. The following specific: procedures shall be utilized in conducting .hit strip sc&rch:

(1) rfove resident remove all clothing.

(2) Exaaine resident's head. You may run a finger or a lar-e, wid*-toothed conb through the hair,

(3) Usi-ng c flashlight, loc'.: behind t!-.c w : : , into the r.outr., under tv.e tDn^'je, ar;c ir.t ~-> nos crils.

(4) Request rccidi-.l to lift arrs end than cariulJy e.-.-.'.":ne armpit area.

(5) Request resident to open hands and carefully examine backs, pjlios and between firsgers.

(6) Look over resident's body. If pieces cC

tape or bandages are present, have r e s i c " r

remove then and replace with f-csh ores

[Removal ar.d replacement by .-rcdical sceff

when -originally applied by scdical st^if

wherever practicable].

, ,*

(7) Using a fla-lilig;:t, e::ar.ir.e nsid=.n:'s jri'.r.

-2

"fiF

(r

(6) Require tcsider. t Co turn arou.id, btiij over and sprcaC buttock*:. Then, viih flatr.li.5r.;
• examine buctoc*-S for contraband.

(9) Require resident to life the feet so

you can exaxine scles and becvecn th;

carefully. .

,

(10) Carefully search each'itera cf clothing before being returned to che resident or placed in storage.

2. Frisk Search

Residents cay be friskid £t rar.d:^ , particularly under tha. following circumstances:

(1) when a resident is a known ccntrsba:^ or ve-apons carrier; or

(2) when a resident is reasonably of carrying contraband in a specific instance.

Frisk searches xzzy be conducted in any area cf Che institution. However, if possible, some decree of privacy shall be afforded. They shall be conducted in a professional manner with tact and proper attitude displayed.

The following procedures shall be utilized in conducting the fvick search:

(1) The resides: shall re==ve all icers frr~ pockets anc pls;t the- ir. z hct cr on a shelf, desk, or other suitable place. They should be place: in jn srea away fro,:i che resident. These icons shall be excr.ine.; to assure that they are not contraband.

(2) The resident shall stand still with fee: aparc and arrs extended our-ard.

(3) Run che resident's shirt collar between the fingers, carefully fc=l for sxill hidden vires, hscKsaw blades, etc.

(4) Hove the hands dewrrward, rur.r.ing thcr. over the shoulders, C=-..T. chs outEicc of c!*c resident1* arzs to che shirt cuffs. Then move the hinds up che insice cf ti.e arr.s to the arapits.

* • i«
ADDEN'D'JM Related orders of che Cour: on licigaced Sctpulccion unending che proposed Consenc Agreenenc Opinion on tnaxinum securicy cell blocks and conjugal visits
r wi *•—r

( : ; ?r.=r. run t h e h a r z s d= -T. c^c s t o p a ; chc r e s i ' - i.".: ' 5 t c l : 1-r.e.
(6) Check the v a i s c l i . - . s '=>• r - r - -.c sh
h.s v j i s r l i r . e , rv.- : : c h r - i s ct . s:»ie:-.c's b u . : c c r . s , a l l c.ic : i r z .

c:.c. c i : : : . . . y ;:*.-. :/.• . e : . A: i: tzzz T.Z ::" che ICE, u.c!:c 2 r--'-~: c :

trriclci. Rerecr tr.e prrcsss z:~. t.-.c

.

oc^er 1:3.

(9) As che lasc iCep CO che frisk search,

run che hand over chs resicenc's lovar

abdomen zn<i crotch carefully, locking

for conccrled articles thai c^y be ccpei

to these trees.

•

- j:

3. Internal E::a-:lnscie-i or Search

Internal ex^ir.atiyns shall be cor.d'jctcd only by a

ccii tr.s :,

the pr es

r : a - ::- a : - = ::.. :; < t -

SfciiT prcs

• : : : - . : • • c i n d i : i r r . r cr v-.ere :.~e .:

or v.:ii

: . :t:_.a:icr,s.

C , rr. =r. r-r the hares d =--. =v= ;::.-. frcnt, cr:c>:-r\~ p.r.f -::'..c. , er,=
scc-p it chc resitar.t's e e l :l i n e .

(6) Check the waisrlir.: by r-rr.i-.c the

f lr.~-rs ar;-jni the vji.sibcri, tee li;-.^

»cr

artless .

(7) f r o -the w a i s t l i n e , rur. t h e hcr.ds dc-..i the rssi.ier.c's bu:;c:^s, a l l L/C cir.i. f e e l i n g t'.'.c ? l t = i s ' - r j : =-.o'r.z : : ? . : : : : .

be c:err oi the l e t , tr.c'.ie a r : : r : cf
chcckir.j :h? : r ; : E t : : - f f ; ? r :::.:•£
e r i i c l c s . R e p e c r c~e p r ^ c t s s r;-. c . c

(9) As the lust step to Che frisk search,

run the hand over the resident's lower

,

abdcoien and crotch carefully, loolcing

;

for cone5*-led Articles tiaz cry be cepi

to these t r t e s .

3. Internal E;:a~i-taricn or Search

•

• •"

I n t e r n a l examinations s h a l l be conducted only by,

: : : : : • or r r r i s i r r e d nuvsc, wit hi:-, t h * : e r . : : r . : s oft!\c

irs

Che i r r .

cr v ; : . ,

- 1 : i r : 2 _ r £-. r r ^ r i r - i r . v c s t i g a t i r - r : cr •--i.r *.1 * c : i v

n cf ir.s t i f j t i r r . j ! r e - j l a t i m s .

•

• •

 
 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp

PC-PA-005-015
IN TEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ICO, et al. Plaintiffs

Civil Action Nos. 70-3054',

SHAPP, et al. Defendants

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

OF OUTSTANDING ALLOCATIONS

By.

OF CONTEMPT

Defendants and the Plaintiff-Class hereby agree and stipulate to dispose of outstanding natters of disagreement and to the dismissal with prejudice of all allegations of contempt previously filed with Plaintiffs' motion for Order of Contempt as veil as any claims of contempt cited in Plaintiffs' motion, by way of Appended Affidavits in which the incident forming the basis for such allegations predates this Stipulation.
The parties are mutually desirous of disposing outstanding claims without further litigation, and toward this end and as part of this Stipulation Plaintiffs agree to forego and be for- • ever barred fron instituting any and all further legal action for contejnpt or otherwise involving or relating to any acts or onissic-s cited in Plaintiffs' motion for Order of Contempt as well as any claims of contempt cited in Plaintiffs' notion by way of Appended Affidavits occurring up to and including the date of this Stipulation,
This Stipulation shall in no vay be interpreted as an admission by any of the defendants of any violation of state or federal law.
The specific provisions of agreement, which will affect the operation of the State Correctional Institutions at Dallas," Graterford, Huntingdon, r.u-icy, Pittsburgh and Rock view will modify the Consent Decree entered by the Court, May 22, 1978 in the above-captior.ed matter and the Adr.inistre.tive Directives, cf

/

the Bureau of Ccrrection tothe extent necessary to ir.pler.er.t the following provisions:

1. The Bureau of Correction shall reorganize the

Hearing CoVj^ittee composition and procedures to replace- the

existing Bearing Committee.

,

(a) The Hearing Committee shall be composed of \(3) members, consisting of:

I. A Major orCaptain of the II. A Casework Supervisor

III. A School or Vocational/Supervisor (In the case of the/'oca.t.iona.1 Supervisor he mus^be a nonuniformed Supervisor.)

(b) Ther^ shall be nin^O) permanent Hearing Committee membeits at each fit the affected i n s t i t u t i o n s except for Grater'tford wb4.cn shall have twelve{12) permanent members.\ln/regard to t h i s capacity as permanent Hearing Comm^\tee members, they s h a l l p r i o r t o assuming their duties Receive training in relevant areas of law. Tfite curriculum will be mutually agreed upon by defendants and plVintiff-class counsel.

(c) TWe position of Ctairman of the Hearing Corj?ittee is hereafter abolished. In ire place shall be established a Hearing Committee Coordinators. The Hearing Coicr.ittee Coordinator shall be chosen fro.-\fhose permanently assigned CaseworX Supervisors on the permanent Hearing Committee panel. The duties of the Hearing Committee .oordinator shall include, but net be \iirated t o ;

I. Scheduling of hearings I I . Determination of relevancy Vf witness
and presence of witnesses atVhe heerir.c,

I I I . Extent of direct or cross-examination of any witness
IV. The reading and explanation of the to the charged ir.-;t<

VI. All other f—.cticr.s previous:;.* reserved

to the Chairman of the Hearing Coanittee/

(d) There shall be no nerier of a Hearing Comr.ittee

shall have a direct

rvisory role over any other

charged inmate

two (2)

ers mast agree

upon the

i l l be announced to

the charge

(9)

be/pemitted on the parcel any

member who h

the/charges against the instate,

or who has confiucrted

nvestigation leading up to

the charges aga

charged inmate.

v (h) There

1 be only one (1) uniformed panel

member per three fa) member panel.

(ij Ther^ sha\l only be top-level management persons chose^t to t h e V e r i n a i i e n t Hearing Committee panel.

This modified Bearinq C^rronittee procedure shall regain

in effect/ for one (1) ye4r fron the effective date of

this S^pulation. If at t^e end of t h i s one (1) year

peric/d i t meets with the Eardsfaction of Plaintiff-Class

counsel, i t shall remain in effect indefinitely or

t i l the expiration of the Consent Decree. Eovever, if Plaintiff-Class counsel i s dissatisfied with t h i s

modified Hearing Committee, then octh parties shall

establish a single-person Bearing EVarrdner to replace

the modified Hearing Cocardttee. Ternys, definiticr-.s and

procedures concerning the sincle-perso\i Hearing Examiner

mhall be determined after the one (1) year period above-

mentioned and shall be by cutual agreenenf of both

parties.

2. i-'.odif icatic:-.s of the : : : s : : ; u : : Kearir.r

(a) The irjMte shall be penr.itted to have the

•.Tier

If no staff merrier

shall be

address

shall and

witnesses institution
Committeea the
requested d histcry
on witness
In the srein as would

the

the

the

•uitability of presen hearing. If the Hearing Cownittee Coordinator that it would be unsuitable tc hcve the witness

the
rini

he nay at his election eiti.cr crrti-.-.e ~.:c !.;;;•

tha witness ray scfcly ire -:r:,:::', tr .- ; • •;;

statene.-.t of the witness, or hear the tes tir.or.y of \ the witness out of the presence cf the charged irjrate. _ re. the event that a witness has no such history as
herein described exhibits e r r a t i c , hostile and disruptive ^.or at the hearing, such witnesses nay be removed
from farther testimony at the discretion of the peering Conrai t t e e .
(d) \£xcept in the case of testimony he&rd in caaere as pYovided by section 2(f) below,/the inmate • h i l l be permitted to question any witness who has testified"against him.
te} If t h \ inmate requests a ytaff nes±>er or inmate witness wh\) is not available at the time of the hearing, the inmate may elect either to waive the six[6) day bearing requirement to permit the witness to be preaentXor to/have the witness execute a written statement under/oath which will be presented in lieu of live testimony. The hearing will be rescheduled at the e a r l i e s t practical"time after the witness is available.
(f) When the/misconduct is based upon information supplied by an informant whose identity should remain confidential, vhe following procedure shall be employed:
{!}/ The information given by the informant, but n o / the identity of the informant, shall be
to the inmate d-uring\the hearing unless the institution has reasdp to believe
t the disclosure of the information itself ,-ould disclose the identity of the informant. In the latter instance, the information shall
r
be presented to the Hearing Cc-riittee, _in_ camera. (2) The reliability of the informant
will be established to the Hearing Corsnittee in the presence of the inrr.ate, using the following test:
TW

r T

c

(a) That t h e informant had the

ability and was in theposition to observe.

(b) That the informant has knowledge f the subject matter of the violation, and
(c) That the informant has given r e l i a b l e information previously or that otheV witnesses have corroborated some of the information supplied )Sy the informant.

(3) When the institution' reasonably believes that the disclosure of the^information describing the r e l i a b i l i t y , of the in/ormar.t would present a threat to the iristituti/n's security, i t shall be presented in earners' to the Bearing Committee. (g) If the inmateV e/lects to plead guilty or waive

his right to a hearing,/no witnesses will be required. (h) All testimony shall be under oath. (i) If an inmate i s acquitted of the misconduct

charge, a l l records' of the misconduct shall i>e expunged from h i s / i n s t i t u t i o n a l record. 3. Procedure for Appeals. \
(a) The inmate who has been convicted of a misconduct by/ the Hearing Committee may appeal to the Program/Review Coxsmittee. The Vhree bases for an appeal py the inmate are:

(1) The procedures employed were

contrary to the directive or to Consent Decree;

(2) That the punishment is disproportionate

/to the offense; or

\

(3) That the findings of fact &ze insufficient to support the verdict.

ie Program Review Committee shall have the plover to
\ upheld, to remar.d or to uphold but modify the punishment- The
Program Review Committee maynot impose a greater punishment t^rar.

his been designated by the V.c&zir.r ccr-.it.tee.

TTl

i r wi

(bj The next appeal shall be to the Superintendent.

His review shall be limited to the three bases for appeal

.isted in 3(a) above and he nay maJte any disposition per-

by the Program Review Coirjr.ittee.

(c) The final appeal shall be permitted to the

attorney assigned as counsel to the Bureau of Correction in

Central,--Office (hereinafter referred to as "Cer.tr.a'l Office

Attorney"^ . The bases for such an appeal are

to

3(a)(l) and\3la)(3) above.

4.

Transfer of an Innate to Administrative Custody.

(a) An innate who has completed his disciplinary

sentence shall be\ released into general population

unless the institution presents eyijfence to the

Bearing Coracittee that there is a/valid security reason, as defined tnx section 4/tc) below, to continue

in administrative

(b) When an innateNis transferred to administrative
\ custody from general population and the basis for the

transfer isnot anoutstanding misconduct charge, a

•elf-committal nor cc^hfinementXunder investigative status,

he shall be provided a hearing nefore the Hearing Coirmittee

within six (6) days of his transfer. At this hearingthe

institution shall present evidenceVo establish that

there is a vjrlid security reason as defined in section 4 (c)

below, to c'onfine him in administrative custody.

(c/ Valid security reasons as used in this

Stipulation ere: (1) that the inmate i s ^ danger to

partjicular person (s) in the institution who cannot be

protected by alternate measures; .(2) that the in-T.ate

a danger to himself and cannot be protected by

alternate rieasures; (3) that he is theinstigator of "

a disturbance; (4) that placement in general population

would endanger his own safety or welfare provided that

it is shown that alternative Deans of protecting him

such as by relccitior. of cthsr individuals i~ the

i n s t i i u t i o - vr;c- a r e a :'-:-i:r ; c '•••:- r r , _-• -v --.:'. z~: I i •

c

•

(

or (5) that the inmate would likely •scape if placed in a less restrictive environment.
(d) The appeal of the decision of the Hearing ifttee with regard to placement or denial of
of any inmate in administrative ousted shall bi^ made by the inmate or the Superintendent to the Deputy Commissioner who shall reviev^he record of ti\e hearing and a l l relevant documents.

(e) If tius Superintendent elect to appeal

the determinatio of the Hearing Co ittee with

regard to the adroi str&tive cust feyplacement, he

Bust give notice to

instate ,/the Hearing Committee

•i

and the Deputy Connciss ner the close of the third

working day following th axing. The Deputy Commissioner,

or in his absence the inc idual designated to act in

his stead, shall rule

appeal within two[2)

regular working days/of recei of the appeal. The inroate

•hall remain in a ni strative ustody during this appeal

process.

inmate in administrative custody at the :ution of this settlementVill be entitled hearing on the fact of his ccsr.tinued confineto u t i l i z e the appeal procedure, provided by this section- Any innate thereafter cosraitted to continued administrative custody by the Hearing Conr.ittee shall be committed for a specified period orvsentence after which an additional hearing shall b* required for further confinement beyond the original period specified.

'. # (5) The Program Review Committee shall
mentation this procedure. The following procedure shall be available to ar.
inmate who is approaching the ejcpiraticn of his rcdninurr.. (a) The innate shall have the right to appeal
any i&isconduct which may affect his chances for parole. (b) The burden will be on the innate to identify

c

TT—rr v

those misconducts vhich he vishes to appeal, as well •s the reasons why he believes that the procedure was defective. The only basis for appeal is that the original misconduct hearing vas not conducted in accordance vith Administrative Directive 801 {effective Oct. 1, 19785 or the Consent Decree and this variance vas material to the determination of guilt. Technical errors which could not reasonably have had an effect upon the finding of guilt shall not be appealable.
( O Those misconducts vhich have been or are directly the subject of litigation cannot be reviewed.
(d) The inmate's first appeal under this section shall be to the Superintendent of the institution in which the misconduct occurred vho shall respond within 10 working days.
(e) If the inmate is dissatisfied viththe_decision of the Superintendent or if he does not receive a timely response, he may appeal that decision to the Central Office Attorney, who ihall respond vithin fifteen working days of receipt of appeal.
(f) If the Superintendent or the Central Office Attorney determines that the misconduct may affect the inmate's chances for parole and that the misconduct hearing vas defectively conducted in a material vay, a notation shall be made on the innate"s file that the misconduct finding has been reversed. Any such misconduct record shall not be considered by the institution. • taff in making the recommendation to the Board of Probation and Farole and shall not be submitted to the Board for their consideration.
6. Medical Care. (a) The civil service class fcr corrections
infirr.ary supervisors hr.s been clcsed. Ary civil. "trv::i
- 10 -
TIT

positions vhich become vacant are being filled by

registered nurses. (b) Within tvo years there shall be positions

established in each institution to have a registered

tvurse on duty Ik hours a day. The Bureau of Correction

shall use its best efforts to fill these positions.

( O Within cue year every corrections infirmary

supervisor shall be trained and licensed as either a

registered nurse or emergency medical technician.

(d) The Bureau of Correction shall continue to

reorganize its system of medical care in an effort to

provide the best quality and most cost-effective medical

•ervices to the inmate population.

7. Lav Libraries .

'

(a) Inmates in the W® (Restrictive Housing Unit)

: ahall have access to the following volumes, to be used

• as reference materials:

(1) The volumes of the United .States Code

' . Service vhich contain hi tf.S.C. $1963 and 42 U.S.C.

$1997 and all currefct notations'. (2) Title 18 of Purdons Consolidated

• •

Statutes Annotated.

:

(3) Title 37 of the Pennsylvania Code.

(b) Inmates in the KHU nay request copies of cases

they wish to reviev. (c) The institution shall provide the incase with

I

copies of requested cases. These copies shall be

furnished &t no cost to the inmate provided the innare

returns the copy after use in a reusable fora. The

r

inmate may Veep the copy for up to one month unless:

•

(1) he is sooner released or transferred; or

(2) tV.e deirar.d for copies cf a case exceeds

•:

the nur-.ber available (£t le-sc 3 cc^iesi .

- 11 -

 
 461 F.Supp. 522 (1978)
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION et al. v.
Milton SHAPP et al.
Civ. A. No. 70-3054.
United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
November 20, 1978.
523 *523 John T. Snavely, II, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.
OPINION
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Chief Judge.
In an order entered May 30, 1978 we enjoined on Eighth Amendment grounds the continued use of three maximum security cells, known as the "Glass Cage", at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893, 898 (E.D. Pa.1978). Defendants, alleging that the constitutional defects in the Glass Cage have been cured, moved on June 7 under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from our judgment. We are thus again asked to consider the mercurial concept of cruel and unusual punishment.
I. THE INJUNCTION:
In our June 7 opinion we described the three isolation cells at Huntingdon as follows:
"The Glass Cage is enclosed by glass walls and a locked steel door. The cells measure approximately 9' deep by 8' wide by 9' high. There is no furniture, no window, and no inside lighting. Cells are equipped with a toilet and sink and are supposed to include a mattress, two sheets, a pillow, and blankets. We saw none of these items during our visits, but the cells were not in use at that time. Outside lighting is totally inadequate for reading. In addition, despite use of a large fan, ventilation is insufficient. The cells are unclean and an unpleasant odor pervades." 451 F.Supp. at 898.
These observations were made during tours of the maximum security area taken in August 1974 and one year later in August 1975. The injunction against continued use of the three psychiatric cells was anchored in our visceral impressions:
"Our conclusion that the cells in the Glass Cage cannot remain in use is based in large part on our two visits to the institution. On each occasion we were genuinely shocked by the dark, dirty, and totally isolated conditions we observed. We agree with plaintiffs that the continued existence of the Glass Cage constitutes a serious threat to the physical and mental well-being of every resident who is confined there, and thus we conclude that confinement in such conditions could serve no legitimate penological purpose." Id.
Defendants now argue that because of improvements in the Glass Cage since our last visit over three years ago, conditions are no longer shocking and use of the cells no longer illegitimate.

II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION: Rule 59(a) or 60(b)?
Defendants have styled their request that the injunction be lifted as a motion for "new trial or amendment of 524 judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil *524 Procedure."[1] We doubt that a 59(a)(2) motion is the
proper procedural vehicle for bringing defendants' argument before us. Professor Moore, discussing Rule 59(a) (2), writes that "[a]s a practical matter, in equity formerly and in court actions now, three grounds for new trial are most commonly known: for manifest error of law or fact, and for newly discovered evidence." 6A Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 59.07 at 59-94090759-95 (2d ed. 1974) (footnotes omitted). Neither manifest error of fact nor of law has been or can be urged by defendants. The "newly discovered evidence" ground is likewise untenable here. "To constitute newly discovered evidence for which a new trial may be granted under Rule 59, the evidence must pertain to facts in existence at the time of the trial, and not to facts that have occurred subsequently." Id. at 59-115 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). According to the testimony of Lowell Hewitt, Superintendent of the Huntingdon facility, the improvements cited by defendants were largely accomplished in late 1977, well after our trial of the issue and therefore cannot be the basis of a motion for a new trial or amendment of judgment. It appears, then, that none of the 59(a)(2) grounds for relief is present here.
Defendants' motion seems more properly within the scope of Rule 60(b)(5) than Rule 59(a)(2). Rule 60(b)(5) provides inter alia that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order or proceeding [if] it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." This, we think, is the logical foundation for defendants' request and the parties tacitly agree, both sides having identified the "key question" as whether it is now "inequitable" to give our May 30th order "prospective application." Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Motion for New Trial at 2; Reply to Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Motion at 2. Because the parties have treated defendants' motion as a Rule 60(b)(5) issue, despite the incongruous Rule 59 caption, and because defendants are still well within the Rule 60 (b)(5) "reasonable time" filing limitation, it would be the most hollow formalism for us to dismiss the motion as improperly brought and await a re-labelling of the pleadings. Accordingly, we will consider defendants' argument as though it were in title as well as fact a 60(b)(5) motion.
Among the showings that may justify vacation of a restraint under Rule 60(b)(5) is proof of a subsequent change in the controlling facts on which the injunction rested. 7 Moore's Federal Practice at 334. A motion for relief from judgment on such grounds is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and "its exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless there was clear error and abuse of discretion." Securities Exchange Commission v. Warren, 583 F.2d 115, 120 (3d Cir. 1978). See Girard Trust Bank v. Martin, 557 F.2d 386 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 985, 98 S.Ct. 612, 54 L.Ed.2d 479 (1977); Virgin Islands National Bank v. Tyson, 506 F.2d 802 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 976, 95 S.Ct. 1976, 44 L.Ed.2d 467 (1975). In exercising our discretion we are to be guided by equitable principles, as the Rule expressly instructs, and by the interests of justice, 7 Moore's Federal Practice at 331. Although Rule 60 unmistakably envisions the dissolution of certain restraints, the Third Circuit, citing the need for the finality of judgments, has recently cautioned that injunctions "are not to be lightly vacated." Securities Exchange Commission v. Warren, 583 F.2d at 122.
525 Indeed, our Circuit last year reversed, as an abuse of discretion, a district court order *525 granting relief from a consent injunction prohibiting confinement of prisoners in a basement facility, known as the Behavioral Adjustment Unit (BAU), at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh. In Mayberry v. Maroney, 558 F.2d 1159 (3d Cir. 1977), the Commonwealth sought dissolution of the restraint decree under Rule 60(b), without offering any evidence of changed circumstances in the B.A.U. The trial court's approval of defendants' request was held insupportable "because the record [was] barren of facts indicating any entitlement to 60(b) relief." Id. at 1163. In his opinion for a unanimous panel, Judge Layton expressly noted that because intolerable physical conditions had been one of the sources of the complaint a showing that "the physical conditions existing in the B.A.U. had been improved" would be probative of changed circumstances justifying a vacation of the consent judgment. Id. at 1164.[2] Our duty here, then, is to determine, consistent with the above considerations, whether the changed conditions in the Glass Cage that defendants have proven eliminate the cruel and unusual elements on which our

original decision rested such that continued application of the injunction against use of the observation unit is inequitable.[3]
III. THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT ISSUE:
A federal court asked to determine the constitutionality of a prison unit "cannot dictate to state officials the conditions which the court may feel, as a matter of enlightened and advanced prison theory, should prevail in state penitentiaries." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. at 895. State authorities are to be allowed broad latitude in regulating the prison environment in light of the acknowledged penological goals of deterrence, rehabilitation and institutional security, Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125-26, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822-26, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), and only when penal conditions amount to cruel and unusual punishment should a federal court exercise its remedial powers. However, if cruel and unusual circumstances are proven, we are not only authorized to intervene, Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), but are duty-bound by the Eighth Amendment to do so.
Because the concept of cruel and unusual punishment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958), a static Eighth Amendment test cannot be articulated. Certain fundamental measurements can, however, be stated. Of particular relevance as a departure point here is the clear determination that solitary confinement is not per se impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. U. S. ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 471 F.2d 1197, 1202 (3d Cir. 1973). Equally clear, though, is that "confinement in which the isolation cells provided inadequate space, heating, ventilation, lighting or sanitary conditions or where the inmates received inadequate items of personal hygiene, food or clothing, [is] cruel and unusual punishment." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. at 896 (citations omitted). In holding the unimproved Glass Cage unconstitutional, we pointed to such physical factors, writing that "we were genuinely shocked by the dark, dirty, and totally isolated conditions we observed." Id. at 898. The characterization of our reaction to conditions in the observation cells as 526 "genuinely shocked" was advised, because "physical and mental abuse *526 . . . of such base, inhumane, and barbaric proportions so as to shock and offend a court's sensibilities," Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771, 778 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1062, 92 S.Ct. 743, 30 L.Ed.2d 751 (1972) (emphasis added), is constitutionally proscribed.
Defendants contend that conditions in the Glass Cage are no longer shocking or offensive. At a hearing held October 27, 1978 the parties stipulated to several improvements in the three Huntingdon cells, including: (a) the repair of all faucets and commodes to an operating condition; (b) the placement of removable mattresses in each of the units; (c) the fresh painting of the cells and adjacent area; and (d) the dispelling of a pervasive unpleasant odor. Further, plaintiffs' counsel told us at the hearing that on an October 22, 1978 visit to Huntingdon he had found the Glass Cage area to be "immaculately clean." This renovation, largely accomplished in late 1977, is evidenced by sixteen photographs that defendants introduced with the testimony of Mr. Hewitt, the corrections official in charge of the Huntingdon facility. Supplementing the pictures and statements of Superintendent Hewitt was the testimony of Robert K. Rhodes, Director of Maintenance and Construction, Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections. We heard from Mr. Rhodes that the ventilation, lighting and size measurements for the Glass Cage meet the relevant standards. Not only was Mr. Rhodes' technical testimony not contradicted by plaintiffs, it was corroborated by the statements of their own expert, Dr. James H. Gilfoil.
In addition to improving physically the controversial cells, the Commonwealth has, since our last consideration of the issue, adopted explicit administrative procedures for placement of an inmate in the Glass Cage. According to the testimony of William C. Robinson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Corrections, before 1977 the controversial cells were indiscriminately used for punitive purposes. In June of 1977 the Commissioner decided that the Glass Cage should be used only as a short-term isolation facility for inmates whose segregation was necessary to protect the institution from disruption or the inmate from other prisoners or from himself. To implement this change of policy, approval by the Deputy Commissioner of Corrections is now required before an inmate can be assigned to the observation cells. The procedures call for Superintendent Hewitt to be informed of a proposed placement and for him then to clear the assignment with the Deputy Commissioner. Approval by the

Commissioner's office is to be renewed every twenty-four hours. Once approved, an inmate's confinement in the Glass Cage is governed by internal Huntingdon rules that require an immediate medical examination and psychiatric attention within the next day. State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon: Administrative Directive 8010907Assignment of Inmates to Cells in Disciplinary Custody Maximum 0907Observation 0907November 15, 1977. Between the time that these procedures were adopted in June 1977 and the closing of the isolation cells in May 1978 pursuant to our Order, ten inmates were confined in the Glass Cage, for an average of six days each. Plaintiffs express skepticism that the new procedures are significant, but they do not question that the rules were in good faith followed in those ten placements.
Although we did not discuss the procedure for use of the Glass Cage in our opinion closing the area, we think that the purpose for and manner in which the cells are used is relevant to their constitutionality. Confinement that would be permissible if for a short time may become cruel and unusual if lengthy. Similarly, conditions that would be allowable if monitored may be intolerable if unregulated. Our reference to the duration and nature of confinement in the solitary units at Graterford and Dallas, Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. at 896-97, suggests our implicit reliance on such factors in determining the constitutionality of a facility. Accordingly, 527 we will include the new procedures for *527 placement in the Glass Cage in our Eighth Amendment calculus.[4]
Despite improved conditions and procedures, confinement in the Glass Cage is still harsh. The Huntingdon institution contains 1165 cells, 144 of which constitute the maximum security area. Within the maximum block is a Disciplinary Custody Maximum (DCM) unit of 17 cells. The observation cells are isolated behind a glass wall within this DCM area. Four steel doors separate the Glass Cage from the general prison population. A prisoner is not allowed to take personal property to the isolation cells. He is initially denied personal items, including reading and writing material, because, according to Superintendent Hewitt, such property can be used by an agitated inmate to flood the cell by jamming the plumbing fixtures. However, if a calm, lucid request is made, a prisoner will be permitted to read and write. The parties agree that the lighting in the Glass Cage, which comes entirely from 75 watt bulbs mounted directly outside each cell and in the vestibule area between the cells and the glass wall, is adequate for reading.
Dr. Gilfoil, a psychiatrist who toured Huntingdon on October 22nd and testified for plaintiffs at the October 27th hearing, stated that the lighting, although dim, was sufficient for reading, and Mr. Rhodes, the maintenance supervisor, testified that the isolation cells are as well lit as an average home. We must thus conclude that our 1975 observation that "[o]utside lighting is totally inadequate for reading" Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. at 898, is no longer accurate. The lighting cannot, however, be controlled from the observation cell, nor can an inmate confined in the Glass Cage regulate the heat or ventilation. The observation cell environment is wholly beyond the control of the prisoner.
We are persuaded that the Glass Cage, although bleak, is no longer cruel and unusual punishment. Our decision is based on the physical and procedural improvements that the parties agree have been made since our last visit over three years ago. Just as our conclusion then was expressly based on the sensual affront that we experienced in viewing the observation cells, we have here been influenced by the image that emerges from a study of defendants' photographs. The pictures convince us that circumstances have changed to the point where the units, while stark, are not offensive. "There is no question that the cells in the [Glass Cage] are grim and cheerless. Nonetheless, we conclude that these conditions are not so inhumane or base that they shock the court's conscience or violate standards of human decency. Similarly, we find that such confinement is rationally related to legitimate penal goals [of security and deterrence] and thus meets constitutional standards." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. at 897 (upholding use of B.A.U. at Graterford).
Our judgment, like all cruel and unusual punishment decisions, is largely and necessarily impressionistic, there being no eternal sextant with which to survey the boundaries of the Eighth Amendment. We can and must, however, point to certain objective facts that we find especially significant.[5] When we last toured the cells we found no mattresses. Today there is a removable one in each unit. In 1975 we found the lighting inadequate for 528 reading and the ventilation insufficient. We have *528 since learned that the light is sufficient for reading and that the ventilation fan is operating and adequate. The Glass Cage was unclean and pervaded by an unpleasant odor when we visited it. On October 22, 1978 plaintiffs found the area "immaculate." In short, "the dark, dirty and totally isolated conditions we observed" three years ago are now neither dark nor dirty, although the utter isolation

of course remains. Because isolation alone, which here is governed by stringent procedures, does not violate the Eighth Amendment, United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 471 F.2d 1197, 1202 (3d Cir. 1973), we no longer find the observation cells constitutionally objectionable.
Our conclusion is reinforced by considering the implications of plaintiffs' arguments that the Glass Cage is still cruel and unusual punishment. Two main lines of opposition to our decision are urged.
First, plaintiffs have attempted, with good success, to demonstrate that the three observation cells are not necessary to maintain security at Huntingdon. Superintendent Hewitt testified on cross examination that the penological purposes served by the Glass Cage could be, to a degree, accomplished by stripping some of the fourteen other D.C.M. cells which had never been in his experience too heavily populated for such a project to be practical. Were it for us to decide, we would agree with plaintiffs that the Commonwealth's own statements prove that the Glass Cage is not indispensable. However, federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons, Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972), and the decision whether to use the observation cells, given constitutionally satisfactory conditions, is "peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2806, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). Plaintiffs' disproof of a necessity for the Glass Cage is thus misguided. A showing that the observation cells are so unnecessary that they are not reasonably related to a legitimate penal goal would be highly relevant, Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. at 895-96, but such is not plaintiffs' argument. Because plaintiffs urge us to enter an administrative thicket beyond the path of Eighth Amendment analysis, we must reject their evidence that the Glass Cage is not needed.
Plaintiffs second and more vigorously urged line of argument is that the observation cells are cruel and unusual punishment because they are inappropriate confinement for a psychiatrically disturbed inmate. Dr. Gilfoil, plaintiffs' expert witness, testified at length about the adverse repercussions that confinement in a sensory deprivation environment like the Glass Cage can have on an already unstable prisoner. He stated his opinion that after one or two days in solitary most inmates have a psychotic episode and recounted his own experience of mild disorientation and visual and auditory hallucinations after a brief time in a Huntingdon isolation unit. Recommending padded cells and constant psychiatric supervision for the class of inmates who would be confined in the Glass Cage under the new guidelines, Dr. Gilfoil concluded that isolation of these prisoners would be "better accomplished in a hospital setting." We again find ourselves agreeing with plaintiffs testimony but lacking authority to decide accordingly.
Clearly, the Glass Cage is not the most desirable facility for a psychiatrically agitated inmate. We certainly think that hospitalization would be better and Superintendent Hewitt agrees, as his frank testimony that the observation cells are inappropriate for "committable,"[6] as opposed to disorderly, prisoners shows. The question before us, however, is not and cannot be whether the Glass Cage is medically desirable confinement. Rather, we must ask whether the observation cells are so undesirable as to be "shocking", "offensive", "inhumane," "base" or 529 "barbaric." The list of *529 Eighth Amendment adjectives is long but not endless, and undesirable is not among them. Implicit in Dr. Gilfoil's testimony is the conclusion that all solitary confinement is shocking and inhumane punishment because void of sensory stimuli and therefore, in his opinion, psychiatrically unwise. Plaintiffs argued as much in their summation, urging that "it may well be that `committable' inmates can't be constitutionally confined anywhere in the D.C.M." area at Huntingdon. This position is untenable given the present state of the law in our Circuit. U. S. ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 471 F.2d 1197, 1202 (3d Cir. 1973). Some day, perhaps soon, "the evolving standards of decency . . . of [our] maturing society," Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630, may condemn solitary confinement, but unless and until that happens medical warnings against sensory deprivation must be admonitory only, not binding on state corrections officials.
CONCLUSION:
Because we are convinced that the observation cells at Huntingdon are now constitutionally tolerable, it is no longer equitable that our injunction against their use have prospective application. Despite full respect for the finality of judgments, we will, in light of significantly changed circumstances, dissolve our restraint. We shall,

however, make the dissolution contingent on maintenance of the improved cells and sternly caution that a deterioration of conditions in the Glass Cage will not be allowed.
[1] The precise language defendants purport to move under is in Rule 59(a)(2):
"A new trial may be granted . . . in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States. On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment."
[2] The Securities Exchange Commission v. Warren panel, in its discussion of Mayberry, reiterated the centrality of evidence of improved physical conditions to a 60(b) motion for relief from an order that confinement facilities not be used. Securities Exchange Commission v. Warren, 583 F.2d at 119 n. 6.
[3] Plaintiffs do not contend that even if we conclude that the improved Glass Cage is constitutional we should nonetheless deny defendants' motion for relief. Our answer to the constitutional question will therefore a fortiori decide the 60(b)(5) issue as well.
[4] In Mayberry v. Maroney, 558 F.2d at 1163-64, the Third Circuit rejected the district court's holding that a new procedure limiting confinement in the B.A.U. to 24 hours was a changed circumstance justifying relief from the injunction prohibiting use of the cells. We read Judge Layton's opinion as denying the sufficiency of such a showing, not its relevance, and therefore consider our conclusion that evidence of new procedures may be weighed to be harmonious with Mayberry.
[5] That our decision here is, to the extent possible, a critical rather than impulsive one is evidenced by our conclusion that for us, personally, being deprived of reading and writing materials, as inmates in the Glass Cage are, would be per se cruel and unusual punishment. We recognize of course that such a deprivation does not, without more, violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, our private values have been subordinated to a more societal sense of decency in our evaluation of the observation cells.
[6] Superintendent Hewitt defined "committable" inmates as those who had posed a direct threat to themselves or others because of an act within 30 days past. These prisoners, Hewitt said, can be committed to a state hospital under Pennsylvania law. 50 P.S. § 4101 et seq.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 977 F.Supp. 335 (1996)
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, et al., v.
Milton SHAPP, et al.
Civil Action No. 70-3054.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
December 9, 1996.
Stephan Presser, American Liberties Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Francis R. Filipi, Office of Attorney General (PA), Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
DuBOIS, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
Between 1970 and 1971 four related cases challenging the constitutionality of conditions and policies at a 336 number of Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions were filed in this Court. On May 22, 1978, after those *336
suits were consolidated and a plaintiff class certified, then 0907 Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III approved a Consent Decree settling the majority of issues raised. Judge Lord addressed the remaining issues in subsequent Opinions.
A motion for the issuance of an order to show cause and for contempt judgment was filed by plaintiffs in 1980. On December 30, 1980, with the assistance of United States Magistrate Judge William F. Hall, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the outstanding allegations of contempt. With the further assistance of Magistrate Judge Hall, the 1980 Stipulation was amended by an agreement of the parties, approved by Judge Lord on May 11, 1983. Since 1983 a number of motions alleging violations of the Consent Decree have been filed with and, adjudicated by, this Court. There are a number of motions presently pending before this Court,[1] each raising one or more of the following four procedural issues:
1) the scope of the plaintiff class;
2) whether individual violations of the Consent Decree may be remedied by the Court;
3) whether pro se submissions may be considered by the Court; and
4) whether inmates must exhaust their available administrative remedies before petitioning this Court for relief.
These issues are the subject of this Memorandum. Applying the conclusions set forth in this Memorandum, the Court will rule on each pending motion by separate Order.

II. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF CONSENT DECREES
In 1971, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971). Writing for the Court, Justice Marshall set forth the basic framework for the interpretation of consent decrees. He wrote:
Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms. The parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case.... Naturally, the agreement reached normally embodies a compromise.... Thus the decree itself cannot be said to have a purpose; rather the parties have purposes, generally opposed to each other, and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve. For these reasons, the scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it. Id. at 681-82, 91 S.Ct. at 1757 (footnote omitted).
The Third Circuit has summarized the basic principles of Armour in the following manner: "Although consent 337 decrees are judicial *337 acts, they have many of the attributes of contracts voluntarily undertaken, and are
construed according to traditional precepts of contract construction." Fox v. United States Dep't of Housing and Urban Development, et al., 680 F.2d 315, 319 (3rd Cir.1982) (citations omitted). In interpreting the Imprisoned Citizens Union Consent Decree this Court has always followed the dictates of Armour and will continue to do so. See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-354, slip op. at 5, 6, 12, 29 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 25, 1987).
III. JURISDICTION
In 1988 Judge Lord noted that "[u]nder the terms of the Consent Decree, I have retained jurisdiction over it and proceedings have continued." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 1988 WL 59270 (E.D.Pa. June 8, 1988). Under § XXVII of the Consent Decree this Court continues to retain jurisdiction over both this lawsuit and the Consent Decree. Consent Decree, at 17 ("[T]he Court retains jurisdiction of this action. ...").
Furthermore, § XIX of the Consent Decree preserves plaintiffs' right to bring certain types of complaints before this Court. In reference to defendants' right to alter administrative remedies, § XIX states that "plaintiffs reserve their right to contest in this Court any such amendment, suspension, alteration or modification of the provisions of this Consent Decree." Consent Decree, at 14. Continuing, that section provides that "[p]laintiffs also reserve the right to contest in this Court, at any time, by any appropriate legal proceeding, any institution or system wide pattern of failure or refusal by defendants or their agents or employees to follow the provisions of this Consent Decree." Id. at 15.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Scope of the Plaintiff Class
A number of the pending motions have been filed by inmates confined at state correctional institutions which defendants argue are not covered by the Consent Decree. Defendants assert that only inmates in the institutions included in the plaintiff class 0907 which defendants assert includes only State Correctional Institution ("SCI") 0907 Graterford, SCI-Dallas, SCI-Huntingdon, SCI-Muncy, SCI-Rockview and SCI-Pittsburgh 0907 have any rights under the Consent Decree. The inmates confined in other state correctional institutions argue that the coverage of the Consent Decree was expanded when the Decree was modified in 1983. The SCI-Camp Hill inmates also argue that the language of § V of the Consent Decree includes inmates at institutions other than the six named in the class certification Order.

Judge Lord's October 20, 1972 Order certifying the plaintiff class clearly limits membership in the class to those inmates confined at SCI-Graterford, SCI-Dallas, SCI-Huntingdon, SCI-Muncy, SCI-Rockview and SCI-Pittsburgh. That Order reads, in its entirety, as follows:
AND NOW, to wit, this 20th day of October, 1972, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion that the instant suit be maintained as a Class Action on behalf of themselves and all other persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, Dallas, Huntingdon, Muncy, Rockview and Pittsburgh is hereby granted.
The Court concludes that § V of the Consent Decree does not expand the plaintiff class as argued by the inmates at SCI-Camp Hill. That provision, entitled "Compliance With Administrative Directives," reads as follows:
Defendants shall comply with the regulations of the Bureau of Correction (hereinafter the "Administrative Directives") and the amendments and additions thereto.
Defendants shall expend their best efforts to assure compliance with this Consent Decree and with the Administrative Directives and the amendments and additions thereto by all institutional staff members, and all other persons subject to defendants' jurisdiction.
Section V does nothing more than require defendants to comply with the Consent Decree and the regulations of 338 the *338 Bureau of Correction.[2] The fact that the Bureau was required to comply with the regulations with
respect to inmates at the two other correctional facilities in operation at the time, SCI-Camp Hill and Regional Correctional Facility at Greensburg, is of no significance in determining the scope of the plaintiff class. Inmates at the latter institutions have the right to seek redress for violations of the regulations in an appropriate court. Inmates who are members of the plaintiff class may enforce such rights in this Court upon compliance with all of the requirements of the Consent Decree.[3]
There are no other provisions of the Consent Decree which even arguably affect the composition of the plaintiff class. Thus, unless the scope of the plaintiff class was altered at some time after its certification, the class is limited to the six institutions named in the October 20, 1972 Order.
The argument that the plaintiff class was expanded by the 1983 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hall is without merit. Magistrate Judge Hall expressly noted in the Report and Recommendation that after Judge Lord consolidated the original four cases, "a class was certified which consisted of all inmates then confined and all inmates to be confined in the future in the state correctional institutions at Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon, Muncy, Pittsburgh, and Rockview." R & R, at 1. The Magistrate Judge did not recommend expansion of the class, and Judge Lord approved the 1983 Report and Recommendation in its entirety 0907 including its definition of the plaintiff class as limited to those six institutions. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054 (E.D.Pa. May 11, 1983) (unpublished Order).
The inmates who filed motions have not specified the part or parts of the 1983 Report and Recommendation on which they rely in support of their position. There is, however, only one sentence in the Report and Recommendation which makes references to "all state correctional institutions," and it is inapposite. That sentence reads as follows: "The directive establishing the Consolidated [Inmate Grievance] System will apply to all state correctional institutions (and state regional correctional facilities and community service centers)." R & R, 339 at 4. The statement clearly applies to the directive which established a new internal complaint system *339 in all state correctional institutions. Magistrate Judge Hall noted in the Report and Recommendation nothing more than the fact that the directive would apply to all state correctional institutions; his statement does not apply to the composition of the plaintiff class.
Furthermore, in two rulings issued ten years apart Judge Lord left no doubt that the plaintiff class is limited to the six state correctional institutions named in the class certification Order. On June 7, 1978 Judge Lord wrote that "[p]laintiffs represent a class comprising all persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, Dallas, Huntingdon, Muncy, Rockview and Pittsburgh." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893, 894 (E.D.Pa.1978). Ten years later, in a Memorandum issued on June

8, 1988, Judge Lord considered an attorney's fee petition filed by one of plaintiffs' attorneys. In ruling on that petition, Judge Lord wrote that "the plaintiff class compris[es] prisoners at several Pennsylvania Correctional Institutions...." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 1988 WL 59270, *1 (E.D.Pa. June 8, 1988) (emphasis added). Although Judge Lord did not specify the institutions to which he referred in that Memorandum, the words "at several" make it clear that the plaintiff class to which he referred was smaller than the entire inmate population of Pennsylvania's correctional institutions.
Although not argued by movants or class counsel, language used by Judge Lord in his June 18, 1979 Opinion, standing alone, might lend support to the contention that the plaintiff class includes inmates at institutions other than the six listed in the class certification Order. On June 18, 1979, Judge Lord wrote that "On October 20, 1972 I certified a class consisting of the named plaintiffs and `all other persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions....'" Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 473 F.Supp. 1017, 1019 (E.D.Pa.1979) (quoting the Order that certified the class). Later in that Opinion, Judge Lord addressed the size of the plaintiff class as part of his discussion of the award of attorney's fees to class counsel, stating that "[b]ecause plaintiff class consisted of all inmates present and future, of the Commonwealth's prison system, the number of persons who have benefited from Mr. Levine's efforts in this action is large." Id. at 1027. However, Judge Lord's June 18, 1979 Opinion does not stand alone, and the Court concludes that the Opinion did not expand the size of the plaintiff class.
Judge Lord's reference to the class certification Order in his Opinion of June 18, 1979 omitted the limiting language of the Order. Had the omitted language been included, that sentence, which is quoted above, would have read as follows: On October 20, 1972 I certified a class consisting of the named plaintiffs and "all other persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, Dallas, Huntingdon, Muncy, Rockview and Pittsburgh...." (language omitted in June 18, 1979 Opinion emphasized). Furthermore, as was discussed above, both before and after the June 18, 1979 Opinion Judge Lord noted in other Imprisoned Citizens Union related documents that the plaintiff class consisted of only those inmates incarcerated at the six named institutions. See supra 338-339. In sum, the Court does not find that the plaintiff class was expanded by the June 18, 1979 Opinion in the face of the otherwise consistent limitation of the class throughout the long history of this litigation to inmates imprisoned in one of the six state correctional institutions named in the original class certification Order.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiff class is limited to inmates confined at SCI-Graterford, SCIDallas, SCI-Huntingdon, SCI-Muncy, SCI-Pittsburgh and SCI-Rockview when the class was certified or at any 340 time thereafter.[4] The Consent *340 Decree applies to those inmates only, not to the entire state correctional system.
B. Only Allegations of Institution or System Wide Violations of The Consent Decree May Be Brought Before This Court
Defendants assert that only allegations of institution or system wide violations of the Consent Decree may be considered by the Court. None of the inmates who filed the pending motions take the position that there is no such requirement. However, a number of the motions allege individual, not institution or system wide, violations of the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree expressly provides for the consideration of institution or system wide violations of the Consent Decree by this Court. Section XIX of the Consent Decree states that "[p]laintiffs also reserve the right to contest in this Court, at any time, by any appropriate legal proceeding, any institution or system wide pattern of failure or refusal by defendants or their agents or employees to follow the provisions of this Consent Decree." Consent Decree, at 15 (emphasis added). Although that language does not necessarily limit this Court's jurisdiction to such violations of the Consent Decree, § XXIII creates such a limitation.
Section XXIII states that "This Decree shall not create a private cause of action in any individual against any of the defendants. Nor, except as provided in section XIX above, shall this Decree provide a basis for contempt proceedings." Id. at 16 (emphasis added). The only bases for a contempt proceeding provided by § XIX are

institution or system wide violations of the Consent Decree. Reading §§ XIX and XXIII together, it is clear that alleged violations of the Consent Decree that are not system or institution wide may not be brought before this Court. This Court's prior holdings are consistent with this interpretation of the Consent Decree.
The requirement of the Consent Decree that contempt actions could only be brought for institution or system wide violations of the Decree was also addressed by Magistrate Judge Hall in his 1983 Report and Recommendation. In his Memorandum approving the Report and Recommendation, after recounting the history of the Consent Decree, Judge Lord noted that the Court had been inundated with complaints of violations of the Consent Decree. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054, slip op. at 1 (E.D.Pa. May 11, 1983). Concluding that many of the complaints were not properly before the Court, Judge Lord stated that others "may well have been either institution-wide or state-wide and therefore in violation of the Consent Decree's state-wide reach." Id.
This Court most recently considered the validity of the institution or system wide violation requirement in 1987. Judge Lord stressed that requirement in his 1987 Opinion, reiterating "the parties' agreement that individual violations of the Consent Decree will not, by themselves, be actionable in contempt proceedings." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054, slip op. at 6 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 25, 1987). Continuing, Judge Lord cited the Consent Decree and the 1980 Stipulation for the proposition that "the only basis for a judgment of contempt shall be an `institution or system wide pattern of failure or refusal by defendants or their agents or employees to follow the provisions of this Consent Decree.'" Id. at 6-7 (quoting Consent Decree, at 15 and citing Consent Decree, at §§ XIX and XXIII; 1980 Stipulation, at 14).
Accordingly, the Court will not consider any contempt motions alleging violations of the Consent Decree that are not institution or system wide.
C. The Court Will Not Consider Pro Se Filings
341 Section XIX of the Consent Decree states that "[p]laintiffs also reserve the right *341 to contest in this Court, at any time, by any appropriate legal proceeding, any institution or system wide pattern of failure or refusal by defendants or their agents or employees to follow the provisions of this Consent Decree." Consent Decree, at 15 (emphasis added). Although the phrase "[p]laintiffs also reserve" evidences the fact that this right is reserved by the members of the plaintiff class, that phrase does not grant individual members the right to file pro se claims of violations of the Consent Decree in this Court. Rather, members of the class may only initiate "any appropriate legal proceeding" if they seek to remedy such violations. And, it is clear that the only appropriate legal proceeding in a class action is one initiated by class counsel.
The cases addressing the alleged right of a class member to proceed pro se rather than through class counsel conclude that such action is inappropriate. In 1988 the Fifth Circuit stated that "[i]ndividual members of the class ... may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, but they must do so by urging further action through the class representative and attorney, including contempt proceedings or by intervention in the class action." Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir.1988); see also Long v. Collins, 917 F.2d 3 (5th Cir.1990). Citing Long, the Tenth Circuit held in McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir.1991), that "individual prisoners lack standing to individually litigate matters relating to [a] class action." Id. at 1166 (citing Long, 917 F.2d at 4-5 (5th Cir.1990) and Goff v. Menke, 672 F.2d 702, 704 (8th Cir.1982)).
The Eighth Circuit has also addressed this question, concluding that the district court had abused its equitable power by granting class-wide relief upon the filing of a pro se motion to enforce a preliminary injunction that had been issued in another suit. Goff, 672 F.2d at 704. In so holding the Eighth Circuit explained that "[f]or reasons of law as well as judicial economy ... to the extent that injunctive relief was sought, Goff [the prisoner proceeding pro se] should have been required to proceed through the class representative or through intervention." Id.
The rule of the aforementioned cases is designed to allow a court to effectively administer justice in a class action suit, without being inundated with filings from each individual member of the class 0907 a problem illustrated by the current posture of this litigation. Class counsel has notified the Court that he will not adopt the vast majority of the pro se motions pending before this Court because he believes that most of those motions are either procedurally barred or without merit. As the class members' advocate, class counsel is duty-bound to aggressively pursue any

allegations of institution or system wide violations of the Consent Decree that he believes are meritorious. Class counsel has done so in the past, and the Court has been provided with no reason to believe that he will not continue to do so. The requirements of judicial economy and the logic of the aforementioned cases compel the Court to conclude that pro se requests for enforcement of the Consent Decree should not be considered.
Furthermore, the Court's ruling on this issue is consistent with the prior rulings of other Judges on this Court. In at least six prior instances the Court has denied motions because "plaintiffs ha[d] not enlisted the assistance of class counsel in filing th[e] motion[s] and, therefore, ha[d] not complied with the consent decree's procedural requirements for the prosecution of violations...." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 16, 1992) (unpublished Order) (Dalzell, J.).[5]
342 *342 Accordingly, this Court holds that all allegations of institution or system wide violations of the Consent Decree must be made in Motions for Contempt of the Consent Decree filed by class counsel.
D. Inmates Must Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies Before The Court Will Consider Alleged Violations of the Consent Decree
Defendants assert that inmates must exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking relief in this Court. Although it does not appear that any of the inmates who filed the pending motions take the position that there is no such requirement, a number of the motions do not provide evidence of exhaustion. Furthermore, defendants argue that a number of the movants have not exhausted their administrative remedies.[6]
In 1987, Judge Lord wrote that "pursuant to the parties' agreement and my order of May 11, 1983 approving their Amendment to the Stipulation for Dismissal, plaintiffs must exhaust the inmate grievance procedure established by that stipulation before presenting any claim to the court as part of a contempt proceeding." Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054, slip op. at 6 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 25, 1987) (emphasis added). The Order to which Judge Lord referred was quite explicit. In adopting the 1983 Report and Recommendation, Judge Lord
ordered that ... Pursuant to the terms of settlement, when the administrative procedure for inmate grievances described by Section I.B. of the Stipulation is adopted, members of the plaintiff-class must exhaust that procedure before filing with the court any allegations of violations of the Consent Decree and/or any allegations of contempt. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054 (E.D.Pa. May 11, 1983) (unpublished Order) (emphasis altered).
Accordingly, the Court finds that any Motions for Contempt of the Consent Decree may be filed by class counsel only after inmates have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the incidents underlying the motion.[7]
V. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court holds that it will consider a Motion for Contempt of the Consent Decree only if the Motion:
1) is filed on behalf of inmates imprisoned at SCI-Graterford, SCI-Dallas, SCI-Huntingdon, SCI-Muncy, SCIPittsburgh or SCI-Rockview at the time the class was certified or at any time thereafter;
2) alleges an institution or system wide violation of the Consent Decree;
3) is filed by class counsel; and
4) is filed after inmates have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the incidents underlying the motion.
343 *343

I. Authority

The authority of the Commissioner of Corrections to direct the operation of the Department of Corrections is established by Sections 201, 206, 506, and 901(b) of the Administrative Code of 1929. Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, 175, as amended.
II. Purpose

A consistently applied system of sanctions in response to inmate violations of Department of Corrections rules and regulations is established to ensure the safe and orderly operation of institutions and Community Corrections Facilities.
III. Applicability

This policy shall be applicable to all inmates and staff in all Department of Corrections' facilities and Community Corrections Centers.
IV. Definitions

For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions shall apply:

A. Central Office Review Committee (CORC) 0907 A panel of at least three (3) Central Office staff members appointed by the Commissioner, including an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, which conducts final reviews of institution grievance and misconduct appeals.

B. Disciplinary Custody 0907 The maximum restrictive status of confinement to which inmates guilty of Class I misconducts may be committed. Inmates shall be placed in disciplinary custody status for periods no longer than ninety (90) days per misconduct report.

C. Hearing Examiner 0907 An employe of the Department of Corrections Central Office who conducts inmate misconducts hearings. The hearing examiner reviews evidence, determines relevance of witnesses, interviews witnesses, determines guilt or innocence and imposes sanctions consistent with this policy.

D. Misconduct 0907 Any violation of Department of Corrections Rules, Regulations or Policies as outlined in Section VI of this policy.

E. Pre-Hearing Confinement 0907 A temporary administrative status of confinement in the inmate's general population cell or the RHU pending the outcome of a misconduct hearing.

F. Program Review Committee 0907 A panel of three (3) members consisting of the two (2) Deputy Superintendents, Inmate Program Manger, or Unit Manager. The Superintendent may designate appropriate substitutes. The Program Review Committee conducts Administrative Custody hearings, thirty (30) day reviews, makes decisions about continued confinement in the RHU/SMU, and hears all appeals of misconducts.

G. Restricted Housing Unit 0907 An area or group of cells for inmates assigned to disciplinary or administrative custody status.

344

*344 H. Special Management Unit 0907 (SMU) A special unit within designated Department of

Corrections institutions designated to safely and humanely handle inmates whose behavior

presents a serious threat to the safety and security of the facility, staff, other inmates, or him or

herself.

I. Mental Health Cases 0907 Inmates who have a mental health stability score of 3 or above, are listed on the institution's Psychiatric Review Team roster, or in the opinion of the staff, may be suffering from a serious mental illness.
V. Policy
It is the policy of the Department of Corrections to operate a disciplinary process which provides clear notice of prohibited behavior, outlines a fundamentally fair hearing process, and establishes consistent sanctions for violations of Department of Corrections rules and regulations.
VI. Procedure
All inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections are expected to follow the rules and regulations. This section provides a list of prohibited behavior which can result in misconduct charges, the misconduct hearing procedures, and the appeal procedures.
A. Misconduct Charges

Class I Charges Category A

1. Violation of the PA Crimes Code (must be specified)

1.a. Assault 0907 Including any aggressive

physical contact with a

potential for injury towards

an employe.

1.b. Murder

1.i. Kidnapping

1.c. Rape

1.j. Aggravated Assault

1.d. Arson

1.k. Voluntary Manslaughter

1.e. Riot

1.l. Extortion by Threat of Violence

1.f. Escape

1.m. Involuntary Deviate Sexual

Intercourse

1.g. Robbery

1.n. Threatening an Employe or

Their Family with Bodily

Harm

1.h. Burglary

Class I Charges Category B

2. Fighting.

3. Threatening another person.

4. Engaging in sexual acts with others, or sodomy.

5. Wearing a disguise or mask.

6. Failure to report an arrest for any violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code (Community Corrections Centers only).

7. Refusing to obey an order.

8. Possession of contraband including money, implements of escape, unprescribed drugs or drugs which are prescribed, but the inmate is not authorized to possess, drug paraphernalia, poisons, intoxicants, materials used for fermentation, property of another, weapons or other items which in the hands of an inmate present a threat to self, others or to the security of the institution. When an inmate is charged under this section with possession of an item of contraband which is a weapon or item which in his hands presents a threat to others or to the security of the institution, and the item also has a legitimate use in the area discovered, creditable evidence that the item has been used only for the legitimate purpose shall be considered to mitigate the misconduct to a Class II.

9. Possession, or use of a dangerous or controlled substance.

345

*345 10. Possession, or use, of intoxicating beverages.

11. Extortion, or blackmail.

12. Any violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code not in Category I (must be specified).

Class I Charges Category C

13. Tattooing, or other forms of self mutilation.

14. Destroying, altering, tampering with, or damaging property.

15. Indecent exposure.

16. Engaging in, or encouraging unauthorized group activity.

17. Refusing to work, or encouraging others to refuse to work.

18. Breaking restriction or quarantine.

19. Gambling or conducting a gambling operation.

20. Unauthorized use of the mail or telephone.

21. Possession or circulation of a petition, which is a document signed by two or more persons requesting or demanding that something happen or not happen, without the authorization of the Superintendent.

22. Using abusive or obscene language to an employee.

Class I Charges Category D

23. Failure to stand count or interference with count.

24. Violating a condition of a pre-release program (must be specified).

25. Violation of visiting regulations (must be specified).

26. Lying to an employe.

27. Presence in an unauthorized area.

28. Loaning or borrowing property.

29. Failure to report the presence of contraband.

Class II Charges

30. Body punching, or horse play.

31. Taking unauthorized food from the dining room or kitchen.

32. Failure to report to work, or unexcused absence from work.
33. Smoking where prohibited.
34. Possession of any item not authorized for retention or receipt by the inmate not specifically enumerated as Class I contraband.
35. Any violation of a rule or regulation in the Inmate Handbook not specified as a Class I misconduct charge.
B. Any attempt to commit any of the above listed charges shall constitute a misconduct of the same classification as the completed act would be.

C. Misconduct Sanctions

1. Misconduct sanctions shall be imposed by the hearing examiner.

2. Inmates found guilty of Class I misconduct charges may be subject to any one or more of the following sanctions:

a. Assignment to disciplinary custody status for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days per misconduct report.

b. Cell restriction for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days per misconduct report. Cell restriction is total confinement to general population cell, dorm area or cubicle, except for meals, showers, one (1) formal religious service per week, commissary, law library and one (1) specified daily exercise period. Participation in programs, school, and work are suspended.

c. Loss of privileges for a prescribed period of time. Privileges lost must be specifically identified and should, where possible, be related to the misconduct violation.

d. Payment of fair value for property lost or damaged of for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct.

e. Reprimand, warning, counselling.

f. Suspension or removal from job.

g. Confiscation of contraband.

h. Revocation of pre-release status.

346

3. The hearing examiner may reduce the classification of any Class I misconduct *346 (except

Category A charges) to a Class II misconduct.

4. Inmates found guilty of Class II misconduct charges are subject to one or more of the above sanctions except placement in the disciplinary status, cell restriction, change of custody level, and loss of pre-release status. The only permissible sanction for Class II category contraband is confiscation of the contraband.

5. Presumptive range of misconduct sanctions.

Class I Charges Category A

No less than 30 days disciplinary custody status

No more than 90 days disciplinary custody status

Class I Charges Category B

No less than 30 days cell restriction
No more than 60 days disciplinary custody status
Class I Charges Category C
No less than 15 days loss of privileges
No more than 15 days disciplinary custody status
Class I Charges Category D
No less than 15 days loss of privileges
No more than 15 days disciplinary custody status
Class II Charges
No less than 5 days loss of privileges
No more than 15 days loss of privileges
The hearing examiner will have the authority to impose a term which deviates from the presumptive sanctioning range (except in cases of bodily harm or injury). If the hearing examiner does vary from the presumptive range, the rationale for the exception must be documented as part of the record of the hearing.
6. Time given for misconducts involving bodily injury, and attempt to commit bodily injury, or use of a weapon will be served in its entirety. For other misconducts, the Program Review Committee may consider a release to general population upon completion of half of the sanction imposed.
The Superintendent or PRC may change an inmate from DC status to AC status only upon expiration of the DC sanction and only if proper notice and hearing procedures are provided as outlined in DC-ADM 802.
7. At any time, the Superintendent or designee may reduce the disciplinary sanction imposed on any inmate other than those with misconducts involving bodily injury, attempts to commit bodily injury or use of a weapon, based on the security needs of the institution in accordance with the "Administration of the Restricted Housing Unit" policy. When this occurs, the Superintendent shall notify the Regional Deputy Commissioner via Weekly Status Report.
8. In cases of multiple misconduct sanctions, the Superintendent may reduce the total amount of disciplinary time based upon positive adjustment by the inmate. Disciplinary time cannot be reduced beyond the longest sanction imposed per misconduct report for Category A charges or half of the longest sanction imposed for other category charges.
9. The PRC or the superintendent will have the discretion to reduce disciplinary sanctions for mental health cases.
D. RHU Procedures for Disciplinary Custody Status Inmates
1. Disciplinary custody status inmates are housed in separate cells from general population and administrative custody status inmates.
2. Smoking in the disciplinary custody status housing area will be limited to one pack of cigarettes every two (2) weeks, to be purchased from the institution commissary. Indigent inmates may be provided with cigarettes consistent with policy 15.3.6, VI. D., Smoking in Department of Corrections Buildings and Facilities.

3. Inmates in disciplinary custody status will not have the privileges of radios, televisions,

telephone calls, personal property or commissary (except cigarettes toilet articles, legal/

347

correspondence *347 materials, and prescribed medications).

4. Visits are limited to one (1) non-contact visit per month with immediate family only. Legal visits will be permitted. In cases of emergencies, a telephone call may be approved by the Unit Manager or a Commissioned Officer.

5. Disciplinary custody status inmates will be permitted legal materials that may be contained in one (1) records center box. Any additional legal material will be stored and available upon request on an even exchange basis. A personal Bible, a Holy Koran, or equivalent religious publication is permitted.

6. Inmates will be provided access to the institution law library by requesting legal materials in accordance with Departmental policy. Other library books may be requested on a weekly basis.

7. Inmates in disciplinary custody status will be provided with an R.H.U. jump-suit and footwear. Basic issue toilet articles will be provided on request. Two (2) pair of personal undergarments are permitted. No other personal property is permitted. Outerwear for exercise will be provided as needed.

8. Disciplinary custody status inmates will receive one (1) hour exercise per day, five (5) days per week, and shall be permitted a minimum of three (3) showers and three (3) shaves per week.

9. The Program Review Committee will interview all disciplinary custody cases every thirty (30) days.

E. Misconduct Reports

1. Inmates charged with any of the listed violations will receive a misconduct report.
2. Content of the Misconduct Report 0907 The misconduct report is used to give notice to the inmate of the conduct violations with which he/she has been charged and the facts upon which the charges are based. The misconduct report will be used as evidence against the inmate at the misconduct hearing.
3. Charging Staff Member 0907 The misconduct report shall be written by a staff member who has personal knowledge of the misconduct violation or by a staff member at the direction of a person who has personal knowledge of the misconduct.
4. Time of Writing of the Misconduct Report 0907 The misconduct report should be written the same day/shift that the charging staff member has knowledge of the incident. If not, the misconduct report must include a justification for the delay.
5. Approval by Ranking Officer on Duty 0907 Prior to service of the misconduct report on the inmate, the report shall be reviewed and approved by the shift commander. Pre-hearing confinement not to be routine but utilized only upon approval of the shift commander based on an assessment of the incident and the need for control.
F. Service of Misconduct Report

1. The inmate shall be personally served with the misconduct report within a reasonable time after it is written.

2. If an inmate is placed in pre-hearing confinement, the misconduct report shall be served within three (3) hours of the inmate's placement in pre-hearing confinement. If the inmate is not pled in pre-hearing confinement, notice shall be served the same day the misconduct report is written.

3. The misconduct report will, except at Community Corrections Centers, be served by someone other than the charging staff member.

4. The staff member who serves the misconduct shall record the date and time of service on the conduct report immediately prior to giving the inmate a copy of the misconduct report.

5. The Witness Request form and the Inmate Version form shall be delivered to the charged

inmate with the misconduct report. The inmate must fill out the Witness Request form and submit

348

to the block officer or Community Corrections Center staff members no later than *348 9:00 a.m.

the next working day. The block officer shall sign the Witness Request form, give a copy to the

inmate and forward the form to the hearing examiner. The inmate should bring the Inmate Version

form to the hearing.

G. Misconduct Hearing

1. Scheduling 0907 The misconduct hearing shall be scheduled no less than twenty four (24) hours nor more than six (6) calendar days after notice of the charges is served.
2. The misconduct hearing shall be conducted by a Department of Corrections' hearing examiner.
3. Inmate Assistance
a. The inmate shall be permitted assistance at the hearing from any staff member or any inmate in general population status. The assistant must be willing to serve.
b. The inmate shall be permitted to meet with the assistant an appropriate period of time before the hearing.
4. Inmate Version 0907 At the hearing, the charges will be read to the inmate. The hearing examiner will request the inmate's plea to each individual charge. The inmate may submit a written version or may orally present his or her version which shall be summarized as part of the record of the hearing.
5. Witnesses
a. The hearing examiner may require the presence of any staff member or witness.
b. Up to three (3) relevant witnesses, who have been properly requested, shall be permitted. One of the three witnesses may be the staff member who witnessed the misconduct violation, or the charging staff member.
(1) Relevance 0907 The inmate must state on the Witness Request form why the witness is relevant to the hearing. The witness must be a staff member, official volunteer, contract employee, or an inmate, unless the hearing is conducted at a Community Corrections Facility, where civilian witnesses may be permitted.
(2) Availability 0907 If the inmate properly requests a witness who is not available at the time of the hearing, the inmate may elect to either waive the six (6) calendar days hearing requirement or to have the witness execute a written statement under oath which will be presented in lieu of live testimony. If the inmate elects to have the witness present, the hearing will be rescheduled at the earliest practical time after the witness is available.
(3) If an inmate witness or assistant becomes disruptive at the hearing, he or she will be removed.

c. The hearing examiner may question any witness. The charged inmate shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity to pose relevant questions for any adverse witness to respond to. The extent of questioning shall be controlled by the hearing examiner.

d. Determinations of credibility shall be made by the hearing examiner.

e. All testimony shall be under oath.

f. If the inmate elects to plead guilty or waive his/her right to a hearing, no witnesses will be required.

6. Confidential Source of Information 0907 When the misconduct report is based upon information supplied by a confidential informant, the following procedure shall be followed:

a. An in-camera hearing (without the charged inmate present) will be conducted to determine the reliability of the informant. The informant must be established as reliable by a preponderance of evidence showing:

(1) How, where and when the informant was in a position to observe the violation or gain personal knowledge of the violation.

(2) What other witnesses have corroborated the informants statement and how, or how and when the informant gave reliable information in the past.

349

b. The information provided by the informant, but not the identity of the *349 informant will be

disclosed to the charged inmate during the hearing. The charged inmate will have the opportunity

to respond to the facts presented in the informant's statement.

c. In cases where the information provided by the informant could by itself reveal the identity of the informant, the examiner may withhold identifying information from the charged inmate.

H. Disposition of Charges

1. As soon as possible after hearing all evidence, but within the six (6) calendar day limit, the hearing examiner shall determine whether the inmate is guilty of the misconduct charges based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the inmate committed the misconduct charge or charges.
2. After the decision is reached by the examiner, the inmate shall be called before the examiner to hear the decision.
3. If the inmate is found not guilty, that fact shall be recorded in writing. The inmate shall be given a copy. No rationale for the decision is required. All record of the misconduct shall be removed from the inmate's institution file and retained in a separate institution file until the inmate is released or transferred.
4. If the inmate is found guilty, a written summary of the hearing will be prepared which will include the facts relied upon by the hearing examiner to reach the decision, and the reasons for the decision. The summary shall also include findings of fact concerning the testimony of each witness presented. A copy of the written summary will be given to the inmate. The inmate shall be advised that he/she has fifteen (15) days to submit a written request for appeal to the Program Review Committee.
5. The hearing examiner may dismiss any misconduct report without prejudice, to permit recharge without determination of guilt or innocence.

I. Appeals

1. First Level of Appeal 0907 Program Review Committee

a. Any inmate who has been found guilty of a misconduct charge or charges may appeal to the Program Review Committee for initial review within fifteen (15) days of the hearing. The three (3) valid bases for an appeal to the Program Review Committee are:

(1) The procedures employed were contrary to law, this policy or the I.C.U. Consent Decree.

(2) The punishment is disproportionate to the offense. Sanctions imposed outside of the presumptive sentencing range may be appealed on this basis.

(3) The findings of fact were insufficient to support the decision.

b. No appeals from a finding of not guilty are permitted.

c. All appeals shall be in writing. Only one (1) appeal to the Program Review Committee shall be permitted in the case of each misconduct report.

d. Any inmate may seek the assistance of a staff member or an inmate in the same population status in the preparation of an appeal. The inmate appellant must sign the appeal.

e. The appeal shall include a brief statement of the facts relevant to the appeal. The text must be legible and presented in a courteous manner. The inmate may state any claims concerning alleged violations of Department Directives and Regulations or the I.C.U. Consent Decree, or other law.

f. The Program Review Committee will address each issue raised by the inmate, and may, at its discretion, consider any other matter relevant to the issues raised. The Program Review Committee is not required to address issues not raised or improperly raised by the appellant.

g. The Program Review Committee shall have the power to:

(1) Reject any appeal which does not conform to Sections a. through f. above.

350

*350 (2) Uphold the hearing examiner's decision.

(3) Uphold the finding of guilt, but modify the punishment.

(4) Vacate the decision and remand back to the hearing examiner for a rehearing.

(5) Vacate the decision and the charge to permit recharge and rehearing.

(6) Dismiss the charge and prohibit recharge.

(7) The Program Review Committee may not impose a greater punishment than has been designated by the hearing examiner. The Program Review Committee will provide a brief written statement to the inmate of the reasons for its decision within five (5) working days of receipt of an appeal.

2. Second Level of Appeal 0907 Superintendent

a. The inmate may appeal the decision of the Program Review Committee to the Superintendent within five (5) days of receipt of the written P.R.C. decision.

b. The Superintendent will address all issues raised by the inmate and may, at his/her discretion, consider any other matter relevant to the issues raised. He/she is not required to address issues not raised or improperly raised by the appellant.

c. The Superintendent may make any decision permitted to the Program Review Committee. The decision of the Superintendent will be in writing and will be forwarded to the inmate within three (3) working days of receipt of the appeal. Any day that the Superintendent is absent from the institution will not be included in the three (3) working days.
3. Final Appeal 0907 Office of Chief Counsel
a. The inmate may appeal the decision of the Superintendent to the Office of Chief Counsel within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the Superintendent's decision.
b. An attorney will review the issues of appeal and the complete record of the hearing and previous appeals. The attorney may respond directly to the inmate or refer the appeal to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) for further review. A final decision will be provided to the inmate within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the appeal to final review.
c. The attorney will address all issues properly raised by the inmate and may review any other matter relevant to the issues raised and may affirm, modify, reverse, or take other appropriate action with regard to the appeal.
J. Waivers

1. An inmate may voluntarily waive the hearing process outlined in this policy at any time prior to the hearing's completion. The inmate may also waive any witness requests or time limitations relating to the hearing or service of notice.
2. All waivers shall be in writing and shall be signed by the charged inmate.

K. Inmate Refusal to Attend the Hearing

Inmates who refuse to attend a hearing will be advised they have a right to a hearing but may waive that right. The inmate will be asked to sign the waiver.
2. If the inmate refuses to attend the hearing or sign a waiver, two (2) staff members who witnessed the refusal will sign the waiver form. The hearing will be conducted without the charged inmate present. The hearing examiner will determine guilt or innocence, and a sanction will be imposed if the inmate is found guilty.
3. The inmate may appeal the results of a hearing he/she refuses to attend in accordance with Section I above.

L. Inmate Unable to Attend

If the inmate is physically or mentally unable to attend or participate in a hearing, the hearing

examiner shall postpone the hearing until the inmate is able to attend and participate. The

351

decision to postpone a hearing under this section shall *351 be in writing and shall be made at the

time the hearing would have been held.

M. Community Corrections

1. Definitions
a. Center Director-The Director of the Community Corrections Center or the authorized designee of the Director.

b. Regional Director 0907 The Director of the region in which a Community Corrections Center is located.
c. Hearing Committee 0907 The persons designated by the Center Director to conduct misconduct hearings at the Community Corrections Center.
(1) The Committee shall be impartial and shall consist of at least one staff member but no more than three staff members.
(2) The Committee shall perform the functions performed by hearing examiners as outlined in this directive.
2. Procedures
a. Misconduct hearings held at a Community Corrections Facility will be heard by a hearing committee.
b. If a Community Corrections inmate is placed in pre-hearing confinement, the misconduct report shall be served within 48 hours of the inmate's placement in prehearing confinement.
c. If a Community Correction's inmate is returned to an institution under pre-hearing confinement, the hearing will be conducted at the institution by a hearing examiner.
d. Misconduct reports will be processed and hearings conducted as outlined in Section VI of this policy.
e. Appeals
(1) If the inmate has been permanently returned to an institution appeals may be filed in accordance with Section 1 of this directive.
(2) Inmates remaining at a Community Corrections Facility may appeal misconduct hearings results to the Director, Community Corrections, Bureau of Community Corrections, P.O. Box 598, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania XXXXX-XXXX.
VII. Suspensions During an Emergency
In an extended emergency situation or extended disruption of normal institution operation, any provision or section of this policy may be suspended upon approval of the Commissioner of Corrections.
VIII. Rights Under this Directive
This directive sets out policy and procedure. It does not create rights in any person nor should it be interpreted or applied in such a manner as to abridge the rights of any individual. The directive should be interpreted to have sufficient flexibility so as to be consistent with law and to permit the accomplishment of the purpose of the directives and policies of the Department of Corrections.
IX. Superseded Policy and Cross-Reference
This policy supersedes DC-ADM 801 dated October 29, 1992.
Policy Manual Cross-Reference 0907 DC-ADM 802. DC-ADM 804
ACA Cross References 0907 3-4214 through 3-4236, 3-4250, 3-4254, and 3-4260.

/s/ Joseph D. Lehman Joseph D. Lehman, Commissioner 352 *352
I. AUTHORITY

The Authority of the Commissioner of Corrections to direct the operation of the Department of Corrections is established by Sections 201, 206, 506, and 901-B of the Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, No. 175, as amended.
II. PURPOSE

It is the purpose of this Administrative Directive to establish policy regarding the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System and to ensure that inmates have an avenue through which resolution of specific problems can be sought.
This directive sets forth procedures for the review of Inmate Grievances not already covered by other Administrative Directives and policies. It also provides the method through which review procedures established by other directives are to be integrated with the procedures outlined in this directive.
III. APPLICABILITY

This policy is applicable to all employees of the Department of Corrections and all inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and to those individuals and groups who have business with or use the resources of the Department of Corrections.

IV. DEFINITIONS

A. Grievance 0907

The formal written expression of a complaint submitted by an inmate related to a problem encountered during the course of his/her confinement.

B. Grievance Coordinator 0907

The Corrections Superintendent's Assistant in an institution or the Assistant to the Regional Director in Community Corrections who is responsible for the overall administration of the Inmate Grievance System in that facility/region. This includes all data collection, tracking and statistical reporting. At the direction of the Facility Manager or Community Corrections Regional Director, the Grievance Coordinator may be called upon to provide Initial Review of certain grievances.

C. Grievance Officer 0907

An appropriate Department Head or Management Level staff person designated by the Facility Manager or CC Regional Director to provide Initial Review of an inmate grievance arising from his/ her specific area of responsibility, e.g., a Unit Manager would be assigned to provide Initial Review of a grievance from the housing unit. If the grievance arises from the Food Services Area, the Grievance Officer designated by the Facility Manager shall be the Food Services Manager, likewise, the Corrections Health Care Administrator would be the Grievance Officer for a grievance related to a Health Care issue.

353

*353 D. Central Office Review Committee (CORC) 0907

A committee of at least three (3) Central Office staff appointed by the Commissioner of Corrections to include the Commissioner, Executive Deputy Commissioner and Chief Counsel or their designees.
With the exception of appeals from disciplinary action under DC-ADM 801 and appeals arising from Health Care or medical treatment grievances, the CORC Shall have responsibility for direct review of all Inmate Appeals for Final Review.
E. Central Office Medical Review Committee (COMRC) 0907
A committee appointed by the Commissioner to include the Director of the Bureau of Health Services and relevant Bureau staff. The COMRC shall have responsibility for direct review of grievance appeals related to Health Care and medical treatment issues.
F. Initial Review 0907
The first step in the formal Inmate Grievance Process for all issues except those already governed by other specified procedures (see VI E). All reviews conducted below the level of Facility Manager or Regional Director are considered initial reviews.
G. Appeal from Initial Review 0907
The first level of appeal of a decision rendered at Initial Review. This appeal is directed to the Facility Manager or Community Corrections Regional Director.
An appeal of the Initial Review decision on a grievance related to a Health Care or Medical issue shall be submitted directly to the COMRC at Central Office.
Only issues raised at Initial Review shall be appealed.
H. Final Review 0907
Upon completion of Initial Review and appeal from Initial Review, an inmate may seek Final Review from the Central Office Review Committee (CORC), for any issue involving continued noncompliance with Department of Corrections directives or policy, the ICU Consent Decree or other law.
V. POLICY
A. It is the policy of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections that every individual committed to its custody shall have access to a formal procedure 0907 the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System 0907 through which the resolution of problems or other issues of concern arising during the course of confinement may be sought. For every such issue there shall be a forum for review and an avenue of appeal, but only one.
B. Informal Resolution of Problems 0907 All inmates are expected to attempt to resolve problems or differences with staff on an informal basis through direct contact or by sending a request slip to appropriate staff. Action taken by the inmate to resolve the situation must be indicated on the grievance form, Section B.
The Grievance Form, DC 804, Part I, is available in each Housing Unit or upon request from Unit staff. This is the proper form to be used for submission of a grievance and it should be completed according to the directions provided.
It is required that a genuine effort be made to resolve the problem before the grievance system is used. The inmate must document these efforts in Section B of the Grievance Form. Failure to do

so may result in the grievance being returned to the inmate without action. The inmate may then refile the grievance with Section B properly completed.

C. Any inmate using the grievance system shall do so in good faith and for good cause.

No one shall be punished, retaliated against or otherwise harmed for good faith use of this grievance system.

Deliberate misuse of the grievance system may result in restricted access or disciplinary action, at the discretion of the Facility Manager.

354

*354 D. It is the intent of the Department of Corrections to provide for an accelerated review of

appeals of grievances related to medical issues. For this reason, the inmate is permitted to appeal

a medical grievance to the Central Office Medical Review Committee for Final Review directly

from Initial Review. See VI., C. 1.

E. The Inmate Grievance Review System is intended to deal with a wide range of issues, procedures or events which may be of concern to inmates. It is not meant to address incidents of an urgent or emergency nature. When faced with such an event, the inmate should contact the nearest staff member for immediate assistance.

VI. PROCEDURES

A. Grievance shall be submitted to the Grievance Coordinator in the following manner.
1. All grievances shall be in writing and in the format provided on the forms supplied by the institution (DC-804 Part I). See Section V., B.
2. All grievances shall be presented individually. Any grievance submitted by a group of inmates will not be processed, however, if the Grievance Coordinator believes that the issue being grieved is legitimate, it will be referred to appropriate Management Staff for review.
3. Only an inmate who has been personally affected by a Department or institution action or policy shall be permitted to seek review of a grievance or appeal. The inmate grievant must sign the grievance or appeal.
4. All grievances and appeals must be presented in good faith. They shall include a brief statement of the facts relevant to the claim. The text of the grievance must be legible and presented in a courteous manner. The inmate should identify any persons who may have information which could be helpful in resolving the grievance. The inmate may also specifically state any claims he/she wishes to make concerning violations of Department directives, regulations, the ICU Consent Decree or other law. The inmate may request to be personally interviewed prior to the decision on Initial Review. Any inmate who submits a grievance containing false and malicious information may be subject to disciplinary action.
5. Grievances and appeals based on different events should be presented separately, unless it is necessary to combine the issues to support the claim. The Grievance Officer may combine multiple grievances which relate to the same subject.
NOTE: At any point in the grievance process, the inmate has the right to withdraw the grievance.
B. Initial Review
1. Initial Review Procedures must be completed before Appeal from Initial Review or Final Appeal may be sought. Any claims of violation of the ICU Consent Decree must be raised through this grievance procedure before they may be addressed by any court.

2. Grievances must be submitted for initial review to the Facility/Regional Grievance Coordinator within fifteen (15) days after the events upon which the claims are based. Extensions of this time period may be granted by the Facility Manager/Regional Director for good cause.

3. The Grievance Coordinator will forward the grievance to the appropriate Grievance Officer for investigation and resolution. The inmate grievant and other persons having personal knowledge of the subject matter may be interviewed. A grievant who has requested a personal interview, shall be interviewed.

4. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the grievance by the Grievance Officer, the grievant

shall be provided a written response to the grievance to include a brief rationale, summarizing the

355

conclusions and any *355 action taken or recommended to resolve the issues raised in the

grievance.

The Grievance Coordinator may authorize an extension of up to an additional ten (10) working days if the investigation of the grievance is pending. If an extension is necessary, the grievant shall be so advised in writing.

C. Appeal from Initial Review

1. An Initial Review Decision of a grievance on a Health Care or medical treatment issue may be appealed directly to the Central Office Medical Review Committee for Final Review within five (5) days of receipt by the inmate of the Initial Review decision. A grievance for which the Corrections Health Care Administrator conducted the Initial Review will usually be considered a Medical Grievance.

All other appeals will be submitted as follows:

2. An inmate may appeal an initial review decision to the Facility Manager or Community Corrections Regional Director in writing, within five (5) days from the date of receipt by the inmate of the Initial Review decision. The inmate must appeal in this manner prior to seeking Final Review. Only issues which were raised for initial review may be appealed.

3. All appeals must conform to the requirements specified in Section VI A of this directive. The appeal must clearly identify the decision appealed from and all reasons for appeal. Only one appeal from any initial review decision will be permitted.

4. The Facility Manager or Regional Director must notify the inmate of his/her decision within ten (10) working days after receiving the appeal. This decision may consist of approval, disapproval, modification, reversal, remand or reassignment for further fact finding, and must include a brief statement of the reasons for the decision.

D. Final Review

1. Any inmate who is dissatisfied with the disposition of an Appeal from Initial Review decision, may, within seven (7) days of receiving the decision, appeal any issue related to non-compliance with the ICU Consent Decree, other law, Department directive or policy, for final review. Only issues raised at the Initial Review and Appeal level may be referred for Final Review.

2. Final Review will not be permitted until the inmate has complied with all procedures established for Initial Review and Appeal from Initial Review. Exceptions may be made for good cause.

3. Final Review of all appeals will be sent directly to the CORC except the following:

a. Medical Grievances which will be reviewed by COMRC.

b. Requests for Final Review of appeals from disciplinary actions which were processed through DC-ADM 801. These will be reviewed by the Office of the Chief Counsel which may respond

directly to the inmate or refer the appeal to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) for further reviews.

The address of the CORC/COMRC is:

PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE

PO BOX 598/2520 LISBURN ROAD

CAMP HILL, PA XXXXX-XXXX

4. Requests for Final Review must clearly identify the decision appealed from and all reasons for appeal. Only one appeal from any second level (Appeal from Initial Review) decision will be permitted.

5. The CORC/COMRC or any member thereof, may require additional investigation to be made prior to a decision on a Final Review appeal.

356

6. The COR/COMRC will review all issues properly raised according to the *356 above

procedures. It may also review and consider any other related matter.

7. For all Appeals receiving Final Review, the CORC/COMRC will issue its decision within twentyone (21) days after receipt of an appeal. The decision may consist of approval, disapproval, modification, reversal, remand or reassignment for further fact finding, and must include a brief statement of the reasons for the decision. The committee shall notify the grievant and Facility Manager/Regional Director of its decision and rationale.

8. The Chief Counsel will notify counsel for the ICU class of disposition by the CORC/COMRC of any matter raised on Final Review alleging a violation of the ICU Consent Decree.

E. Exceptions

Initial Review and Appeal from Initial Review of issues related to the following Administrative Directives shall be in accordance with procedures outlined therein, and will not be reviewed by the Grievance Officer or Grievance Coordinator.

1. DC ADM 805 0907 Policy & Procedures for Obtaining Pre-Release Transfer.

2. DC ADM 801 0907 Inmate Disciplinary and Restricted Housing Unit Procedures. See DC-ADM 801 VI., G & I

3. DC ADM 8002 0907 Administrative Custody Procedures. See DC-ADM 802, VI, B, 1, 2. Appeal from Initial Review, see DC-ADM 802, VI, B, 4, a.

4. DC-ADM 814 0907 Incoming Publications

See 814-IIIB, Appeal from Initial Review, see 814-IIID.

Additionally, there may be other kinds of issues for which Initial Review Procedures have been previously established by Administrative Memorandum or Policy Statement.

F. Admissions and Review

1. All proceedings pursuant to this directive are in the nature of settlement negotiations and will, therefore, be inadmissible before any court or other tribunal in support of any claim made against the Commonwealth or any employee. No resolution of any grievance offered as a result of this procedure shall be admissible before any court or other tribunal as an admission of violation of the ICU Consent Decree or any State or federal law.

2. No decision rendered as a result of the processing of a grievance shall be reviewable by any court unless it establishes a system or institution-wide violation of the decree.
G. Completion of Review After Transfer
Any inmate who is transferred after the filing of a grievance or appeal, but prior to the completion of the appeal process, may continue to pursue the grievance or appeal by notifying the Facility Manager or Regional Director of the facility in which confined when the grievance was filed. Adjustments in the various time limitations may be made to facilitate review.

VII. SUSPENSION DURING EMERGENCY

In an emergency situation or extended disruption of normal institutional operation, any provision or section of this policy may be suspended by the Commissioner or his/ her designee for a specific period of time.

VIII. RIGHTS UNDER THIS POLICY

This policy does not create rights in any person nor should it be interpreted or applied in such a manner as to abridge the rights of any individual. This policy should be interpreted to have sufficient flexibility so as to be consistent with law and to permit the accomplishment of the purpose of the policies of the Department of Corrections.

IX. SUPERSEDED POLICY AND CROSS-REFERENCE

This directive revises the Inmate Grievance System (DC-ADM 804, May 1, 1984), and supersedes

the pilot grievance system in effect at selected DOC institutions. It does not supersede or repeal

any portion of any other directive or policy statement. Where this directive is inconsistent with any

357

other directive or policy, both shall be *357 interpreted so as to provide full review of all issues

raised, consistent with the scope and purpose of this directive. Conflicts will most frequently occur

at the Initial Review level, where other directives establish committees to review specific issues.

Cross References: DC-ADM 801, DC-ADM 802

ACA Cross-References: 3-4271

cc: Executive Deputy Commissioner Reid Deputy Commissioner Clymer Deputy Commissioner Fulcomer Acting Deputy Commissioner Beard All Superintendents CCC Directors (4) File /s/ Joseph D. Lehman Joseph D. Lehman, Commissioner

[1] Currently pending are the following motions: Motions of Blackiston, et al, to Enforce Judgment (Document Nos. 503 and 506); Motion of Blackiston, et al, for Evidentiary Hearing (Document No. 524); Motion of Fontroy, et al, to Vacate Judgment (Document No. 499); Motion of Fontroy, et al for Evidentiary Hearing (Document No. 525); Motion of Edward Govan for Contempt of Court (Document No. 508); Motion of Blackiston, et al, for Appointment of Counsel (Document No. 516); Motion of Fontroy, et al for Speedy Disposition (Document No. 538); Motion of Spencer Dobson and James Hardwick for Contempt of Court Proceedings (Document No. 554); Petition for Mandamus filed by Brightwell, Blackiston, et al (Document No. 560); Motion of Charles D. Zehring, Jr., for Appointment of Counsel (Document No. 561); Motion of Zehring to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Document No. 562); Motion of Zehring for Order to Show Cause and For TRO (Document No. 563); Motions of Raymond J. Stanton to Find Defendants in Contempt (Document Nos. 586 and 589); Motion of Raymond J. Stanton for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Document No. 588); Motion of Frank St. Clair, et al, for Sanctions, Injunctive and Temporary Relief (Document No. 590); Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis of John Boski (Document No. 591); Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis of Frank St. Clair (Document No. 592); Plaintiffs' Motion to

Reconsider and Reverse the Court's Order of 1/18/95 Excluding Individuals Incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill from the Class Covered by this Litigation; Motion of Raymond J. Stanton for Relevant Witnesses (Document No. 599); Motion of Raymond J. Stanton to "Dismiss the Respondents Both Responds" and "to Further Remove Attorney Stefan R. Presser" (Document No. 617); Motion of Gerald Mayo, et al, for Contempt of Court and Temporary Restraining Order (Document No. 624); and related Motions.
[2] The Bureau of Correction has been renamed the Department of Corrections.
[3] On behalf of the Camp Hill inmates, class counsel argues in Plaintiff's Motion To Reconsider And Reverse The Court's Order Of January 18, 1995 Excluding Individuals Incarcerated At SCI-Camp Hill From The Class Covered By This Litigation (Document No. 600) that the Notice of Proposed Settlement, signed by Judge Lord, included the following salutation: "To all Residents at the State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, Muncy, Rockview, Huntingdon, Dallas, Camp Hill, and Pittsburgh." Notice of Proposed Settlement, at 1 (emphasis added). The exact date the Notice was issued is not recorded in the docket, although the Notice required the filing of objections by April 5, 1976. Notice of Proposed Settlement, at 2.
Class counsel argues that Judge Lord would not have provided notice to inmates confined at SCI-Camp Hill if he did not believe them to be covered by the Consent Decree. As support for this position class counsel points to the fact that Judge Lord provided notice to the inmates at SCI-Camp Hill but not to the inmates at the only other correctional institution operated by the Department of Corrections in 1975, Regional Correctional Facility at Greensburg.
The short answer to this argument on behalf of the Camp Hill inmates is that notice of a class action settlement addressed to persons not members of the class cannot serve as the basis for including them in the class. The Court finds no basis in the record for concluding that the class includes inmates at SCI-Camp Hill. Moreover, as argued by defense counsel, plaintiffs' Motion is time-barred under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), as it was filed on June 13, 1996, well in excess of a year from the entry date of this Court's Order of January 18, 1995 in which the Court ruled that inmates at SCI-Camp Hill were not members of the plaintiff class.
Finally, there was a reason for notifying inmates at SCI-Camp Hill of the settlement 0907 inmates at that institution were regularly transferred to and from the six institutions whose inmates are included in the plaintiff class. In 1975 it was much less likely for prisoners at the Regional Correctional Facility at Greensburg to be transferred to one of the state correctional institutions. See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider the Court's January 18, 1995, Order, at 3 n. 3 (discussing the Bureau of Correction's 1975 prisoner transfer policy).
[4] Class Counsel argues in Plaintiff Class Counsel's Response To Motions Filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy (Document No. 515), that Camp Hill prisoners should be allowed to enforce the Consent Decree to avoid the injustice that would result if the institution at which an inmate is confined will determine his rights. However, counsel does not suggest any reason why the Camp Hill inmates' right to file civil rights lawsuits does not adequately protect those inmates. As Judge Lord stated in 1987, "the Consent Decree makes clear that individual violations are not to be the basis of a contempt judgment. Of course, that stricture does not preclude an inmate from seeking redress in the appropriate court for any violation of his individual rights." See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70-3054, slip op. at 20 n. 10 (E.D.Pa. November 25, 1987).
[5] The six instances referred to in the text are docketed as documents 457, 465, 467, 471, 472, and 482. Document 457 is an order issued by Judge Fullam on behalf of Senior Judge Lord, in which Judge Fullam denied a pro se Motion for Contempt "without prejudice to the right of counsel for the plaintiff class to renew such petition should counsel consider renewal appropriate" because "it appear[ed] that movants' claims [we]re cognizable in the above captioned cases, if at all, only as part of a motion for contempt filed by class counsel and alleging an institution or system wide violation of the ICU consent decrees." Documents 465, 467, 471, 472, and 482 are similar orders in which Judge Dalzell denied various pro se motions because the movants had not acted through class counsel.
[6] Some of the Camp Hill inmates have suggested that there should be a futility exception to the exhaustion requirement. See Motion to Vacate Judgment (Document No. 499). Because this Court has held that those

inmates are not members of the plaintiff class, and therefore not parties to the Consent Decree, the Court need not reach this question.
[7] The administrative remedies in question are contained in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections' Inmate Handbook. In particular, two Policy Statements that spell out specific appeals processes are most often implicated by the exhaustion requirement: DC-ADM 801 (Inmate Disciplinary and Restricted Housing Procedures) and DC-ADM 804 (Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System). Copies of these two Policy Statements are attached as appendices to this Memorandum.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 11 F.Supp.2d 586 (1998)
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, et. al. v.
Milton SHAPP, et. al.
Civ.A.Nos. 70-3054, 70-2545, 71-513 and 71-1006.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
April 27, 1998. As Amended May 4, 1998.
5897890 *587 *588 *589 *590 Stefan Presser, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Sarah A. Vandenbraak, Camp Hill, PA, Francis R. Filipi, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
DUBOIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ["PLRA" or "the Act"], Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 3626), filed September 23, 1997 (Doc. No. 775), plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Preliminary Relief and in the Alternative to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Unconstitutional or to Certify the Transfer of This Action's Consent Decree with Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, filed September 24, 1997 (Doc. No. 776), plaintiffs' Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 8, 1997 (Doc. No. 778), and plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt, filed October 28, 1997 (Doc. No. 797).[1] In addition to the submissions of plaintiffs and defendants, the Court has considered the position of the United States government which intervened in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) and submitted a Memorandum of Law Concerning the Constitutionality of the Challenged Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Doc. No. 791). Oral argument was heard on November 19, 1997. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act at issue are constitutional. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief, deny plaintiffs' Motion to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act Unconstitutional and deny plaintiffs' motion to Certify the Transfer of the Consent Decree and Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Court will also deny plaintiffs' contempt motions.
I. BACKGROUND
1. History of the Case
Between 1970 and 1971 four related cases challenging the constitutionality of conditions and policies at the seven Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions ("SCIs") then in operation[2] were filed in this Court. On May 22, 1978, after those suits had been consolidated and a plaintiff class certified, then-Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III approved a Consent Decree which settled the majority of issues raised by the plaintiff class. At that time, the Court expressly retained jurisdiction over the Decree. Since then, numerous issues have been addressed in subsequent opinions of the Court and various stipulations and amendments to the Decree have been approved by the Court.[3]
591

*591 In its current form, the Consent Decree and its amendments govern many aspects of the daily operations of the seven SCIs. The Decree required defendants to establish a code of conduct specifying both that behavior which was punishable 0907 a misconduct 0907 and the type of punishment which could be imposed. The Decree also gives inmates certain rights when charged with a misconduct, including written notice, a hearing, the right to prepare and be assisted in presenting a defense, and the right to written findings. Among its detailed procedures, the Decree governs such things as: the handling of inmate mail; the right of inmates to obtain and keep outside publications; minimum inmate health care requirements; the use of force, restraints and mace by prison officials; the information which must be provided to new inmates; the procedures for conducting cell searches; the right of inmates to visitors; the minimum inmate housing conditions; and the right of inmates to wear civilian clothing.
In 1980, the plaintiffs filed a contempt motion in which they alleged that defendants' were not complying with a number of the provisions of the Consent Decree. On December 30, 1980, with the assistance of United States Magistrate Judge William F. Hall, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the motion for contempt and with the further assistance of Magistrate Judge Hall, the 1980 Stipulation was amended by an agreement of the parties and eventually approved by Judge Lord on May 11, 1983 [hereinafter the "1983 Amendment to Stipulation"]. Some of the procedures established by the Consent Decree were modified by the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation, principally the grievance and misconduct procedures. The 1983 Amendment to Stipulation also addressed issues involving medical care, inmate law libraries, cell search procedures and administrative detention.
The current round of litigation began when defendants filed a Motion to Terminate, seeking to end their obligations under the Consent Decree pursuant to the termination provisions of the PLRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (b)(2). Plaintiffs countered with multiple filings: the first seeks to have the PLRA declared unconstitutional or to have the case transferred to the Commonwealth Court; the others seek to have defendants held in civil contempt.
2. Issues Presented
The first, and primary, issue presented is whether the termination provisions of the PLRA are constitutional. Plaintiffs have mounted a multi-prong constitutional attack on these provisions, alleging that they violate the separation of powers embodied in Article III, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the equal protection tights inherent in the Fifth Amendment, and, in a passing reference, the Tenth Amendment's reservation of unenumerated powers to the states. If the Court finds that the termination provisions survive these challenges, it must decide whether, under the PLRA, defendants have satisfied the requirements for termination. Next, the Court must turn to the question of how plaintiffs' contempt motions interact with the PLRA's termination provisions and defendants right to terminate the Decree. Plaintiffs argue that even if the termination provisions are constitutional, defendants' contempt requires this court to stay application of those provisions, either by holding defendants' Motion to Terminate in abeyance or dismissing it until the contempt is purged; plaintiffs premise this argument on the Court's inherent contempt power. Alternatively, plaintiffs' seek to bar defendants from proceeding under the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands." Defendants respond that there is no authority for such action and reiterate their position that the Court should end its supervision of the Consent Decree and its modifications by ordering termination of the Decree. Finally, if defendants are entitled to relief, the Court must decide what is appropriate.
a. The PLRA's Termination Provisions
The termination provisions of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), recite that defendants are "entitled to immediate 592 termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a *592 finding by the
court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right."[4] Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), a court may not terminate relief if it finds that there is a "current and ongoing violation of the Federal right"[5] and that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary and is the least intrusive means possible to correct the violation. (Plaintiffs in this case have expressly declined to attempt to establish that there is a "current and ongoing violation" of a federal right.) Moreover, the court must "promptly rule on any motion to

modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions." Id. at § 3626(e)(1).[6] Prospective relief is defined as "all relief other than compensatory monetary damages," id. § at 3626(g)(7) and relief expressly includes "consent decrees." Id. at § 3626(g)(9).
b. Background of the Contempt Motions
Of particular importance to the current contempt motions is the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation. Plaintiffs' contempt motions involve the issue of whether provisions in the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation bind defendants to specific time lines for the resolution of prisoner grievances and misconducts. The 1983 Amendment to Stipulation states that "[d]efendants shall within 60 days of the approval of this Amendment submit to counsel for the plaintiff-class, a proposal for an administrative grievance procedure for the processing of allegations by any member of the plaintiff-class...." 1993 Amendment to Stipulation ¶ I.B.1. In addition, the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation clearly details procedures for misconduct proceedings, including the requirement that the "Program Review Committee shall render its decision within five (5) working days of receipt of an appeal" and that the Superintendent must forward his decision to the inmate within three working days of his receipt of an appeal of the Program Review Committee's decision.
In a Report and Recommendation dated May 5, 1983, Magistrate Judge Hall made detailed findings with respect to, and recommended approval of, the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation. Included in those findings was a lengthy discussion of the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System submitted by defendants pursuant to the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation and the time line for this review; the time line required the Inmate Grievance Coordinator to respond within ten days to a grievance; thereafter an inmate was permitted five days to appeal a decision to the Superintendent who then had to reach his or her own decision within ten days of the appeal. The Superintendent's decision was further appealable within seven days to the three-person Central Office Review Committee ("CORC") which had twenty-one days to reach a decision. This system, and these time lines, were codified in DC-ADM 804 and remained in force until November 1, 1997. See Stipulation of Uncontested Facts ¶ 25. Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation was approved and adopted by Judge Lord by Order dated May 11, 1983.[7]
593 *593 Plaintiffs contend in their contempt motions that the time lines are binding on defendants, that defendants have failed to abide by the time lines, and that that failure constitutes contempt on the part of defendants. In response, defendants argue that they are not bound by the grievance procedures set forth in the Report and Recommendation but only by those procedures contained in the body of the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation itself which does not include the details of the Grievance Review System. They have also stipulated that "[f]rom January 1, 1996, through the middle of 1997, the defendants and their agents have failed in a significant number of instances to respond to inmate grievances and appeals therefrom within the time frames described in Magistrate [Judge] Hall's Report and Recommendation." Stipulation of Uncontested Facts, ¶ 24.
As of November 1, 1997, defendants amended DC-ADM 804 to require only one member of CORC to participate in any given appeal. They argue that this step will streamline the grievance procedure and thus will benefit the plaintiff-class by increasing the prison authority's response time to grievances.[8] Plaintiffs contend that defendants may not change these procedures because they are bound by the time lines detailed in Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation.
Defendants also acknowledge that "[f]rom January 1, 1996, through the middle of 1997, there have been instances where defendants and their agents have failed to respond to inmate misconduct appeals within the time delineated in Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation." Stipulation of Uncontested Facts ¶ 31. Defendants add that the procedures outlined by Magistrate Judge Hall exceed those recommended by the American Correctional Association ("ACA"), id. at ¶¶ 27-30, and that they intend to amend the procedures and bring them into conformity with the ACA standards if the Consent Decree is terminated. Id. at ¶ 32. Defendants further insist that the instances of non-compliance with the misconduct time lines do not amount to a system or institution-wide violation and thus, under the terms of the consent decree, plaintiffs may not seek contempt sanctions.[9]

In addition to the alleged failure of defendants to abide by the time frames set forth in the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation and Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation, plaintiffs seek to prevent defendants from changing the regulation governing what type of clothing inmates may wear. The regulation in force until November 26, 1997 allowed inmates to wear various types of civilian clothing, including T-shirts and sweatshirts with commercial logos. See DC-ADM 815; Stipulation of Uncontested Facts ¶ 6. The new regulation will effectively limit inmates to a narrow range of approved clothing that is either white or cocoa brown and which does not display any logo, trademark or brand name. See Stipulation of Uncontested Facts ¶ 16. The consequence is that prisoners were required to dispose of those clothes in their possession which did not satisfy 594 the new regulation before that regulation *594 went into effect on November 26, 1997. Possession of nonconforming clothes became punishable on December 26, 1997. Id. at ¶ 18.
Plaintiffs seek to have defendants held in contempt on the ground that the new clothing regulation violates the original Consent Decree. With respect to that issue, the Consent Decree provides that "[d]efendants shall permit residents to wear civilian clothing when the residents are housed in general population except to the extent that the superintendent of each institution requires institutional issue to be worn for work. However, defendants reserve the right to require residents to wear specific articles of clothing issued solely for the purpose of visitation during a resident's presence in the visiting areas of the institution. Furthermore, defendants reserve the right to impose reasonable regulations with respect to civilian clothing on the basis of safety, sanitary and security considerations." Consent Decree ¶ XVII.
After the escape of six prisoners on January 8, 1997, Commissioner of Corrections Martin Horn released a Report detailing the causes of, and concerns relating to, that escape. See Id. at ¶¶ 9-14. The report detailed "Primary Causes of Escape" and "security lapses that allowed escape." The parties have stipulated that "[t]he issue of inmate access to civilian clothing is listed only thereafter in the report as a concern related to the escape." Id. at ¶ 14. Defendants cite this security concern as a principal reason for the change in clothing policy. [10]
Plaintiffs also seek to have defendants held in contempt based on defendants' alleged failure to provide inmates access to health care through sick calls on weekends. The Consent Decree provides that at "all Bureau of Corrections facilities which provide inpatient treatment for inmates, the Bureau shall provide twenty-four (24) hour medical care to such inmates.... [And][t]here will be daily sick call at all institutions by a properly trained health professional." Appendix A to Consent Decree, ¶¶ 4-5.
Initially, because counsel for the plaintiff class lacked evidence to support the weekend sick call claim, it was voluntarily withdrawn. After the hearing on the pending motions, however, members of the plaintiff class filed Plaintiffs' Objections to Portions of the "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts," filed December 16, 1997 (Doc.No.828). In this filing, three members, John M. Payne, Stanley J. Hertzog and James (Sonny) Watson, stated in affidavits that in the past, it had been the defendants' practice to provide sick calls on a daily basis. Given this new information, counsel for plaintiffs' class seeks both to reinstate the contempt claim based on inadequate health care and to have the affidavits introduced into evidence. The Court granted the requested relief.[11]
3. Conclusion 0907 Summary
The Court has carefully considered both the oral arguments and written submissions of the parties and concludes that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are constitutional. As such, because the 595 requirements of those provisions *595 are met, the Court will terminate the relief provided by the Consent Decree and its amendments. The Court also concludes that it should take this action regardless of whether defendants are currently violating provisions of the Consent Decree. Therefore, to the extent plaintiffs seek coercive sanctions 0907 that is, sanctions which force defendants to comply with the terms of the Consent Decree 0907 the Court need not, and will not, reach the issue of whether defendants are in contempt. To the extent, however, that plaintiffs seek compensatory sanctions 0907 that is, sanctions ordering defendants to compensate plaintiffs for the loss of their civilian clothing 0907 the Court finds that defendants have not violated the provisions of the Consent Decree governing inmate clothing.

II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT
Plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act on many grounds. They principally argue that the PLRA: violates separation of powers; denies due process; and abridges the right of inmates to equal protection of the law.[12] The Court examines each of these grounds below. First, however, it must address a preliminary issue.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court must examine the statute as a whole in determining whether it is constitutional. It would be improper, they contend, to examine the termination provisions outside the context of the other provisions 0907 such as the limits on federally enforceable settlements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(1)(A), 3626(c), on the duration of relief, id. at 3626(b), on preliminary injunctions, id. at 3626(a)(2), and on the right of prisoners to proceed in forms pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to name just a few. This impropriety exists, they argue, because, while any one provision might withstand constitutional scrutiny, when taken together, the PLRA's provisions unfairly burden prison inmates and are thus unconstitutional. Plaintiffs cite Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1994) for the proposition that courts, when determining whether a statute measures up to constitutional norms, should look at the entire statute.
The Court rejects the approach advanced by plaintiffs. It will not examine the constitutionality of the PLRA in its entirety. Romer involved a facial challenge to an entire statute and the Supreme Court therefore examined the statute as a whole. See id. at 1623; see also Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1427 n. 15 (11th Cir.1997). In this case, only the termination provisions of the PLRA are at issue, and the Court will address only those provisions.
The Court turns, therefore, to plaintiffs' first argument: that the termination provisions violate Article III's separation of powers both by reopening a final judgment and prescribing a rule of decision.
A. Separation of Powers
"In republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, predominates." The Federalist No. 51, 350 (James Madison) (J.E. Cooke ed., 1961). This truism has meant that the "Court has declined to adopt formalistic and unbending rules.... [in order not to] unduly constrict Congress' ability to take needed and innovative action pursuant to its Article I powers." Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 851, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) (holding that act giving Commodities Futures Trading Commission power to 596 entertain state law counterclaims does not violate Article *596 III) (citations omitted). At the same time, however, a court must examine legislation "with an eye to the practical effect that the congressional action will have on the constitutionally assigned role of the federal judiciary ... [and must consider] the extent to which the `essential attributes of judicial power' are reserved to Article III courts.... the origins and importance of the right to be adjudicated, and the concerns that drove Congress to depart from the requirements of Article III." Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue first that the PLRA is unconstitutional because the termination provisions violate separation of powers. After careful examination, however, the Court must conclude 0907 like six circuits before it 0907 that the PLRA neither reopens a final judgment nor prescribes a rule of decision in violation of the Constitution.
1. Reopening Final Judgments
Plaintiffs contend that by providing for the termination of consent decrees, Congress has violated separation of powers 0907 unconstitutionally encroaching on the judiciary 0907 by reopening a final judgment. The proposition that Congress may not constitutionally reopen final judgments was recently articulated by the Supreme Court in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). That case involved an earlier decision, Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321

(1991), in which the Supreme Court adopted a national limitations period applicable to civil actions under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unhappy with the result of this uniform statute of limitations, Congress enacted a statute which required courts to reinstate § 10(b) actions which had been pending before Lampf, but were then dismissed as a result of the Lampf limitations period. Plaut's case was dismissed as untimely in accordance with Lampf and no appeal was taken; only after Congress enacted the new statute did Plaut seek reinstatement of his case.
In Plaut, the Court concluded that Congress "exceeded its authority by requiring the federal courts to exercise `the judicial Power of the United States,' U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1, in a manner repugnant to the text, structure and traditions of Article III." Plaut at 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447. Congress did so by "retroactively commanding the federal courts to reopen final judgments," id. at 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447, because once a judgment has "achieved finality.... a judicial decision becomes the last word of the judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy, and congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law applicable to that very case was something other than what the court said it was." Id. at 227, 115 S.Ct. 1447.
That Congress may not reopen a final judgment is a premise of law which cannot be questioned. The issue presented, though, is whether a consent decree is a "final judgment" for separation of powers purposes. Plaintiffs rely on Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), for the proposition that a consent decree "is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees." Id. at 378, 112 S.Ct. 748. As such, the Rufo Court said that "a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires." Id. at 391, 112 S.Ct. 748.
It should be noted, however, that these broad statements of law in Rufo were made in the context of a discussion of the circumstances that permit a court to modify a consent decree. In general, a "party seeking modification of a consent decree may meet its initial burden by showing.... a significant change either in factual conditions or law." Rufo, at 384, 112 S.Ct. 748. Indeed, a "consent decree must of course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of [its] obligations has become impermissible under federal law." Id. at 388, 112 S.Ct. 748; see also Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 2006, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) ("A court errs when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of ... changes" in decisional or statutory law); Landgraf v. USI Film 597 Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 273, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) *597 ("When the intervening statute authorizes or affects the propriety of prospective relief, application of the new provision is not retroactive."); System Federation No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 652, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961) (a "court will not continue to exercise its powers ... [under a decree] when a change in law or facts has made inequitable what was once equitable"). In contrast to prospective relief which may be modified, an award of monetary damages is truly final, regardless of changes in the underlying law. As the Court put it in Plaut, a judgment is final for separation of powers purposes when it is the "last word of the judicial department with regard to a particular case or controversy." Plaut, at 227, 115 S.Ct. 1447. A consent decree simply is not the "last word" of a court on a particular case or controversy.
The distinction 0907 between prospective relief and final awards 0907 is best demonstrated in the Supreme Court's early decision in Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855) [hereinafter "Wheeling Bridge"]. In that case, the Supreme Court held that Congress could change the law such that the Court was required to end an injunction it had ordered in an earlier case.
Wheeling Bridge arose out of an earlier case in which the Supreme Court had held that a bridge was a public nuisance because it interfered with navigable waters and ordered the bridge raised or removed. After this decision, the bridge was destroyed in a storm; when rebuilding commenced, Pennsylvania sought enforcement of the prior order in an effort to prevent reconstruction of the bridge. In the interim, however, Congress had passed a law making the bridge part of a post-road which could not be interfered with by riparian navigation. This, the Court held in Wheeling Bridge, was well within the powers of Congress although it dictated an outcome different from the one the Court had reached in the earlier case, namely, that the prior injunction could not be enforced and the bridge could therefore be rebuilt.
Plaintiffs argue that Wheeling Bridge makes a distinction between "public" rights and "private" rights. Congress, they say, has the power to alter prospective relief only where it has plenary power over the underlying law, where,

in other words, the underlying law concerns a "public" right. According to plaintiffs, because the consent decree in this case is premised on the constitutional rights of inmates, private rights, Congress may not alter the scope of the Consent Decree. This argument derives from the Supreme Court's statement in Wheeling Bridge that: "it is urged, that the act of congress cannot have the effect and operation to annul the judgment of the court already rendered, or the rights determined thereby.... This, as a general proposition, is certainly not to be denied, especially as it respects adjudication upon the private rights of parties. When they have passed into judgment the right becomes absolute, and it is the duty of the court to enforce it." Wheeling Bridge at 431 (emphasis added). That is far from a holding that the rationale of Wheeling Bridge is limited to those cases involving a public right.

The "public" rights doctrine was explored by the Supreme Court in Northern Pipeline Const. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982) in which it was explained that the "doctrine ... draws upon the principal of separation of powers, and a historical understanding that certain prerogatives were reserved to the political Branches of Government." Id. at 67, 102 S.Ct. 2858. The doctrine allows Congress to allocate certain types of adjudicatory authority to non-Article III courts hearing cases involving those public rights issues historically "reserved to the political" branches. See, e.g., Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 15 L.Ed. 372 (1855); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932). While Wheeling Bridge did, in part, rely on this public rights/private rights distinction, the doctrine has no place in the instant case.

The distinction made in Wheeling Bridge which is important to this case 0907 and one to which the Supreme Court referred when discussing absolute "private" rights 0907 was the distinction between prospective relief and money damages:

598

*598 Now, we agree, if the remedy in this case had been an action at law, and a judgment

rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the

reach of the power of congress. It would have depended, not upon the public right of the free

navigation of the river, but upon the judgment of the court. The decree before us, so far as it

respect the costs adjudged, stands upon the same principles, and is unaffected by the subsequent

law. But that part of the decree, directing the abatement of the obstruction, is executory, a

continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins the defendants

against any reconstruction or continuance. Now, whether it is a future existing or continuing

obstruction depends upon the question whether or not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in

the mean time, since the decree, this right has been modified by the competent authority, so that

the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the court cannot be

enforced.

Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. at 431-32 (emphasis added). It is this distinction which ultimately determines the right of Congress to change the law in such a way that relief must be altered or modified. The issue then is not the source or validity of the legal rule producing the judgment, "but rather the immunity from legislative abrogation of those judgments themselves." Plaut, at 230, 115 S.Ct. 1447. The Court relied on this distinction in Plaut when it rejected the argument that Wheeling Bridge was precedent for Congress' right to reopen judgments. The Court noted in Plaut that the statute at issue in Wheeling Bridge "altered the prospective effect of injunctions entered by Article III courts" and that "nothing in our holding today calls [that decision] ... into question." Plaut, at 232, 115 S.Ct. 1447.

For purposes of this case then, the only meaningful distinction is that between judgments ordering prospective relief 0907 subject to alteration when Congress changes the applicable law 0907 and judgments awarding damages 0907 which cannot be reopened by Congress. The consent decree in this case provides only for prospective relief Congress has changed the law governing the consent decree.[13] The Court therefore concludes that the PLRA does not unconstitutionally reopen a final judgment. See Dougan, 129 F.3d at 1427 ("Consent decrees are final judgments but `not the last word of the judicial department'" and are thus not final judgments for separation of powers purposes); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (1st Cir.1997).[14]

2. Rule of Decision
In 1788 Alexander Hamilton wrote that "the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments...." The Federalist No. 78, 526 (Alexander Hamilton) (J.E. Cooke ed., 1961). This principle is central to our constitutional system of government. Accordingly, Congress may not tell a court how to decide a specific case. See United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871). 599 However, Congress *599 has a great deal of freedom under Article III to limit the jurisdiction of lower courts, see, e.g., Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850) ("[H]aving a right to prescribe, Congress may withhold from any court of its creation jurisdiction of any of the enumerated controversies."), and, more importantly for the purposes of this case, Congress has the freedom to establish standards by which a court judges a case. See, e.g., Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992).
It is true that the Constitution "commands that the independence of the Judiciary be jealously guarded, and it provides clear institutional protections for that independence," Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 60, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982), because the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist No. 47, 324 (James Madison) (J.E. Cooke ed., 1961). Thus, it is the prerogative of the judiciary to declare "what the law is," and apply that law to the facts before it. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). This clear delineation of powers was the basis for the Supreme Court's holding that Congress had overstepped its constitutional bounds when it dictated a rule of decision in Klein. 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L.Ed. 519.
Klein was decided during the complex political turmoil following the Civil War. A federal statute allowed citizens who had been living in the Confederacy to recover property seized during the war upon proof of their loyalty to the Union, which proof included a demonstration that they had not acted against the Union during the war. By another act, the President was authorized to extend pardons to former Confederates. The President did so in the case of V.F. Wilson whose estate, through its administrator Klein, sought to recover property confiscated by the United States. As proof of Wilson's loyalty, the claimant proffered the presidential pardon. The Court of Claims accepted this proof, although it also found evidence that Wilson had offered aid and comfort to Confederates during the war. Nonetheless, the evidence of the pardon was held to be sufficient demonstration of loyalty and restitution was ordered.
While the case was pending on appeal before the Supreme Court, Congress passed a new law which provided that a Presidential pardon could not be offered as proof in court where a party was advancing a claim against the United States. The statute went on to explicitly strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction upon a finding that the pardon was the basis of decision in the lower court. Faced with a statute that stripped the Court of jurisdiction upon making certain findings, the Court held that the statute was unconstitutional, in part, because "the court is forbidden to give effect to the evidence which, in its own judgment, such evidence should have, and is directed to give it an effect precisely contrary." Klein, at 147. The effect of the act, in other words, was to "prescribe a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way." Id. at 146.
The "rule of decision" doctrine depends on the distinction between a rule prescribing an outcome 0907 which would be unconstitutional 0907 and a change in the underlying law which may of necessity dictate a new outcome 0907 which would be constitutional. Thus, in Wheeling Bridge, the Court held that Congress could change the law in such a way that it dictated an outcome different from the one the Court had reached in an earlier case. This distinction, between a rule of decision and a change in governing law, was further explained in Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992). That case involved a legislative balance between preservation of endangered spotted owls and the economic needs of loggers in the Northwest. Before the change in law at issue in that case, two groups had challenged, in separate cases, certain logging in the Northwest on the basis that the logging effectively killed or "took" spotted owls 0907 an endangered species 0907 in violation of numerous provisions of federal law. During the pendency of these suits, Congress passed legislation which 600 expressly named the *600 two cases. See Section 318 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 1990, 103 Stat. 745, popularly known as the Northwest Timber Compromise [the "Timber Act"]. Provisions of the Timber Act 0907 section (b)(3) and (b)(5) 0907 prohibited logging in designated areas. The legislation further directed that "management of areas according to subsections (b)(3) and (b)(5) of this section ... is adequate consideration for the purpose of meeting the statutory requirements that are the basis [for the pending cases]." Section 318(b)(6)(A) of the Timber Act. The Ninth Circuit held that the Timber Act violated Article III because it directed a rule of decision, that is, it dictated the outcomes of the pending cases. Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Robertson, 914 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir.1990). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the provisions at issue merely modified or amended existing law but did not prescribe an outcome, reasoning that the courts were still required to determine whether the parties met the standards of section (b)(6)(A), namely that management of areas was in accord with subsections (b)(3) and (b)(5). Seattle Audubon, 503 U.S. at 438, 112 S.Ct. 1407.
The distinction between a prescribed outcome and a mere change in governing law can be difficult to make. See, e.g., Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d at 174 (discussing difficulty of distinguishing between a change in law and a prescribed outcome). In the case at bar, however, the Court concludes that the statute at issue simply effects a constitutionally permissible change in law. That is, the PLRA establishes a new standard, but leaves it to the courts to apply that standard. In the words of the Fourth Circuit:
While § 3626(b)(2) requires a district court to terminate prospective relief that was approved in the absence of a finding that the relief is no greater than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, it does not purport to state how much relief is more than necessary. In short, § 3626(b)(2) provides only the standard to which district courts must adhere, not the result they must reach.
Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 372 (4th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs in this case could have presented evidence of a "current and ongoing violation" of a federal right in an attempt to qualify under the new standard set forth in the PLRA. Had they done so, the Court would have applied the new law to the facts adduced 0907 it would have determined whether the evidence established a current and ongoing violation and whether to terminate or modify relief under the PLRA. It cannot be said, therefore, that Congress is prescribing a rule of decision or that the PLRA is an unconstitutional encroachment on the judiciary because the Court is able to apply the provisions of the new law to the facts presented and decide what relief, if any, is appropriate. See also Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d at 1427; Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d at 1088; Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d at 657-58.
B. Due Process
1. Vested Rights
Plaintiffs argue that under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, a judgment, once vested, cannot be abrogated by an action of Congress. See McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102, 123-24, 19 S.Ct. 134, 43 L.Ed. 382 (1898). While true, "the vested rights doctrine is really only the due process analogue of separation-ofpowers doctrine that prevents Congress from reopening final judgments of Article III courts ... [and] a judgment that is not final for purposes of separation of powers is also not final for purposes of due process." Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1091. Thus, the Court's discussion of final judgments in the context of separation of powers above, amply answers this argument: a prospective order cannot become vested for due process purposes.
Plaintiffs also rely on cases holding that consent decrees "resemble" contracts, see, e.g., Local No. 93, Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 519, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986), and analogize the vested right in a consent decree to rights in property which, once acquired, cannot be defeased without due 601 process. However, injunctive relief of the type mandated by the *601 Consent Decree has a prospective effect and litigants have "no `vested right' in the decree entered by the trial court." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 247, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (citing American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 201, 42 S.Ct. 72, 66 L.Ed. 189 (1921)). Moreover, "[f]ederal regulation of future action based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently

enacted legislation, the fact that its provisions limit or interfere with previously acquired rights does not condemn it." Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U.S. 100, 107, 67 S.Ct. 1140, 91 L.Ed. 1368 (1947).
The Court therefore concludes that plaintiffs do not have a vested right in the Consent Decree under the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the PLRA, by authorizing termination of prospective relief, does not deprive plaintiffs of property without due process. See also Dougan, 129 F.3d at 1427; Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1091; Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 658 (holding that because a consent decree ordering prospective relief must be open to modification if there is a change in law or circumstances, it cannot become vested); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 374 (4th Cir.1996).[15]
2. Contract Rights
Plaintiffs urge the Court to find that Congress has impermissibly impaired their contract with the Commonwealth 0907 the Consent Decree 0907 in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants counter that the Consent Decree is not a contract for purposes of the Due Process clause. The Court will nonetheless assume, without deciding, that the Consent Decree is a contract for purposes of this discussion. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 378, 112 S.Ct. 748 ("A consent decree ... in some respects is contractual in nature.").
Normally when examining a federal statute which affects a private contract, a court must engage in a deferential analysis, finding the statute unconstitutional only if it is arbitrary and irrational. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 472, 105 S.Ct. 1441, 84 L.Ed.2d 432 (1985). Plaintiffs argue that in this case, the Court should engage in heightened scrutiny because the state government, in seeking to terminate a decree to which it is a party, is impairing its own "contract." See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985). The Court rejects this invitation to engage in an enhanced scrutiny of the PLRA. The federal government 0907 the government which enacted the PLRA and thereby established the standard for termination 0907 is clearly not a party to the Consent Decree in this case and where "the Government [enacting the legislation] is not a party to the contract at issue, ... there is no reason to argue for a heightened standard of review." Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., at 472 n. 24, 105 S.Ct. 1441. Thus, a heightened standard of review is not appropriate. Instead, the Court will examine the statute only to determine whether it is arbitrary and irrational, a test which is a Due Process equivalent of the rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause.
As the Court explains more fully below in its discussion of plaintiffs' Equal Protection challenge, the PLRA cannot be deemed to be arbitrary and irrational. Whether one agrees with the purposes motivating passage of the PLRA, for the reasons stated below, it cannot be questioned that it is a rational attempt to limit the involvement of federal courts in the day to day management of state prisons. The Court therefore concludes that the PLRA does not 602 unconstitutionally impair plaintiffs' contract rights. See also Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1091-92; Inmates *602 of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 658-59.
C. Equal Protection
Plaintiffs next argue that the PLRA unconstitutionally violates the equal protection rights inherent in the Fifth Amendment. See Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181, 182 n. 1, 97 S.Ct. 431, 50 L.Ed.2d 389 (1976) ("It is well settled that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause encompasses equal protection principles."). Normally, a court will presume that legislation is valid and must uphold it unless it draws a classification that is not rationally related to a legitimate purpose. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). On this issue, as in the context of their Due Process claim, plaintiffs urge this Court to employ a heightened scrutiny in this case because the PLRA acts to burden inmates' fundamental right of access to the courts. "`[C]lassifications affecting fundamental rights are given the most exacting scrutiny.' Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 1914, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988) (citation omitted). Such laws must be `suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.' City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) ..." United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411, 422 (3d Cir.1997) (other citation omitted). However, where a statutory classification or distinction "neither burdens a fundamental

right nor targets a suspect class,[16] we will uphold [it] so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." Romer, 116 S.Ct. at 1627.[17]
1. Fundamental Rights
It goes without saying that for equal protection purposes, access to the courts is a fundamental right. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 578, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Plaintiffs argue that the termination provisions of the PLRA 0907 by limiting the right of inmates to obtain prospective relief in a way that other classes are not limited 0907 unconstitutionally burdens this right. The Court must, however, reject this argument because the PLRA does not close the courthouse doors to prisoners. In making this argument, plaintiffs conflate the right of access with the right to relief and they are not the same thing. The PLRA does not prevent inmates from presenting claims of constitutional violations to a court, nor does it prevent courts from remedying any established violations; it simply limits the form and type of relief inmates may be awarded. This certainly gives inmates "`a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts.'" Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977)); see also Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1089. Thus, because the legislation does not burden a fundamental right, the Court will not engage in a strict scrutiny analysis of the PLRA.
2. Rational Basis
Rational basis review is an extremely deferential form of review for it is the "role of the political branches to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution." Lewis, 116 S.Ct. at 2179. A statute survives such review so long as it "bear[s] a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end." Romer, 116 S.Ct. at 1627. Where "there are plausible reasons for [the legislative] 603 action, [the court's] inquiry is at an end. It is, of course, `constitutionally *603 irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlay the legislative decision.'" U.S. Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179, 101 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980) (quoting Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 612, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960)). Moreover,
the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts are compelled under rational-basis review to accept a legislature's generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-21, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993).
A discernable 0907 and legitimate 0907 purpose of the PLRA is to preserve "state sovereignty by protecting states from overzealous supervision by the federal courts in the area of prison conditions litigation." Plyler, 100 F.3d at 374. This purpose is borne out by the PLRA's legislative history, which recites:
that the drafters intended the Act to `address the alarming explosion in the number of frivolous lawsuits filed by State and Federal prisoners,' to `mak[e] it much more difficult for Federal judges to issue orders directing the release of convicted criminals from prison custody,' 141 Cong. Rec. 14,413 (1995) (statement of Sen. Dole), and to wrest control of state penitentiaries from federal courts so that states `will be able to run the prisons as they see fit unless there is a constitutional violation,' id. at 14,419 (statement of Sen. Abraham).
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 660. The legislative history thus more than adequately demonstrates at least one legitimate goal: the desire to limit federal court oversight of state prisons. The way Congress has chosen to reach this goal 0907 the PLRA 0907 is a perfectly rational means to that end. The PLRA therefore amply satisfies the rational basis test.

Plaintiffs argue that in passing the PLRA, Congress was motivated by an animus toward inmates and that where a statute "singl[es] out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardship[]," Romer, 116 S.Ct. at 1628, it violates the equal protection clause. Plaintiffs have thus teased from the holding in Romer a new constitutional standard of review in equal protection cases, something greater than the rational basis test described above. The Court does not believe that the Supreme Court established a new standard, for it found that the only purpose of the statute at issue in that case was animus toward homosexuals, which is simply not legitimate:
Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons. Amendment 2 [the law at issue], however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it. We conclude that, in addition to the far-reaching deficiencies of Amendment 2 that we have noted, the principles it offends, in another sense, are conventional and venerable; a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose ... and Amendment 2 does not.
Romer, at 1628-29. The PLRA does not have the same sweeping effect, for § 3626(b) simply narrows the protections afforded inmates to the constitutional minimum, it does not eliminate those protections.
Even if plaintiffs are correct, however, and courts must engage in a form of heightened scrutiny where there is evidence of some animus, the discussion of the legislative history above sufficiently demonstrates legitimate 604 reasons for the PLRA; plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence that animus was the principal motivating *604 factor.[18] Moreover, it has been established that in some contexts states may, without violating the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, impose greater burdens on inmates as a class; while prisoners are certainly not stripped of all constitutional rights by the fact of their incarceration, see, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), those rights may be limited and, in some cases, eliminated. See, e.g., Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24, 54, 94 S.Ct. 2655, 41 L.Ed.2d 551 (1974) (holding that convicted felons who have served their time may be disenfranchised by the state without violating the Fourteenth Amendment). In this case, the burden imposed by the PLRA 0907 that inmates prove a "current and ongoing violation" of a federal right 0907 is not unreasonable and does not violate the equal protection rights of inmates. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the PLRA does not violate the plaintiffs' equal protection rights. See also Dougan, 129 F.3d at 1427; Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1089-90; Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 659-61; Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 373-74 (4th Cir.1996).
III. MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT
Having concluded that the termination provisions of the PLRA at issue are constitutional, the next question for the Court is what effect a finding of contempt will have on defendants' Motion to Terminate. Plaintiffs contend that regardless of the constitutionality of the termination provisions, if the Court finds defendants in contempt, it may stay defendants Motion to Terminate or hold it in abeyance until the contempt is purged. The Court may do so, plaintiffs argue, either pursuant to its inherent contempt power or through the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands."[19]
"[I]t is firmly established that `[t]he power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.' [Ex Parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510, 22 L.Ed. 205 (1873) ]. This power reaches both conduct before the court and that beyond the court's confines, for `[t]he underlying concern that gave rise to the contempt power was not ... merely the disruption of court proceedings. Rather, it was disobedience to the orders of the Judiciary, regardless of whether such disobedience interfered with the conduct of trial.'" Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (quoting Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987)). This inherent contempt power is not unlimited, however. Indeed, "[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion." Id. (citing Roadway

Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980)). Moreover, although the power to hold one in contempt is exercised at a court's discretion, it is not exercised absent standards.
The Third Circuit recently enunciated an important limit on the imposition of civil contempt sanctions in Harris v. 605 City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir.1995). *605 Unhappy with overcrowding at a Philadelphia prison, a
group of inmates filed a civil rights complaint in 1982, alleging that prison conditions violated various provisions of the United States Constitution. In 1986, the suit was expanded to include the entire Philadelphia prison system. Later that year, the inmates entered into a settlement agreement with the City in which the City agreed to construct new prisons and to do so according to a specified schedule. This agreement was approved by the court in the form of a consent decree that same year. A second consent decree was approved by the Court in 1991, after it became clear that the conditions of the 1986 decree were not going to be met, and a further amendment was stipulated in 1992. The provisions of the 1991 consent decree and its amendment were at issue in Harris.
In Harris, the district court imposed civil contempt sanctions; the sanctions arose out of the failure of the City to submit two planning documents by a specified date. When it failed to submit those documents, the district court sua sponte found "a pattern of contempt" by the City, imposed fines and ordered the documents submitted. After the City again failed to submit the documents 0907 having received an extension of time for submission of one of them 0907 the district court imposed a second contempt sanction. This second sanction imposed by the court against the City was dismissal of its pending motion to modify the consent decree. For the reasons discussed below, the Third Circuit held that this sanction exceeded the authority of the district court.
The plaintiffs cite Harris for the proposition that "[a] party may not rely on its unilateral interpretation of the requirements for compliance in complex institutional reform litigation as an excuse for noncompliance," id. at 1325 (citation omitted), and argue that by amending the clothing regulations and review procedures, defendants have done just that. Defendants note, however, that Harris also stands for the proposition that civil contempt sanctions must exert a coercive, rather than punitive, effect. Thus, "[i]f the contemnor cannot purge through an affirmative act, the sanction has no coercive effect and exceeds the appropriate bounds of civil contempt." Id. at 1328. Although civil contempt can also serve to compensate, the Third Circuit in Harris found that dismissal of the motion to modify was neither coercive nor compensatory and instead was purely punitive, an inappropriate basis upon which to issue a sanction for civil contempt. See also Robin Woods Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir.1994) ("Sanctions for civil contempt serve two purposes: `to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order and to compensate for losses sustained by the disobedience.'" (quoting McDonald's Corp. v. Victory Investments, 727 F.2d 82, 87 (3d Cir.1984))); Gregory v. Depte, 896 F.2d 31, 34 (3d Cir.1990) ("We first consider whether this contempt sanction may be justified as civil. Such a sanction must coerce or compensate.").
Plaintiffs seek to have defendants ordered into compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. In doing so, they maintain that the Court may either dismiss defendants' Motion to Terminate, or hold that Motion in abeyance until defendants purge their contempt. It is clear, however, that should this Court find defendants in contempt, it may not sanction them unless the sanction is capable of either coercing compliance, or of compensating plaintiffs for past violations. Defendants argue that Harris is precisely on point on this issue. Ordering their Motion to Terminate dismissed or held in abeyance, they argue, would impose a sanction which is purely punitive.
The Third Circuit in Harris concluded that the sanction of dismissing the motion to modify was not "designed to have a coercive effect impelling the City to submit at long last the tardy [documents] ..., because it had no provision explicitly permitting the City to refile the motion once the documents were submitted." Harris, 47 F.3d at 1329. The court apparently, therefore, left open the possibility that had the dismissal of the motion to modify been without prejudice 0907 allowing the City to re-file after complying with the order 0907 the sanction would have had a 606 coercive effect and thus would have fit within the framework of civil contempt. If so, it *606 might be argued that in this case, holding defendants' Motion to Terminate in abeyance, or dismissing it without prejudice, would have a coercive effect since defendants would be able to seek termination of the Consent Decree under the PLRA, after coming into compliance.
While at first blush, this argument seems plausible, the Court must reject it. The power to hold one in contempt is an equitable one and as such, "where the purpose is to make the defendant comply, the [court] ... must then consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." United States v. United Mine

Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). In other words, there must be a balancing of the equities.
Keeping in mind first, that the Court has found the termination provisions of the PLRA to be constitutional, and second, that plaintiffs have not attempted to establish the facts necessary to meet the standard which would permit the Court to deny defendants' Motion to Terminate, the Court concludes that requiring defendants to comply with the terms of the Consent Decree at this time would be little more than an empty gesture. Accepting, arguendo, plaintiffs' position, and considering the Court's conclusion regarding the PLRA's constitutionality, as soon as defendants came into compliance, the Decree would lose all force in federal court under the terms of an order entered pursuant to the termination provisions of the PLRA. Thus, such an action on the part of the Court would not only be a Pyrrhic victory for plaintiffs, it would, in practice, be a punishment of the defendants: the effect would merely be to temporarily force defendants into a possibly costly compliance with rules and procedures they will immediately thereafter be in a position to abandon or restructure. This neither aids plaintiffs, nor compels defendants, and the Court will not order it.
In this respect, the Third Circuit's opinion in Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers, 545 F.2d 1336 (1976), is instructive. In that case, the district court had issued an injunction prohibiting a union from refusing to cross a "stranger picket line." When union members failed to comply with the order, the district court sanctioned the union in the form of fines payable to the United States. On appeal, the circuit court found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the underlying injunction. The question then became whether a contempt sanction can survive the invalidation of the order the contemnors were charged with violating. After concluding that the ordered sanction was civil in nature, and that the purpose of the civil sanction was to coerce compliance with the order the court concluded that "coercive contempt cannot survive the overturning of the underlying injunctive order...." Id. at 1348.
Moreover, there is precedent for refusing to impose a coercive contempt sanction when a change in law invalidates a court order, even where the alleged contemnor has flagrantly ignored that order. In Wheeling Bridge (discussed above) the Supreme Court refused both to enjoin reconstruction of the bridge and to sanction the bridge builders for their disobedience of the lower court order enjoining reconstruction:
A motion is now made for attachments against the persons mentioned for this disobedience and contempt.
A majority of the court are of opinion, inasmuch as we have arrived at the conclusion that the act of congress afforded full authority to the defendants to reconstruct the bridge, and the decree directing its alteration or abatement could not, therefore, be carried into execution after the enactment of this law, and inasmuch as the granting of an attachment for the disobedience is a question resting in the discretion of the court, that, under all the circumstances of the case, the motion should be denied.
Id. at 436.[20]
607 A somewhat different issue is raised with respect to plaintiffs request for compensatory *607 sanctions for violation of the clothing provisions of the Consent Decree. The Latrobe Steel court explains that:
Although the cases do not fully explicate the reasoning behind the general principle that compensatory civil contempt does not survive the abrogation of the underlying decree, the precept is, in our opinion, a sound one. A compensatory contempt proceeding is similar in several particulars to an ordinary damage action, since it is in essence an action between private parties, with rights created by the injunctive order rather than by a statute or the common law. The invalidation of an injunction in such a setting is equivalent to a holding that the plaintiff never had a legally cognizable interest which the defendant was obliged to respect, a conclusion which should be distinguished from the nearly unconditional duty of obedience owed by a defendant to a court. The United Mine Workers' doctrine thus recognizes that a private party should not profit as a result of an order to which a court determines, in retrospect, he was never entitled.

Latrobe Steel, 545 F.2d at 1345-46. In this case, unlike Latrobe Steel, the Court will merely terminate the prospective effect of the Consent Decree; it is not finding that "the plaintiff[s] never had a legally cognizable interest" in the Decree. Thus, Latrobe Steel does not answer the issue presented by plaintiffs' request for compensatory sanctions: the question of whether, if, by violating the clothing provisions of the Decree, defendants have deprived plaintiffs of a right, plaintiffs are entitled to compensation by reason of the loss of that right even if the Decree is thereafter terminated. Neither can the Court rely on Harris to find that imposition of compensatory sanctions would be a form of punishment 0907 compensatory damages, by their very nature, are not punitive. The Court will therefore make findings with respect to plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to compensation by reason of the amendments to the clothing regulations unilaterally imposed on them by defendants in violation of the Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree provides that "[d]efendants shall permit residents to wear civilian clothing when the residents are housed in general population except to the extent that the superintendent of each institution requires institutional issue to be worn for work. However, defendants reserve the right to require residents to wear specific articles of clothing issued solely for the purpose of visitation during a resident's presence in the visiting areas of the institution. Furthermore, defendants reserve the right to impose reasonable regulations with respect to civilian clothing on the basis of safety, sanitary and security considerations." Consent Decree ¶ XVII (emphasis added).
Defendants have presented evidence that, after the escape of six inmates, they amended the clothing regulations out of a concern for the safety of the public and security of correctional institutions. Plaintiffs argue that this concern was not a primary motivating factor for the change in regulation. A report released by Commissioner Horn detailed "Primary Causes of Escape" and "security lapses that allowed escape." The parties have stipulated that "[t]he issue of inmate access to civilian clothing is listed only thereafter in the report as a concern related to the escape." Stipulation of Uncontested Fact at ¶ 14. Defendants cite this security concern as a principal reason for the change in clothing policy.
The Consent Decree does not require that safety and security concerns be the sole or even primary motivating factor. It expressly reserves to defendants the right to alter clothing regulations if the alteration is "reasonable" and the concern for safety or security is a "basis" of the alteration. See id. at ¶¶ 9-14 (detailing Report of Commissioner Horn on escape of prisoners). In this case, the fact that inmates' possession of civilian clothing 608 contributed to the escape is ample proof that the defendants' safety and security *608 concerns are "reasonable." The Court further finds that those concerns served as one of the bases for the amendment to the clothing regulations. The Court therefore concludes that defendants have not violated the Consent Decree with respect to the amended clothing regulations and will not order compensatory sanctions.
In light of the Court's earlier conclusion 0907 that even had defendants violated other provisions of the Consent Decree it will not hold them in contempt for the purpose of making them comply with those provisions of the Decree 0907 the Court will not make findings as to whether defendants have violated any other provisions of the Consent Decree or its amendments.[21] Although the Consent Decree has not yet been terminated, absent a finding of a "current and ongoing" violation of a federal right 0907which plaintiffs have expressly declined to attempt to establish 0907 the Court must promptly terminate the Decree.
IV. APPLICATION OF THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF "UNCLEAN HANDS"
Relying on their contentions with respect to defendants' contempt, plaintiffs assert that defendants are invoking the termination provisions of the PLRA with "unclean hands." Thus, even if the Court will not order contempt sanctions in this case, the question remains whether defendants may be barred, under the doctrine of "unclean hands" 0907 from seeking the equitable relief of termination of the Consent Decree pursuant to the PLRA's termination provisions. A court acts out of concern for its own integrity when it refuses to hear a claim because the party seeking relief enters with "unclean hands." See Gaudiosi v. Mellon, 269 F.2d 873, 881-882 (3d Cir.1959) . To succeed with the defense of "unclean hands," the conduct of the party seeking relief must be inequitable and

must involve the subject matter of his or her claim. See Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., 747 F.2d 844, 855 (3d Cir.1984). "What is material is not that the plaintiffs hands are dirty, but that he dirtied them in acquiring the right he now asserts, or that the manner of dirtying renders inequitable the assertion of such rights against the defendant." Carney v. School District of Philadelphia, 633 F.Supp. 1273, 1285 (E.D.Pa.1986), This doctrine has been defined as barring a claim "only if `(1) a party seeking affirmative relief (2) is guilty of conduct involving fraud, deceit, unconscionability, or bad faith (3) directly related to the matter in issue (4) that injures the other party and (5) affects the balance of equities between the litigants.'" Tang v. Hwang, 799 F.Supp. 499, 505 (E.D.Pa.1992) (quoting Castle v. Cohen, 676 F.Supp. 620, 627 (E.D.Pa. 1987), aff'd in part and remanded in part on other grounds, 840 F.2d 173 (3d Cir.1988)).
Federal courts clearly retain broad equitable powers under the doctrine of "unclean hands." See, e.g., Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814-15, 65 S.Ct. 993, 89 L.Ed. 1381 (1945) ("The guiding doctrine in this case is the equitable maxim that `he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.' ... This maxim necessarily gives wide range to the equity court's use of discretion in refusing to aid the unclean litigant.") (affirming dismissal of patent suit in which plaintiff entered court with "unclean hands"). A court may exercise those powers in many circumstances, even in cases in which a party is proceeding under statute. Of course, the requirement remains that the misconduct alleged by those invoking "unclean hands" must relate to the subject matter of the statute at issue. See Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 393, 68 S.Ct. 1156, 92 L.Ed. 1460 (1948).
In the context of congressionally created injunctive remedies, the Supreme Court has said that "[u]nless a statute 609 in so *609 many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity,
the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied." Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946) (absent a "clear and valid legislative command" courts retain their powers of equity). See also Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). Courts may, nonetheless, be barred by statute from exercising some or all of their equitable powers. See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local Union 3 v. Burroughs, 417 F.2d 370 (9th Cir.1969) (holding that "unclean hands" defense was not available where union employee sought relief under federal statute but had failed to exhaust union remedies); United States v. Martell, 844 F.Supp. 454 (N.D.Ind. 1994) (holding that doctrine of "unclean hands" does not apply when proceeding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") because the "unclean hands" doctrine cannot be used to frustrate the law or public policy). The Third Circuit has also been reluctant to find an "unclean hands" exception in statutes. Thus, when the government argued that there was an implied "unclean hands" exception to the statute prohibiting introduction of unlawfully obtained wire tap evidence to the grand jury, the Third Circuit held that no such exception applied. See In re Grand Jury, 111 F.3d 1066, 1077 (3d Cir.1997); see also Smith Land & Improvement Corp. v. Celotex Corp., 851 F.2d 86, 90 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that "doctrines such as caveat emptor and `clean hands,' which in some cases could bar relief regardless of the degree of culpability of the parties, do not comport with congressional objectives" as codified in CERCLA and thus do not apply under that statute).
The Supreme Court has also recently spoken to this issue. In McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 115 S.Ct. 879, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995), the plaintiff, Christine McKennon, sought a remedy under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), a statute which explicitly provides that a court has discretion to "grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purpose of [the Act]." 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b). After firing her for purportedly illegitimate reasons, her former employer discovered that McKennon had engaged in conduct that would have provided legitimate grounds for dismissal.[22] This evidence, they claimed, barred her from proceeding under the ADEA, a form of "unclean hands."
The Supreme Court in McKennon held that the reason the employer had initially given for firing McKennon was in violation of the ADEA. It then went on to refuse consideration of the "unclean hands" doctrine. "Equity's maxim that a suitor who engaged in his own reprehensible conduct in the course of the transaction at issue must be denied equitable relief because of `unclean hands,' a rule which in conventional formulation operated in limine to bar the suitor from seeking the aid of the equity court, .. has not been applied where Congress authorizes broad equitable relief to serve important national policies." Id. at 360, 115 S.Ct. 879 (emphasis added). Thus the Court has "rejected the unclean hands defense `where a private suit serves important public purposes.'" Id. (quoting Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 138, 88 S.Ct. 1981, 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968)

(holding that "unclean hands" defense does not apply in Sherman Act and Clayton Act Antitrust actions)); see also Pan-American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 456, 47 S.Ct. 416, 71 L.Ed. 734 (1927) (rules of equity "will not be applied so as to frustrate purpose of laws or thwart public policy").
The PLRA serves important national policies, and because barring defendants' Motion to Terminate under the doctrine of "unclean hands" would serve to frustrate the purpose of the law and thwart public policy, the Court concludes that plaintiffs may not invoke the "unclean hands" doctrine to bar defendants' Motion to Terminate.
610 *610 V. RELIEF
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3), a court should not terminate relief if it finds that there is a "current and ongoing violation of the Federal right" and that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary and is the least intrusive means possible to correct the violation. The statute clearly defines prospective relief as "all relief other than compensatory monetary damages," id. § 3626(g)(7) and relief is further defined to include "consent decrees." Id. § 3626(g)(9). In combination with the legislative history discussed above, the Court concludes that the statute is unambiguous: pursuant to the PLRA, consent decrees are to be "terminated" upon motion unless there is a showing of "current and ongoing violations" of a federal right.
Because the Court has determined that the termination provisions of the PLRA are constitutional, because it has denied the contempt motions, and because it will not bar defendants' Motion to Terminate under the doctrine of "unclean hands," the Court will terminate the Consent Decree under the provisions of the PLRA. In applying these provisions, the Court will follow the literal language of the statute and "terminate" the decree, not vacate it. The Second Circuit in Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 1997), reh'g held en banc February 25, 1998, [23] after a complicated analysis of the language of the PLRA, chose to read § 3626 of the Act such that "the statutory definition of relief, which includes consent decrees, should preferably be read to mean that it includes remedies arising out of or issued pursuant to the consent decree," but not the consent decree itself. Id. at 168. The consequence of this interpretation is that the obligations and agreements under the consent decree are left intact, even when the relief ordered by the decree is terminated. Otherwise stated, the Benjamin court held that the PLRA merely strips federal court of jurisdiction over non-federal remedies. With this understanding of the termination provisions, the court in Benjamin proceeded to find the PLRA constitutional, noting, however, in several instances that that conclusion was "predicated on our interpretation of the termination provision as limiting federal jurisdiction over the non-federal aspects of the Consent Decrees rather than as making those aspects of the Decrees void." Id. at 170.
While the Court does not adopt this interpretation of the PLRA's termination provisions, "Congress chose to use the verb `terminate' and to eschew the verb `vacate.' The distinction between these two words is clear: `terminate' means `to put an end to' or `to end,' Black's Law Dictionary at 1471, whereas `vacate' means `to annul' or `to render ... void,' id. at 1548." Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 662. As the First Circuit has noted, "this distinction may well possess practical significance." Id.; See also Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 178-79. While terminating the Consent Decree ends its future injunctive effect, the decree itself is not "annulled," as it would be if it were vacated. The Court will therefore, as it has said, "terminate" and not "vacate" the Decree.
Having reached this conclusion, the Court must turn to plaintiffs' alternative requests: to have this Court "certify" transfer to the Commonwealth Court and "not divest jurisdiction" pending any action in state court. This latter request will be treated as one to stay implementation of the termination order. Plaintiffs seek to have this case transferred so as to give them an opportunity to attempt to enforce the Consent Decree under state law, free of the termination requirement of the PLRA. Plaintiffs point to no statute or rule which would authorize this Court to "certify" such a transfer and it declines to do so. Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that plaintiffs may have valid arguments that the Consent Decree creates binding obligations under state law 0907 although it expresses no opinion as to the merits of such arguments. It will therefore examine the question of whether the Court should stay termination of the Decree pending either state court action or appeal of this decision.
611 *611 After engaging in the analysis outlined above, the Second Circuit in Benjamin concluded that it was appropriate to maintain a stay, keeping the consent decree at issue in that case in force. Mindful that the issues

at stake in the litigation before it had closely divided those courts which had addressed them, the Second Circuit ordered the stay maintained "until the Supreme Court has acted on any possible petition for certiorari." Id. at 180. Although in one respect this Court reaches an outcome not too dissimilar from that of the Second Circuit, the Court must respectfully disagree with this part of the Second Circuit's holding and will not order a stay in this case. Because the statute is unambiguous on this point and the Court has concluded that the termination provisions of the PLRA are constitutional, the Court will not stay termination of the Decree.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on all of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the termination provisions of the PLRA are constitutional and therefore grants defendants their requested relief. The Consent Decree will be terminated. The Court also has determined that plaintiffs' contempt motions should be denied. Plaintiffs have requested two types of contempt sanctions and the reasons for denying their motions are likewise twofold: with respect to the request for coercive sanctions, the Court has concluded that in the circumstances of this case, such sanctions would be punitive in nature and thus will not impose coercive sanctions regardless of whether defendants have violated provisions of the Consent Decree; with respect to the request for compensatory sanctions arising from defendants' amendment of the clothing regulations, the same reasoning does not apply and the Court therefore addressed that claimed contempt and found that the amendment to the clothing regulations did not violate the Consent Decree. The Court additionally declines to bar defendants' Motion to Terminate based on the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands." Finally, the Court will neither stay termination in this case, nor order the case transferred to the Commonwealth Court.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 27th day of April, 1998, upon consideration of defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 3626), filed September 23, 1997 (Doc. No. 775), plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Preliminary Relief and in the Alternative to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act Unconstitutional or to Certify the Transfer of this Action's Consent Decree with Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, filed September 30, 1997 (Doc. No. 776), plaintiffs' Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 8, 1997 (Doc. No. 778), defendants' Brief in Support of Constitutionality of Section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, filed October 7, 1997 (Doc. No. 779), defendants' Memorandum in Further Explication of the Relationship Between Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt and Defendants' Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief, filed October 10, 1997 (Doc. No, 781), defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 16, 1997 (Doc. No. 783), plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum, filed October 20, 1997 (Doc. No. 784), Defendants' Corrected Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt, filed October 21, 1997 (Doc. No. 788), Intervenor United States of America's Memorandum of Law Concerning the Constitutionality of the Challenged Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, filed October 22, 1997 (Doc. No. 791), plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt, filed October 28, 1997 (Doc. No. 797), and defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt, filed November 6, 1997 (Doc. No. 805), after oral argument on November 19, 612 1997, for the *612 reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), are constitutional.
2. Because the Court has found the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), to be constitutional and because plaintiffs have not made a factual showing of a current and ongoing violation of a federal right as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Defendants' Motion to Terminate All Outstanding Orders for Prospective Relief is GRANTED and the Consent Decree, as amended, is TERMINATED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Terminate Preliminary Relief and in the Alternative to Declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act Unconstitutional is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the Transfer of this Action's Consent Decree with Related Orders to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt and Amended Motion for Contempt are DENIED.
[1] The Amended Motion for Contempt supplements plaintiffs' Motion to Have Defendants and Their Agents Held in Civil Contempt. The Court will hereinafter refer to these two Motions as plaintiffs' contempt motions.
[2] SCI Graterford, SCI Muncy, SCI Rockview, SCI Huntingdon, SCI Dallas, SCI Camp Hill, and SCI Pittsburgh.
[3] These include a 1980 Stipulation (approved January 8, 1980), a 1981 Stipulation (approved May 13, 1983), a 1981 Amendment to Stipulation (approved May 13, 1983), and a 1982 Agreement (approved May 13, 1983).
[4] Prior to enactment of the PLRA, it is unlikely that a court would have made such findings in any case involving a consent decree. No law prior to the PLRA required such findings and because a consent decree embodies an agreement between the parties, there would have been no need for such findings. This case is no exception: no findings meeting the standards of the PLRA were made with respect to the Consent Decree or its amendments.
[5] On November 27, 1997, the PLRA was amended by Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997) which, among other provisions, replaced "current or ongoing violation" with "current and ongoing violation." Congress provided that the amendments "shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to pending cases." Id. at § 123(b).
[6] Under the November 27, 1997 amendments, parties may now bring a mandamus action "for any failure to issue a prompt ruling...." Pub.L. No. 105-119, § 123(a)(3)(A) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(1)).
[7] The Order of May 11, 1983 was signed by Judge Lord. Defendants have noted, however, that neither the Court, the Clerks office nor any party have a copy of the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation which bears the signature of Judge Lord, although all copies of the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation do bear the signatures of the party representatives. Defendants suggest that the failure of Judge Lord to sign the Amendment to Stipulation casts its legitimacy into question. The Court rejects this argument. All parties have, since 1983, treated the Amendment to Stipulation as binding; all parties signed it; Magistrate Judge Hall clearly recommended that it be approved and Judge Lord just as clearly approved it. The Court shall, therefore, treat it as a binding amendment to the Consent Decree.
[8] Plaintiffs initially agreed to this new streamlined procedure, but withdrew their agreement because of concerns that the proposed procedure would limit the right of inmates to appeal adverse decisions to the Commonwealth Court under Kisner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 683 A.2d 353, 355-56 (Pa.Commw.1996) (holding that the Central Office Review Committee performed "state-wide policy making functions" and thus its decisions are appealable to the Commonwealth Court). For the reasons discussed in Part III of this Memorandum, the Court will not address this issue.
[9] The Consent Decree provides that "[p]laintiff's ... reserve the right to contest in this Court, at any time, by any appropriate legal proceeding, any institution or system wide pattern of failure or refusal by the defendants or their agents or employees to follow the provisions of this Consent Decree." Consent Decree ¶ XIX (emphasis added). The Decree also states that the "Decree shall not create a private cause of action in any individual against any of the defendants. Nor, except as provided in paragraph XIX above, shall this decree provide a basis for contempt proceedings." Consent Decree ¶ XXIII.
[10] Six members of the plaintiff class 0907 Jon E. Yount, David S. Kopac, Derek S. Smith, Guy Bicking, James Alan Romberger, and Kenneth W. Teater 0907 submitted Plaintiffs' Objections to Portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts," filed December 16, 1997 (Doc.No.828) in which they alleged that "agents" for the defendants delayed

their receipt of the Stipulation of Uncontested Facts. As a result, they could not timely inform their counsel of alleged errors in the Stipulation. They have two principal sets of objections. The first is that there are discrepancies and errors in the facts regarding the clothing regulations. These alleged discrepancies and errors are used to support an argument that defendants have amended the clothing regulations, not as a safety measure, but, because the newly required clothing is manufactured at a correctional institution, as a fiscal one. Plaintiffs' counsel did not advance this argument and has not moved to amend the contempt motions. By separate Order dated April 27, 1998, the Court has overruled this first set of objections. The second principal set of objections asserted by the above-named plaintiffs involves the conduct of sick calls 0907 addressed in more detail below in the body of the Memorandum. At the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the Court has included this claim in its consideration of plaintiffs' contempt motions. See Id.
[11] The Court granted the requested relief by separate Orders dated April 27, 1998.
[12] To date, six circuits have examined similar attacks on the constitutionality of the PLRA. Five of the six have rejected arguments like those presented by plaintiffs in the case at bar. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997); Dougan v. Singletary 129 F.3d 1424, 1427 (11th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (1st Cir. 1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 372 (4th Cir.1996). The Second Circuit, although holding in the face of similar arguments that the PLRA is constitutional, did so only after construing the language of the termination provision as requiring only termination of relief, not of the decree itself. See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.1997), reh'g held en banc February 25, 1998. The Third Circuit has yet to speak to these issues.
[13] Plaintiffs contend that because the Consent Decree settled a suit challenging the constitutionality of prison practices, Congress in establishing termination procedures, is altering the constitutional basis for the relief awarded, which it may not do. The Court rejects this argument. Congress has not attempted to alter the constitutional basis of relief; indeed, under the PLRA plaintiffs are free to establish violations of a federal right which includes constitutional rights. They have not done so in this case.
[14] Plaintiffs urge the Court to examine the history of Article III, as Justice Scalia did in Plaut, and argue that by doing so, it must conclude that the intent of the Framers was precisely to avoid the type of legislative entanglement in the judiciary as is represented by the PLRA. Indeed, it is true that the "sense of sharp necessity to separate the legislative from the judicial power, prompted by the crescendo of legislative interference with private judgments of the courts, triumphed among the Framers of the new Federal Constitution." Plaut, 514 U.S. at 220, 115 S.Ct. 1447. The abuses of pre-Revolutionary legislatures, however, were of the type found in Plaut: legislative reversals of final judicial decisions. The Court cannot find a compelling reason in this, albeit fascinating, history to alter its conclusion that the Consent Decree is not a final judgment for separation of powers purposes.
[15] Plaintiffs again make the public rights/private rights distinction in the context of their due process argument. They cite Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603, 43 S.Ct. 435, 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923), which limits the holding in McCullough 0907 that once vested, a judgment cannot be abrogated by an act of Congress 0907 by stating that for Due Process purposes, public rights may not become vested, only private rights. This issue is not implicated in this case, however, for if a party can have no property right in the underlying order 0907 the order is not final for due process purposes 0907 it matters not whether it confers a public or a private right because it cannot become vested in either case. See Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1091 n. 10.
[16] Plaintiffs do not contend that inmates are a suspect class.
[17] In the context of their equal protection arguments, plaintiffs assert that the PLRA violates the Tenth Amendment by limiting the right of state officials to settle litigation. See United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27, 51-52, 58 S.Ct. 811, 82 L.Ed. 1137 (1938) ("It is of the essence of sovereignty to be able to make contracts and give consents bearing upon the exertion of government power."). The Court rejects this contention. The PLRA does not prohibit states from entering into "private settlement agreements." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(2). Instead, the PLRA merely limits the jurisdiction of federal courts with respect to enforcement of such agreements. Thus, state sovereignty is in no way threatened by the PLRA.

[18] Plaintiffs argued that this district is uniquely situated to understand that animus to prisoners motivated passage of the PLRA because congressional unhappiness with Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir.1995), served as a catalyst for the PLRA's enactment. The Court does not doubt that prisoners are considered by the public to be an unpopular class and that such unpopularity helped usher the PLRA through Congress. Nonetheless, even under a heightened rationality test, there is sufficient evidence that legitimate purposes motivated passage as well. Moreover, the evidence of animus submitted by plaintiffs 0907 such as fiery statements by members of the Senate like "criminals ... deserve to be punished.... [T]heir lives should, on the whole be describable by the old concept known as `hard time.'" Sen. Abraham, 141 Cong.Rec. at S14419 0907 must, in the words of the First Circuit, "be taken with a grain of salt 0907elected officials, after all, have been known to strike poses for public consumption 0907 the most that fairly can be said is that oratory of this sort may evince a philosophical shift; it hardly betokens an impermissible animus." Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 129 F.3d at 661.
[19] The contempt motions involve civil, not criminal, contempt sanctions against defendants. This distinction is important, not only because imposition of criminal, as opposed to civil, sanctions entails different procedural safeguards, but because the scope of the Court's power to order sanctions also differs depending on which type of contempt is found by the Court.
[20] Harris, plaintiff's contend, is inapposite because, although the sanction of dismissing the motion to modify was deemed to be inappropriate, the City in that case continued to remain obliged to produce the documents at issue. Here, in contrast, their argument continues, granting defendants' Motion to Terminate, without holding them in contempt, will relieve defendants of all their current obligations. That is true but in this case, unlike in Harris, the underlying decree is being invalidated. Thus, the situation in the instant matter is like that in Wheeling Bridge and, like the Wheeling Bridge Court, this Court will not find defendants in contempt.
[21] The Court's conclusion that it need not reach the issue of whether or not the defendants violated provisions of the Consent Decree or its Amendments moots a number of subsidiary issues, such as whether the body of Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation was incorporated into the 1983 Amendment to Stipulation and the proper interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) in the context of this case. For the same reasons the Court declines to reach the question of whether defendants are in contempt, it will not reach the merits of these subsidiary issues, although it commends the parties on their thorough and able briefing and argument on these issues.
[22] Plaintiff McKennon admitted during a deposition that in her last year of employment, she had copied several of her employer's confidential documents. While the Supreme Court held that this evidence did not bar her ADEA claim, it was nonetheless relevant to the question of damages.
[23] The Court notes that the Second Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Benjamin; the rehearing was held on February 25, 1998 and the Second Circuit has not yet issued an opinion.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 473 F.Supp. 1017 (1979)
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION v.
Milton SHAPP et al.
Civ. A. No. 70-3054.
United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
June 18, 1979.
10189 *1018 *1019 Jack J. Levine, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.
OPINION
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Chief Judge.
I.
On November 4, 1970 this § 1983 action was commenced by twenty-one plaintiffs confined by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in six correctional institutions. The complaint alleged that certain of defendants' practices, regulations and omissions violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. On October 20, 1972 I certified a class consisting of the named plaintiffs and "all other persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions . . .."
Settlement negotiations were begun after definition of the class. Nearly four years later these talks culminated in the proposal of a consent decree, ultimately approved on May 22, 1978. Implementation and interpretation of that decree is a continuing task.
During the long negotiations, three of the issues raised by plaintiffs were litigated. These were: (1) the availability of adequate law libraries; (2) the lawfulness of conditions of solitary confinement at four institutions; and (3) conjugal visits. The law library issue was resolved by stipulation in late 1977. In May of 1978 I enjoined on Eighth Amendment grounds continued use of three isolation cells at the correctional institution at Huntingdon and upheld against constitutional attack the Commonwealth's prohibition of conjugal visits. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893 (E.D.Pa.1978). After extensive rehabilitation of the solitary confinement units, I dissolved my injunction against use of the cells on November 20, 1978. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 461 F.Supp. 522 (E.D.Pa.1978).
1020 Jack Levine, one of several counsel to plaintiff class, now seeks an award of attorney's *1020 fees and expenses. Compensation is requested pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for time spent negotiating the consent decree and litigating the law library and Huntingdon isolation cell issues. Counsel asks for $21,156.00 in fees and $630.59 in costs. For the reasons discussed below, I will approve the claimed expenses and reduce the fee figure to $10,374.75.
II.
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, pertinently states:
"In any action . . . to enforce a provision of section . . . 1983 . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs."

There is no Eleventh Amendment bar to applying the statute to litigation, such as this, in which the fee award, if any, will be paid with state funds. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978). Thus, if plaintiffs here were prevailing parties, Mr. Levine may, in my discretion, recover counsel fees nominally from defendants, although actually from the Commonwealth.
Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff class was the "prevailing party" as to those issues for which compensation is now sought. On balance, the terms of the consent decree establish that plaintiffs prevailed on those questions resolved by the settlement. Gagne v. Maher, 594 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1979). Likewise, plaintiffs prevailed in the December 20, 1977 stipulation ending the law library litigation. And the injunction issued against the Huntingdon cells of course made plaintiff class the prevailing party in that pocket of this suit. Mr. Levine, then, is statutorily eligible for a "reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs" of this action.
Section 1988 leaves to the discretion of the district court the decision whether counsel to the prevailing party should be awarded attorney's fees. The statute's animating presumption is that successful counsel should "ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Senate Report No. 94-1011, 94th Cong. 2nd Sess., p. 4, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5908, 5912. Defendants suggest no special circumstances that would rebut the presumption of an award and I can conceive of none. Accordingly, recovery of counsel fees will be allowed.
The next step is to determine the "reasonable" attorney's fee to be awarded. The Third Circuit, in a series of thoughtful opinions, has pioneered a formula for computing an appropriate award. Lindy Brothers Builders of Philadelphia v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 540 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1976) (en banc) (Lindy II); Lindy Brothers Builders of Philadelphia v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973) (Lindy I); Merola v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 515 F.2d 165 (3d Cir. 1975); Hughes v. Repko, 578 F.2d 483 (3d Cir. 1978). Concisely stated, the Lindy calculus requires first, determination of the number of hours reasonably spent on successful matters and second, determination of a reasonable hourly rate for counsel's time. Next, the hour and rate figures are multiplied to produce the much-ballyhooed "lodestar" amount. Finally, the lodestar number is adjusted, in the discretion of the court, to account for various factors, including especially the quality of counsel's work and the contingent nature of the case.
Application of this several-fold operation is not automatic. Judgment necessarily intrudes at each seeminglymechanical step. Further, each determination must be critically made and discussed. An unanalyzed calculation of the lodestar is unacceptable, Hughes v. Repko, 578 F.2d at 487, and any adjustment of that amount also must be explained to the extent possible given the fundamentally ad hoc nature of such decisions. With this imperative of careful analysis in mind, I must now apply the Lindy Brothers family of cases to Mr. Levine's petition.
1021 *1021 III.
Mr. Levine has moved for summary judgment on his motion for counsel fees. Defendants, citing a section of Lindy I, Lindy Brothers Builders of Philadelphia v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d at 169, insist that summary judgment is a forbidden procedure in a fee petition case. An evidentiary hearing, they argue, is a categorical prerequisite to a § 1988 award. Because only oral argument 0907not an evidentiary hearing0907has been held here, defendants say the case is not ripe for decision. I do not agree that attorney's fee issues are beyond the scope of F.R.Civ.P. 56.
Lindy I does not mandate an evidentiary hearing in all cases. The Lindy language in which defendants divine an exemption from Rule 56 is the following passage:
"[O]pposing interests should be afforded a hearing to provide an evidentiary basis for resolution of disputed factual matters . . ." 487 F.2d at 169 (emphasis supplied).
The import of this statement could not be more plain. An evidentiary hearing is required when material facts are disputed. Necessarily, by implication, an evidentiary hearing is not required when the material facts are not in dispute. This of course is unassailable; the purpose of an evidentiary hearing being to find facts, none is needed

when no facts are disputed. Neither Lindy nor logic precludes summary disposition of an attorney's fee petition where the facts to which the judge must apply his expertise and experience are uncontested.
Further, I find nothing peculiar in the nature of a fee petition that precludes use of a summary procedure. As defendants themselves have stated, "[a] motion for attorneys' fees [is] like any other claim for a money judgment . . .." Defendants' Memo in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Former Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs at 2. Claims for a money judgment are daily subjected to summary disposition and there is no reason why an attorney's fee petition, a species of the money judgment genus, should always be immune from that fate.
Lastly, "Rule 56 makes the [summary] procedure available in all actions subject to the Rules . . ." 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.02[1] at 56-25 (2nd ed.). Certainly § 1988 suits are subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the terms of Rule 56 apply and the petition may be treated summarily if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." As concluded in II above, Mr. Levine is entitled to some recovery. I must thus determine here whether a genuine issue is raised as to any of the facts material to the Lindy analysis. If none is presented, then the suit is ripe for judgment.
IV.
The first determination required by the Lindy analysis is the number of hours reasonably spent on successful issues. In his affidavit, Mr. Levine lists 43 items of time, totalling 229.75 hours, spent negotiating the consent decree and litigating the law library and solitary confinement questions. Defendants do not contest this accounting of hours. Defendants' Hearing Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Former Counsel's Petition for Attorneys' Fees at 1. There is, then, no genuine issue of fact as to the number of hours reasonably supportive of those efforts for which Mr. Levine is entitled to compensation. Rule 56 permits disposition of this question without an evidentiary hearing.
However, deciding that further evidence is unnecessary to determine the number of hours does not end the matter. Defendants' acceptance of Mr. Levine's requested time means only that there is no dispute as to "the facts to be weighed in light of the judge's expertise," Lindy Brothers Builders of Philadelphia v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d at 169, not that I may accept petitioner's hours without independent scrutiny for reasonableness. Chief Judge Seitz has recently written that "Lindy II and Merola II require the district 1022 court to determine . . *1022 whether it was reasonably necessary to spend that number of hours in order to perform the legal services for which compensation is sought." Hughes v. Repko, 578 F.2d at 487. I turn now to that determination.
Mr. Levine entered his appearance in Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp on December 8, 1971. In ¶ 3 of his affidavit, counsel states that he "expended in excess of three hours in connection with the litigation" before the date of his appearance. In his proposed findings of fact, however, Mr. Levine neither lists these three hours nor offers a reasonable hourly fee for his 1971 services. Because the 1971 hours are few, were logged before formal appearance and, most important, appear to have been abandoned by petitioner, I will exclude these three hours from the amount of time for which Mr. Levine will be compensated.
Items (1)-(4) of ¶ 3 of Mr. Levine's affidavit state 19 hours of time spent in 1972 on successfully pressed issues. Only one of these items is controversial: 10 hours for an October 18, 1972 trip to the Commonwealth's Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania. Defendants, acknowledging that the hours were indeed spent, argue that travel time must be discounted and cite for that position Prandini v. National Tea Co., 557 F.2d 1015, 1019-1020 (3d Cir. 1977) and Norwood v. Harrison, 410 F.Supp. 133, 142 n.10 (N.D.Miss.1976). I do not agree that Prandini holds that the hours here spent travelling, if reasonable, cannot be included fully in the award of attorney's fees.
Defendants' Prandini argument is that "non-professional" matters such as driving are not totally compensable. Their use of the adjective "non-professional" indicates that the following statement from Prandini is that on which they base their citation:

"[H]ours spent on purely clerical matters, easily delegable to non-professional assistants, should not be valued at legal service rates." 557 F.2d at 1020 (note omitted) (emphasis supplied).
This holding does not support defendants' conclusion. "Purely clerical matters, easily delegable to nonprofessional assistants," are not fully included in a fee award because these tasks need not be performed by counsel. To allow undiluted compensation for an attorney's time spent on such work would be inequitable where, in the Third Circuit's phrase, "non-professional assistants" can do the work at a lesser expense.
Time spent driving from Philadelphia to Dallas, Pennsylvania, is significantly different. Counsel could not delegate to others the task of travelling to interview a plaintiff. Although Mr. Levine need not actually have driven the car, he obviously had to be present. Further, because not chauffeured in a limousine, Mr. Levine's necessary presence precluded him from accomplishing any billable legal work during the trip. This travel time, then, unlike the clerical work in Prandini, could not have been performed at a lesser expense; further, the trip cost counsel the fees that he could have earned during the hours spent on the road. The impossibility of assigning the task distinguishes Prandini and the lost opportunity for other work convinces me that Mr. Levine's 10 hours a 0907 reasonable time for the lengthy drive0907should be fully included here.
Defendants' citation of Norwood v. Harrison, in which the district court disallowed 37 hours spent travelling to depositions, is unpersuasive. First, I am of course not bound by a Northern District of Mississippi decision. And second, the ten words devoted to this issue in Norwood are hardly compelling. Accordingly, Mr. Levine's request for 19 hours of fees in 1972 is approved as reasonable.
Items (5)-(10) of ¶ 3 of the affidavit list 12.5 hours spent on these matters in 1973. I have reviewed each item and find that these times are perfectly reasonable.
The figures for 1974 demand discussion. Items (11)-(35) state 167.75 hours of work, 58.25 hours of the total0907items (11)-(17), (19)-(23), (33)-(35)0907were spent on issues that were resolved without litigation by the 1023 consent decree. Based on my familiarity *1023 with the arduous drafting of that decree, I conclude that the 58.25 hours claimed were reasonably supportive of the final settlement and should be compensated.
109.5 of the 1974 hours0907items (18), (24)-(32)0907were spent on the issues actually litigated; the isolation cells at Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon and Muncy and the adequacy of the prison law libraries. Most of these hours were spent pressing the Eighth Amendment claim. Mr. Levine tried that issue before me in 1974 and ultimately succeeded in closing the challenged Huntingdon units. Use of the Dallas, Graterford and Muncy cells was not enjoined.
Because plaintiff class prevailed on only one of the four cruel and unusual punishment claims, Mr. Levine cannot be compensated for all 109.5 litigation-related hours unless that entire time was reasonably supportive of the Huntingdon victory. Mr. Levine does not make that suggestion. Rather, recognizing that a reduction is needed, counsel proposes decreasing the 109.5 hours by 75%. Presumably, this percentage corresponds to that fraction of the litigation that plaintiffs lost i. 0907 e., 3 of 4 challenges to solitary cells. Defendants express no opinion on this method of reduction.
I think that Mr. Levine's proposal is reasonable on these facts, despite a recent Third Circuit case rejecting a superficially similar approach. In Hughes v. Repko, 578 F.2d at 486, Chief Judge Seitz admonished against an automatic fractional reduction of the lodestar, concluding that such an approach "does not have a rational basis to commend it" because "experience in litigation teaches that there is no necessary percentage relationship between the number of claims and contentions presented in a lawsuit and the lawyer time spent on each." I am both in respectful agreement with and bound by the Hughes v. Repko rejection of an uncritical percentage reduction; nonetheless, that decision should not control my determination in this matter for one dispositive reason: the 75% decrease here is proposed by Mr. Levine.
What made the Hughes v. Repko reduction objectionable was that it was applied by the district court without examination and over petitioner's opposition. Application of the 75% discount in this case is at the suggestion of the attorney seeking compensation. Admittedly, the reduction here has little more substantial a rational basis to commend it than the percentage rejected in Hughes v. Repko. I am persuaded, however, that where petitioning

counsel proposes a fractional decrease, based on the number of successful issues, and opposing counsel by silence acquiesces, the reduction may be accepted. To require that this proposal be rejected, and that I independently determine what portion of the 109.5 hours reasonably supported the Huntingdon success, would be to ignore the practical bearings of this case in vain pursuit of a theoretical consistency that trial court realities do not allow.
I thus will reduce the 109.5 hours to 27.5. These hours, added to the 58.25 approved above, give Mr. Levine a 1974 total of 85.75 compensable hours.
Items (36)-(41) of ¶ 3 of Mr. Levine's affidavit list 11 hours of time spent on prevailing issues in 1975. These claims are reasonable.
Item (42) requests compensation for 10 hours of "time spent at conferences with the court and other counsel for which time sheets were not kept over the period 1972-1975." In his proposed findings of fact, Mr. Levine includes this time in his 1975 hours and implicitly asks that he be paid a 1975 hourly rate for these conferences.
I will allow compensation for these 10 hours, but not at a 1975 rate. Mr. Levine's failure to keep an accurate record of these conferences is troublesome. Ordinarily, unsubstantiated claims such as these 10 hours would not be tolerated. I am willing, though, to make an exception here because I know from nearly nine years of experience with this action that Mr. Levine's claims are conservatively stated and that during the four years for 1024 which he seeks compensation Mr. Levine attended at least *1024 10 hours of conferences that are not specifically itemized in his affidavit. The time requested is therefore reasonable.
However, in his proposed findings of fact, Mr. Levine seeks compensation for these 10 hours at a 1975 rate. This I cannot approve. Because the hours were logged over a four-year period, compensation must be apportioned over that time. Apportionment accomplishes, to the inexact extent possible here, the aim of compensating counsel at a rate current when the time was spent, rather than at the requested 1975 rate, a fee higher than those prevailing in the 1972-1974 period during which many of these 10 hours of conferences were logged. Accordingly 2.5 hours should be added to each of the 1972-1975 yearly totals.
This addition brings the approved totals to the following sums: 1972-21.5; 1973-15; 1974-88.25; 1975-13.5.
Finally, Mr. Levine's affidavit states 7.5 hours spent in late 1978 on preparation of his fee petition. No time is listed for 1979, although I am aware of at least several hours of work spent on the fee issue this year. The 7.5 1978 hours are reasonable and will be compensated.
V.
The second determination required by the Lindy analysis is the reasonable hourly rate at which the reasonable hours determined above are to be compensated. Here again I find no genuine dispute of fact preclusive of application, without an evidentiary hearing, of my experience and expertise on the matter of reasonable fees.
Appended to Mr. Levine's motion for summary judgment is an affidavit from Peter Hearn, stating a reasonable hourly fee for Mr. Levine's work on the Imprisoned Citizens Union case. Mr. Hearn, a respected Philadelphia litigator with considerable experience in civil rights suits, concluded in ¶ 4 of his affidavit that "[i]n the years 1972 through 1978, attorneys whose qualifications and reputations within their own field were equal to that of Mr. Levine's in the civil rights field commanded hourly rates from approximately $85 in 1972 to approximately $125 in 1978." Based on Mr. Hearn's statement, Mr. Levine requests in his proposed findings of fact compensation at the following rates: 1972-$85; 1973-$92; 1974-$97; 1975-$105; 1978-$125.
Defendants offer no counter-affidavit on this issue of a reasonable hourly rate. Two reasons are advanced for this failure to rebut on the record Mr. Levine's proof of a reasonable fee. First, defendants say, an evidentiary hearing is a categorical prerequisite to an award of attorneys fees and it is therefore unnecessary to create a genuine issue of fact by counter-affidavit to avoid summary disposition. This position was rejected in III above. Had defendants timely urged this argument in answer to Mr. Levine's motion for summary judgment, fairness perhaps would require that they be given an opportunity now to counter the Hearn affidavit. However, the first response to

counsel's March 1 motion for summary judgment came at the April 20 oral argument, seven weeks after the motion was filed. The tardiness of defendants' answer mitigates any potential inequity in summarily treating Mr. Levine's motion. Cf. Blackburn v. Prudential Lines, Inc., 454 F.Supp. 1302, 1306 (E.D.Pa.1978) (affidavit not filed until argument untimely and not considered). Defendants' second reason for not challenging Mr. Hearn's conclusion further removes any concern that counter-affidavits should now be allowed.
Defendants say that the Hearn affidavit was not countered because that statement is addressed to a theory of setting a reasonable hourly fee inapplicable in this suit. Mr. Hearn's affidavit proceeds under the theory of Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231, 1248 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied 436 U.S. 913, 98 S.Ct. 2254, 56 L.Ed.2d 414 (1978), that for an attorney whose practice does not involve a normal hourly billing rate, the "appropriate reference . . . [is] comparable salaries earned by private attorneys with similar experience and expertise in 1025 equivalent litigation." This approach, defendants now contend, is improper because, they say, Mr. Levine was in *1025 private practice during the period for which he now seeks compensation and his own hourly rate should therefore be determinable and dispositive.
Defendants' contention that Rodriguez is inapposite here was first advanced at the April 20 oral argument on Mr. Levine's March 1 motion. Before that time, defendants had at least twice urged the applicability of Rodriguez to this suit, although no affidavit probative of applicable fees was filed. Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Former Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (filed December 11, 1978); Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (dated February 23, 1979). The April 20 urging of the inapplicability of Rodriguez was devoid of any reference to supporting evidence. Indeed, not a single question about hourly rates was asked of Mr. Levine at his April 12, 1979 deposition, and the handful of inquiries about his private practice from 1972-1975 turned up nothing helpful to defendants' position.
I cannot accept the argument that Mr. Levine's reasonable hourly rate can be determined by reference to his actual practice during the period relevant here. Mr. Levine stated at oral argument that from 1972-1975 his compensation varied from $15 per hour for non-homicide criminal appointments to $1500 per hour for work on a grand jury appearance. The great preponderance of his cases then, as now, were civil rights suits taken on a contingent fee basis and are thus useless in determining his actual hourly rate. Having failed even to touch upon the subject in Mr. Levine's deposition, defendants cannot offer an iota of proof of an actual hourly rate from 1972-1975 and their position must be rejected.
By ultimately urging the inapplicability of Rodriguez, defendants abandoned the theory of fees on which the Hearn affidavit rests. This abandonment, coupled with the above-discussed lateness of any response to Mr. Levine's motion for summary judgment, compels a negative answer to the question whether fairness requires that counter-affidavits now be allowed. Defendants had six weeks to challenge the facts in Mr. Levine's motion for summary judgment and chose instead to urge two losing legal theories. I will now hold them to that choice and will determine a reasonable hourly fee based on Mr. Hearn's affidavit alone.
The $85 hourly fee that Mr. Hearn concludes is reasonable compensation for Mr. Levine's 1972 services and the $125 figure for 1978 work, while facially reasonable, upon analysis seem unreasonably high. In 1972, Mr. Levine was a 30-year old attorney, only 5 years out of law school. At the suggested rate of $85 an hour, Mr. Levine would have earned $170,000 for a 40 hour, 50 week work year. Compensation of this magnitude is excessive for a lawyer who in 1972 had been practicing less than 5 years. My experience with Philadelphia legal fees convinces me that a 1972 hourly rate of $50 is reasonable. This hourly fee would have earned for Mr. Levine $100,000 for a 40 hour, 50 week work year. Of this $100,000 amount, Mr. Levine would have netted approximately $45,000, given his estimated overhead costs of 55% of gross revenues. $45,000 a year in 1972 was generous but fair compensation for services of the high quality rendered by Mr. Levine in this suit.
Accordingly, counsel will be compensated at the following hourly rates: 1972-$50; 1973-$57; 1974-$62; 1975$70; 1978-$90. The yearly increases are taken from petitioner's proposed findings of fact and are reasonable. Although many attorney's fees cases set only an average rate for the entire period of recovery, I prefer to use a separate rate for each year, that method being the more exact scheme of compensation.
Multiplying the approved hours by the reasonable rates and adding those products yields Mr. Levine's lodestar:

1972

-

1973

-

1974

-

1975

-

1978

-

1026 *1026 VI.

$1075.00 855.00
5471.50 945.00 675.00
_________ TOTAL

$9021.50

The final determination required by Lindy is whether the lodestar amount should be adjusted to account for exceptional circumstances. Foremost among the numerous factors that ought to be considered in deciding whether adjustment is merited are the contingent nature of the case and the quality of counsel's work. Although adjustment, if any, is usually upward, where warranted by extraordinary reasons the lodestar amount may be reduced. Hughes v. Repko, 578 F.2d at 491 (Garth, J., concurring).
Defendants urge that three considerations merit a 50% reduction of Mr. Levine's $9021.50 basic award. First, defendants say, the litigation conducted by Mr. Levine was simple, consisting mostly, in his own words, of "people getting up on the witness stand and describing what the circumstances were." Second, because the closed cells were reopened five months later, the success was short-lived. And third, an unreduced recovery here would constitute an impermissible windfall to Mr. Levine.
I find these arguments unpersuasive. The Eighth Amendment issues litigated here were not easy. Of course the trial consisted largely of putting on witnesses. Most trials consist mostly of precisely that. To reduce an attorney's fee because he did no more than successfully elicit testimony would be substantially to repeal § 1988. Further, Mr. Levine here did more than simply present witnesses if 0907 indeed such a task can be said to be simple. To prevail on the Huntingdon issue, Mr. Levine had to discern in the impressionistic swamp of cruel and unusual punishment precedents identifiable standards and present them coherently and tellingly. This was not so easy as defendants now remember and no reduction is justified on grounds of simplicity of issues.
Nor is a reduction warranted because Mr. Levine's success was short-lived. The July 1978 injunction closing the Huntingdon isolation cells was suspended in November 1978 because conditions in those units had improved enough to erase the stamp of unconstitutionality. This improvement, rather than detracting from plaintiffs' success, confirmed the importance of Mr. Levine's work. It would be absurd to reduce the award simply because defendants cured the Eighth Amendment defects after losing the litigation.
Lastly, defendants' fear that unreduced recovery here would be an unallowable windfall is unfounded. In one sense, any fee award is a windfall for Mr. Levine because he began work on this action at a time when it was widely thought that the Eleventh Amendment barred recovery of attorney's fees in a case, like this, where recovery was sought from a state. But that is not the sort of windfall award with which defendants are concerned. Recovery by a private attorney general, which Mr. Levine was here, "so lucrative as to ridicule the public attorney general," Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 1974), is what worries them. I do not find the undiminished lodestar so spectacular as to mock the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, who has of course defended this suit for seven years. The windfall fear, I think, is properly factored into the decision whether to augment the lodestar amount, not into the decision whether to reduce it. No reduction is justified by this concern because the basic award is, by definition and as determined in IV and V above, not overly-lucrative but rather a reasonable recovery.
Denying defendants' proposed reduction of the lodestar amount does not of course compel granting Mr. Levine's urged increase of the basic recovery. Mr. Levine endeavors to augment his award by 50%, 25% based on the contingent nature of the case and 25% based on the quality of work performed here. I do not accept Mr. Levine's proposed increase.

Every case in which attorney's fees are sought involves the possibility that counsel will not prevail and therefore will not be paid. This is because a case in which counsel is compensated regardless of success is not the proper 1027 subject of a fee petition. *1027 The contingency factor, then, because inherent in every suit for attorney's fees, cannot always justify an increase of the lodestar amount, unless such an adjustment is to be automatic. The Lindy series of cases does not envision this categorical increase. Only when the contingency involved in a particular case is somehow exceptional should the basic recovery be supplemented.
The contingent nature of this action is not, I think, unusual enough to warrant an increase. Success here, albeit uncertain, was not so remote a likelihood that counsel deserves to be compensated simply for taking the case. For over a decade, litigation of this sort has not been a stranger in the federal courts and the contingencies involved in bringing such a suit are, to a great extent, foreseeable and not extraordinary. What was exceptional here was counsel's above-mentioned willingness to take the case at a time when it was unsettled whether the Eleventh Amendment barred recovery of attorney's fees. I will return to this risk in the discussion below.
Mr. Levine's argument that a 25% increase is justified by the high quality of his work is, I think redundant. The liberal hourly rates approved in V above assume services of the highest quality. Only the rarest sort of work would merit a 25% supplement to the ample lodestar here. Mr. Levine's services, although excellent, were not so distinguished as to justify his requested increase.
I do think, however, that Mr. Levine deserves some upward adjustment of his basic recovery. Counsel cites in support of his argument for an increase the "tens of thousands" of benefited class members, the importance of the rights vindicated and the public interest implicated in this suit. Judge Garth, concurring in Hughes v. Repko, noted that these considerations are proper ones:
"[I]n an award under the Civil Rights Act, . . . the district court might consider, inter alia: the importance of the constitutional right . . . which has been vindicated; the number of citizens who have been benefited or whose rights have been vindicated [and] the extent to which the public interest has been served." 578 F.2d at 492 n.5.
I believe that the public interest element justifies a supplement here.
Because plaintiff class consisted of all inmates present and future, of the Commonwealth's prison system, the number of persons who have benefited from Mr. Levine's efforts in this action is large. For this reason alone, an increase of the basic amount is perhaps justified under Third Circuit case law. I do not, however, much rely on that numerical consideration in this suit because the significance of constitutional litigation does not always correspond to the number of successful plaintiffs.
I am likewise not much helped here by considering the importance of the rights involved. The several interests vindicated by the consent decree, the law library stipulation and the solitary confinement litigation are unmistakably fundamental ones; indeed, they are as essential to the purpose and limits of our social contract as any embodied in the Constitution. On the other hand, I am troubled by the possibility, implicit in Judge Garth's Hughes v. Repko note, that I may find the rights protected here to be more fundamental than those involved in other constitutional cases. The precious rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not ranked. To distinguish among petitions for counsel fees based on the importance of the interests involved seems to me, in constitutional cases at least, to invite the creation of a hierarchy of rights a 0907 development that wisely has been avoided for nearly two centuries.
What convinces me that an increase in the basic recovery is appropriate here is neither the number of plaintiffs involved nor the importance of the rights vindicated, but rather the public interest that has been furthered by this action. The often-stated purpose of § 1988 is to advance the public interest in affording victims of civil rights 1028 violations effective access to the judicial process. House of Representatives *1028 Report No. 94-1558, 94th Cong. 2nd Sess. p. 1 (1976); Senate Report No. 94-1011, 94th Cong. 2nd Sess. p. 2 (1976). This announced interest in providing access to the federal courts was significantly furthered by Mr. Levine's work.
A class action on behalf of all present and future prisoners in a state penal system is neither a glamorous nor a popular case. Plaintiffs in a suit like this are, within frequent exceptions, financially unable to retain private

counsel on any other than a contingent fee basis and where, as here, injunctive relief is the essential intention of the suit, even a contingency arrangement is difficult. Further, for obvious reasons, representing clients confined in distant prisons presents frustrating logistic and legal difficulties. These factors and others convince me that when Mr. Levine took this case seven years ago he gave an experienced and persuasive voice to a wronged class that otherwise may have gone unheard. Moreover, when Mr. Levine began work on this case, the possibility of compensation from the Commonwealth was clouded by Eleventh Amendment concerns. This obstacle to retention of private counsel by plaintiffs, coupled with those just cited, underscores the contribution made by Mr. Levine to the Congressional goal of effectively opening the courts to civil rights plaintiffs.
The important public interest furthered by Mr. Levine's services should not be lightly regarded. Granted, no palpable benefit is bestowed on the Republic by the closing of three isolation cells in central Pennsylvania or by the availability to state prisoners in Philadelphia of the Federal Supplement. Nonetheless, the significance, indeed the necessity of these successes is profound.
The greatness of a society is not measured by the treatment accorded its powerful and affluent. Throughout history, these classes have fared well in humane and cruel cultures alike. Fair treatment of the vulnerable among its number is what makes a society great. When a suit such as this is successfully brought, our society advances an imperceptible but real distance towards the constitutional promise of a more perfect union. As Justice Field wrote exactly a century ago in the prisoners' rights case of Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F.Cas. 252, 256 (CCD Cal.1879) (citation omitted):
"It is certainly something in which a citizen of the United States may feel a generous pride that the government of his country extends protection to all persons within its jurisdiction; and that every blow aimed at any of them, however humble, come from what quarter it may, is `caught upon the broad shield of our blessed Constitution and our equal laws.'"
Mr. Levine's work here has confirmed the generous pride of which Justice Field eloquently spoke. I find that his contribution justifies a 15% supplement to the basic recovery determined above. I note that some uncertainty has recently been expressed whether adjustment of the lodestar is to be worked by a multiple, a percentage or a fixed dollar amount. AAMCO Automated Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe, 82 F.R.D. 405, 416 (E.D.Pa. 1979). The 15% addition here is not meant to express an opinion on this question. I use a percentage increase only because I have used that method without controversy in the past. See, e. g., In re Penn Central Securities Litigation, 416 F.Supp. 907, 932 (E.D.Pa. 1976). Adding 15%, $1353.25, to the basic recovery, $9021.50, gives Mr. Levine a total of $10,374.75.
Finally, counsel asks compensation for costs in the amount of $630.59. Paragraph 5 of Mr. Levine's affidavit lists the requested cost items. I find them reasonable and will order full recovery.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 451 F.Supp. 893 (1978)
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION et al. v.
Milton SHAPP et al.
Civ. A. Nos. 70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545 and 72-2060.
United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
June 7, 1978.
894 *894 Jack J. Levine, Alan B. Rubenstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Benjamin Lerner, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
OPINION
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs, twenty-one individual prisoners and an unincorporated association of prisoners of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania incarcerated at six state penitentiaries, brought this class action in 1970.[1] Plaintiffs represent a class comprising all persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, Dallas, Huntingdon, Muncy, Rockview and Pittsburgh. Defendants are elected and appointed officials of the Commonwealth and its prison system. The complaint attacks conditions and policies at each of the prisons as being violative of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1988 as well as the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
Most of the issues raised in the complaint are the subject matter of a consent decree entered into by the parties and approved by me on May 22, 1978. However, two areas of contention were omitted from settlement and instead have been litigated. These complaints involve the constitutionality of conditions in the maximum security cell blocks at four state penitentiaries and of the prohibition in all the institutions against conjugal visits. We visited the four cell blocks in question in August 1974 and again in August 1975. We reserved ruling on these two issues, pending our decision to approve the consent decree.
We conclude that the conditions in the maximum security areas at Graterford, Dallas and Muncy do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the three cells at Huntingdon known as the "Glass Cage" are constitutionally unacceptable and must be closed. We also conclude that the prohibition against sexual visitation at each of the state institutions does not offend the Constitution.
895 *895 In determining the constitutionality of prison conditions, federal courts must allow state penal officials broad latitude in determining how to administer and regulate the prison environment in light of recognized penological goals of deterrence, rehabilitation and institutional security. Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125-126, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2538-2539, 53 L.Ed.2d 629, 638-39 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822-26, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). The court cannot dictate to state officials the conditions which the court may feel, as a matter of enlightened and advanced prison theory, should prevail in state penitentiaries. See Knuckles v. Prasse, 302 F.Supp. 1036, 1048 (E.D.Pa.1969), aff'd, 435 F.2d 1255 (3d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 936, 91 S.Ct. 2262, 29 L.Ed.2d 717 (1971). However, "judicial restraint cannot encompass any failure to take cognizance of valid constitutional claims," Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 405, 94 S.Ct. at 1807, and therefore the court should not hesitate to remedy conditions which amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The Eighth Amendment defies precise definition because it "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2

L.Ed.2d 630 (1958). In the context of prison conditions there are three criteria of the Eighth Amendment which might be applied. If an inmate can demonstrate that penal conditions violate any one of these tests, the condition must be invalidated.

The first criterion is the classic standard that penal conditions are proscribed which violate "the dignity of man", Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. at 100, 78 S.Ct. 590; Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 1972), that is conditions which are "so barbarous that [they offend] society's evolving sense of decency", Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 561 F.2d 411, 413 (1st Cir. 1977), which involve "physical and mental abuse or corporal punishment of such base, inhumane, and barbaric proportions so as to shock and offend a court's sensibilities," Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771, 778 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1062, 92 S.Ct. 743, 30 L.Ed.2d 751 (1972), or which involve "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

The second criterion is that punishment which is grossly disproportionate to the offense which precipitated that sanction is violative of the Eighth Amendment. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 368, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). This test has been applied in challenges to the type of punishment imposed, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 187, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (death penalty); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. at 100, 78 S.Ct. 590 (denationalization); and to the duration or conditions of punishment, Downey v. Perini, 518 F.2d 1288, 1290 (6th Cir.), vacated, 423 U.S. 993, 96 S.Ct. 419, 46 L.Ed.2d 367 (1975); O'Brien v. Moriarty, 489 F.2d 941, 944 (1st Cir. 1974) (duration of solitary confinement); Hart v. Coiner, 483 F.2d 136, 139-43 (4th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 938, 94 S.Ct. 1454, 39 L.Ed.2d 495, rehearing denied, 416 U.S. 916, 94 S.Ct. 1624, 40 L.Ed.2d 118 (1974); LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 978 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878, 94 S.Ct. 49, 38 L.Ed.2d 123 (1973) (strip cell grossly severe for prison infraction).

The third criterion of the Eighth Amendment has evolved in more recent decisions and requires that punishment must not go beyond legitimate penal objectives, i. e., the punishment must bear a rational relationship to the accomplishment of penological goals which are of sufficient importance to justify its severity. See Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. 1368, 1384-85 (W.D.Pa.1978); Inmates, D. C. Jail v. Jackson, 416 F.Supp. 119, 122 (D.D.C.1976); Padgett v. Stein, 406 F.Supp. 287, 293 (M.D. Pa.1975); Jordan v. Fitzharris, 257 F.Supp. 674, 679 (N.D.Cal.1966). The Third Circuit has adopted an analogous position in Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1972), in which the court stated:

896

*896 "A punishment may be cruel and unusual when, although applied in pursuit of a legitimate

penal aim, it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that aim; that is, when a punishment is

unnecessarily cruel in view of the purpose for which it is used." Id. at 281, quoting from Jordan v.

Fitzharris, 257 F.Supp. at 679.

At least five members of the Supreme Court recently have accepted the "penological objectives" criterion. In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), Justice Stewart stated in a plurality opinion joined by Justices Powell and Stevens that in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment "the sanction imposed cannot be so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering." Id. at 183, 96 S.Ct. at 2929. Justices Brennan and Marshall similarly have approved the penological objectives standard in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). See 408 U.S. at 279-80, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (Brennan, J., concurring); 408 U.S. at 331-33, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (Marshall, J., concurring). This test has been applied to a denial of medical treatment in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 103, 97 S.Ct. at 290, where the Court said, "denial of medical care may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose."

I. Solitary Confinement.

Eighth Amendment challenges to the conditions of solitary confinement frequently have been made. It is clear that such confinement is not per se violative of the Eighth Amendment. United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 471 F.2d 1197, 1202 (3d Cir. 1973). However, confinement in which the isolation cells provided inadequate space, heating, ventilation, lighting or sanitary conditions or where the inmates received inadequate items of personal hygiene, food or clothing, has been declared to be cruel and unusual punishment. See, e. g., LaReau v.

MacDougall, 473 F.2d at 978 (dark cell, inadequate sanitary conditions); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519, 526 (2d Cir. 1967) (inadequate clothing, heating and implements of personal hygiene); Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. at 1384 (inadequate bedding, clothing and toilet articles); Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318, 327 (M.D. Ala.1976), aff'd, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977) (filth, overcrowding, inadequate food and exercise); Battle v. Anderson, 376 F.Supp. 402, 424 (E.D.Okl.1974), aff'd, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977) (long-term idleness, inadequate exercise, work or educational programs). Where the challenge is made to the conditions of solitary confinement, rather than to the criteria for assignment to segregation or the length of such confinement, the first and third criteria of the Eighth Amendment are the relevant standards to judge the constitutional claims made here. With these two tests and the case law previously cited in mind, we will examine the conditions at each of the institutions under consideration.
A. State Correctional Institution at Graterford.
The maximum security cell block at Graterford Prison is known as the Behavior Adjustment Unit ("BAU"). It consists of thirty-nine cells in a U-shaped building located approximately five hundred to six hundred feet from the main building complex. Each cell in the BAU is approximately six feet wide, ten feet deep, and eight feet high, and is furnished with a bed, mattress, a sink and hopper combination (controlled by the inmate), sheets, and a pillow. Only cold water is provided. The cells are windowless and have no interior lighting. However, there are windows across the corridor from the cells as well as 150-watt light bulbs in front of the cells which illuminate the cells sufficiently for inmates to read. The cells are clean and have no unpleasant odors. Ventilation is adequate.
Inmates confined to the BAU have the same right to receive mail, legal materials, and publications as do those in general population. They receive three showers a week and one hour of exercise a day. A doctor visits the BAU 897 each day and a psychiatrist *897 is available at an inmate's request. Inmates in the BAU receive the same food as inmates in general population although occasionally in reduced portions.
Inmates are committed to the BAU by self-commitment, as transfers from other institutions' BAU's, or after a dueprocess hearing on charges of misconduct. Commitments to the BAU generally do not exceed thirty days, but there are some long-term assignments.
"Death row" cells consist of nine cells within the BAU. They are exactly like the other BAU cells except that they have hot and cold water.
We conclude, based on the record at trial and our two visits, that use of the BAU at Graterford does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. There is no question that the cells in the BAU are grim and cheerless. Nonetheless, we conclude that these conditions are not so inhumane or base that they shock the court's conscience or violate standards of human decency. Similarly, we find that such confinement is rationally related to legitimate penal goals and thus meets constitutional standards.
B. State Correctional Institution at Dallas.
The maximum security cell block at Dallas consists of two levels: the ground level block, known as S-1, and a lower level, known as the "Annex". S-1 comprises eighteen cells; the Annex contains eleven cells.
The S-1 cells have a separate toilet and sink, a bed, and a light inside the cell. An inmate is confined to S-1 only after a hearing. Every seven days the inmate's confinement is reviewed by his counselor. Every thirty days a committee reviews the inmate's confinement with the inmate present.
In general, an inmate is sent to the Annex from S-1. Confinement there generally averages from one to four days, although in some cases assignment to the Annex has exceeded thirty days.
The cells in the Annex measure approximately five feet wide by nine feet deep by ten feet high. They have neither windows nor lights, but windows across from the cells and lights in the corridor provide sufficient lighting for inmates to read. Ventilation is adequate. The cell block is clean and free from unpleasant odors. Inmates are generally allowed daily showers and are visited by a doctor each day. Inmates are generally, but not always,

served full rations of food. Daily exercise of up to two hours is allowed in the corridor outside the cell except when the inmate is disruptive.
As with the BAU at Graterford, we must conclude that confinement in the S-1 and Annex cells at Dallas, although certainly unpleasant, does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
C. State Correctional Institution at Muncy.
The State Correctional Institution at Muncy, a women's prison, is an open institution; it has no walls, fences, or perimeter guards. The administrative and punitive segregation units of Muncy are housed in Clinton Cottage, which is located in a wooded area one-half mile from the main facilities. Clinton Cottage contains forty-eight cells on two floors. The first floor contains nineteen cells, fourteen with single wooden doors used for administrative segregation and four with double doors (one wooden, one barred) used for punitive segregation. The second floor consists of twenty-nine cells, fourteen of which are double-doored and are used for punitive segregation. The remaining second-floor cells are no longer used.
Each cell is approximately twelve feet deep by eight feet wide by nine feet high and contains a bed, night table, toilet, and sink. The lighting in the cell consists of a sixty-watt bulb. Except for inmates housed in the first-floor punitive segregation cells, inmates in Clinton Cottage are allowed all items in their cell permitted inmates in the general population. Food portions are not reduced. Three showers are permitted each week. Clinton Cottage is clean and well-ventilated with no unpleasant odors.
898 *898 Inmates in administrative segregation are allowed out of their cells for one-half of the day. However, those confined to punitive segregation are not allowed out at all. Inmates in punitive segregation are confined generally for from one to two weeks, with weekly review, although some inmates are kept for considerably longer periods.
We have no difficulty in concluding that conditions at Clinton Cottage, even for those inmates in punitive segregation, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
D. State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
The maximum security area at Huntingdon contains 144 cells. The psychiatric quarters consist of seventeen cells. Three of these cells are known as the "Glass Cage" and provide the focus of the Huntingdon inmates' constitutional attack. We conclude that use of the Glass Cage constitutes treatment so inhumane and degrading as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Its continued use cannot be tolerated.
The Glass Cage is enclosed by glass walls and a locked steel door. The cells measure approximately nine feet deep by eight feet wide by nine feet high. There is no furniture, no window, and no inside lighting. Cells are equipped with a toilet and sink and are supposed to include a mattress, two sheets, a pillow, and blankets. We saw none of these items during our visits, but the cells were not in use at that time. Outside lighting is totally inadequate for reading. In addition, despite use of a large fan, ventilation is insufficient. The cells are unclean and an unpleasant odor pervades.
Our conclusion that the cells in the Glass Cage cannot remain in use is based in large part on our two visits to the institution. On each occasion we were genuinely shocked by the dark, dirty, and totally isolated conditions we observed. We agree with plaintiffs that the continued existence of the Glass Cage constitutes a serious threat to the physical and mental well-being of every resident who is confined there, and thus we conclude that confinement in such conditions could serve no legitimate penological purpose.
II. Conjugal Visits.
Plaintiffs urge us to declare that the lack of facilities at each institution in which inmates may enjoy sexual visitation with their spouses constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In support of this claim, plaintiffs presented an expert witness, Dr. Herbert Thomas, who testified that lack of conjugal visits is a factor which can

cause an inmate to suffer physical, emotional, and psychological stress. The psychological regression which may result can lead to homosexual behavior, violence, loss of selfidentity, and self-destructive behavior.
Plaintiffs concede that there is no inherent constitutional right to engage in heterosexual relations in prison. However, they argue that the Eighth Amendment protects them from the deleterious effects which flow from denial of sexual visitation rights. They distinguish cases which have held that denial of conjugal visits does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, see, e. g., McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 859, 96 S.Ct. 114, 46 L.Ed.2d 86 (1975); Lyons v. Gilligan, 382 F.Supp. 198, 201-03 (N.D.Ohio 1974), by noting that the records in those cases lacked the expert testimony provided by plaintiffs.
We do not believe that Dr. Thomas' testimony justifies a departure from those decisions upholding the denial of sexual visitation against constitutional attack. See United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F.Supp. 114, 142-43 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd 573 F.2d 118 (2 Cir.1978) (and cases cited therein). Dr. Thomas testified that psychological regression in inmates results from many factors. Foremost among these causes, according to Dr. Thomas, is not denial of sexual visitation, but instead, lengthy sentences resulting in long terms of incarceration. Consequently, we find that the denial of sexual visitation itself does not cause severe mental or physical deterioration.
899 *899 It is clear that not all conditions of confinement which have an adverse effect on a prisoner are constitutionally proscribed. In Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. at 822-23, 94 S.Ct. 2800, the Court stated that one of the essential functions of incarceration is the isolation of the inmate from society, which is intended to be an undesirable condition so as to deter potential criminals from committing crimes.
The restriction challenged here and its effects on inmates do not violate any of the three Eighth Amendment criteria. See Part I, supra. It is obvious that the first two tests of unconstitutionality have not been met. The essence of penal confinement is isolation from society, including limitations on physical and social interactions. We conclude that the prohibition on sexual visitation is not so inhuman that it shocks the conscience and that it is not disproportionate punishment. A closer question is whether such a restriction is rationally related to a legitimate penological goal. We agree with Judge Frankel's opinion in United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F.Supp. at 143, that there is a division of penological opinion on the advisability of conjugal visitation and that the judiciary is ill-equipped to resolve this complex policy question. However, since there is ample support for the proposition that a restriction on sexual visitation is rationally related to legitimate penal concerns for institutional security and the deterrence value of incarceration, I conclude that such a prohibition must be sustained under the Eighth Amendment.
[1] Several other suits brought by state prisoners have been consolidated with this original action (C.A. # 70-3054) and have been resolved by the Consent Decree or tried in this adjudication.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1997)

1997 WL 381617 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, et al, v.
Milton SHAPP, et al.
No. CIV.A. 70–3054. | June 26, 1997.
Opinion
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
DUBOIS, J.
*1 AND NOW, to wit, this 25th day of June, upon consideration of the Motion to Invoke Standing to File a Motion of Jerome Silo to Intervene Under Rule 24, as Amended in 1966 (“Motion to Intervene”) (Document No. 711, filed May 27, 1997),1 Class Counsel’s Response to Jerome Silo’s Motion to Intervene (Document No. 717, filed June 3, 1997), and Defendants’ Response to Jerome Silo’s Motion to Intervene (Document No. 728, filed June 16, 1997), and movant’s later submissions related to the Motion to Intervene, Submission Related to Intervention (Document No. 712, filed May 27, 1997), Motion of Jerome Silo to Invoke MLB v. SLJ (Document No. 715, filed June 3, 1997), Motion to Invoke Standing to File a Motion to Intervene Under Rule 24, as Amended in 1966 (Document No. 721, filed June 10, 1997), Motion of Enforcement of the Court’s Order Dated May 27, 1997, and/or to Compel a Response, in Particularity, to Jerome Silo’s “Objection(s) to the Binding Effect” of the Consent Decree (Document No. 723, filed June 13, 1997), Motion to Invoke Adkins v. DuPont, ... Pursuant to Invoking Jerome Silo’s IFP Status as an ICU Class Member [and] To Appoint an Expert in the Field of Mental Health and to Appoint an Expert in the Field of Imprisonment (Document No. 724, filed June 13, 1997), Motion to Request “As of Right” Assistance of Counsel Under Lassiter v. DSS (Document No. 725, filed June 16, 1997), Motion to Reply to Defendants’ Response to Jerome Silo’s Motion to Intervene by Requesting Court to Please Appoint Expert in Constitutional Law to File a Brief to “Inform the Conscience of the Court” (received by the Court June 20, 1997),2 and Motion to Respectfully Request the Twenty–Eight (28) Page Document from Jerome Silo (Which Had Improperly Been Submitted as a Request for the court to take Judicial Notice of Adjudicatory Facts and to Assess the Tenor of Said Adjudicatory Facts), ... Which the Court Denied By His

Order Dated June 9, 1997, ... Should Please be Considered by the Court, in the Alternative, as if it Were a “Memorandum of Law” in Support of the Original Motion to Which the Court had Ordered a Response from Counsel (received by the Court June 18, 1997),3 IT IS ORDERED that each of the following Motions is DENIED:
1. Motion to Invoke Standing to File a Motion of Jerome Silo to Intervene Under Rule 24, as Amended in 1966 (Document No. 711);
2. Motion of Jerome Silo to Invoke MLB v. SLJ (Document No. 715);
3. Motion to Invoke Standing to File a Motion to Intervene Under Rule 24, as Amended in 1966 (Document No. 721);
4. Motion of Enforcement of the Court’s Order Dated May 27, 1997, and/or to Compel a Response, in Particularity, to Jerome Silo’s “Objection(s) to the Binding Effect” of the Consent Decree (Document No. 723);
5. Motion to Invoke Adkins v. DuPont ... Pursuant to Invoking Jerome Silo’s IFP Status as an ICU Class Member [and] To Appoint an Expert in the Field of Mental Health and to Appoint an Expert in the Field of Imprisonment (Document No. 724);
*2 6. Motion to Request “As of Right” Assistance of Counsel Under Lassiter v. DSS (Document No. 725);
7. Motion to Reply to Defendants’ Response to Jerome Silo’s Motion to Intervene by Requesting Court to Please Appoint Expert in Constitutional Law to File a Brief to “Inform the Conscience of the Court” (received by the Court June 20, 1997); and,
8. Motion to Respectfully Request the Twenty–Eight (28) Page Document from Jerome Silo (Which Had Improperly Been Submitted as a Request for the court to take Judicial Notice of Adjudicatory Facts and to Assess the Tenor of Said Adjudicatory Facts), ... Which the Court Denied By His Order Dated June 9, 1997, ... Should Please be Considered by the Court, in the Alternative, as if it Were a “Memorandum of Law” in Support of the Original Motion to Which the Court had Ordered a Response from Counsel (received by the Court June 18, 1997).
The denial of Jerome Silo’s Motions is based on the following:
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24: Federal Rule of
1

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1997)

Civil Procedure 24 (“Rule 24”) provides for two types of intervention, “Intervention of Right” (Rule 24(a)) and “Permissive Intervention” (Rule 24(b)). Movant does not state under which subsection of Rule 24 he moves to intervene. Because courts are instructed to read pro se complaints liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), the Court will consider movant to have made his motion pursuant to both subsections “a” and “b” of Rule 24.

2. Intervention of Right: Whether movant is entitled to intervene of right depends on his satisfying the Court in three respects: “first, that [he] ha[s] sufficient interest in the matter, and that [his] interest would be affected by the disposition; second, that [his] interest was not adequately represented by the existing parties; and third, that [his] application is timely.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501, 504 (3d Cir.1976). Because the Court concludes that movant’s interests have been more than adequately represented by the existing parties the Court need not consider the other two factors.

3. Class Counsel is More Than Adequate: Movant’s lengthy filings may be distilled to a single argument: he contends that class counsel has failed to represent his interests by failing to challenge 1) certain provisions of the Consent Decree and 2) a number of this Court’s prior rulings with respect to the Consent Decree. That argument has no merit because: 1) class counsel has been far more than adequate and 2) movant’s arguments with respect to the Consent Decree and this Court’s prior rulings have no merit.4 Thus, class counsel was not inadequate in deciding not to present those arguments to this Court.

As a general rule, “ ‘what measure of representation is adequate is a question of fact that depends on each peculiar set of circumstances.’ ” In re Asbestos Litigation, 90 F.3d 963, 977 (5th Cir.1996) (quoting Guerine v. J & W Investment, Inc., 544 F.2d 863, 864 (5th Cir.1977) (citation omitted)), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3631 (U.S. Mar. 3, 1997) (No. 96–1394). Here, the facts clearly illustrate class counsel’s adequacy.

*3 As this Court noted in Austin v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 876 F.Supp. 1437 (E.D.Pa.1995), a prisoner class action challenging conditions of confinement in Pennsylvania prisons, “plaintiffs’ counsel[, Steffan Presser, is a] highly experienced litigator[ ] in prisoner civil rights actions.” Austin, 876 F.Supp. at 1472. Moreover,

Stefan Presser, is the Legal

Director of the American Civil

Liberties

Foundation

of

Pennsylvania. He has litigated the

following cases involving prisoners

rights and/or institutional reform:

Medina v. O’Neill 589 F.Supp. 1028 (S.D.Tex.1984) (forcing the closing of the nations’s first for-profit prison)[, rv’d in part, vacated in part, 589 838 F.2d 800 (5th Cir.1988) ], Quinlin v. Estella, Civil Action No. H–78–2117 (S.D.Tex.1978) (securing equal protection for women incarcerated within the Texas Department of Corrections with regard to educational and vocational opportunities), Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021 (3d Cir.1988 (improving conditions of confinement for Pennsylvania death sentenced inmates), and Arbogast v. Owens, Civil Action No. 1–CV–1592 (M.D.Pa.1989) (requiring the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to unshackle two thousand prisoners in the aftermath of the Camp Hill riot). Austin, 876 F.Supp. at 1473.
The Austin litigation must now be added to that already lengthy list. See Austin, 876 F.Supp. at 1473 (approving a “Settlement Agreement [that] provide[d] substantial benefits to the plaintiff class”). The Court is more than satisfied that Mr. Presser has the experience and skills necessary to litigate and properly monitor a case such as this one and that he has, in fact, applied that experience and those skills to the instant case.
The Court has previously stated that “[a]s the class members’ advocate, class counsel is duty-bound to aggressively pursue any allegations of institution or system wide violations of the Consent Decree that he believes are meritorious. Class counsel has done so in the past, and the Court has been provided with no reason to believe he will not continue to do so.” Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, No.Civ.A. 70–3054, 1996 WL 735489, *6 (E.D.Pa. Dec.9, 1996) (emphasis added). Moreover, class counsel has represented to this Court, on many occasions, that he or members of his staff review the Imprisoned Citizens Union-related inmate correspondence mailed directly to his office or forwarded to him by the Court. Where class counsel deems it appropriate, he takes action in response to such correspondence.
Class counsel’s careful monitoring of defendants compliance with the Consent Decree is evidenced by his recent filing of a Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Defendants’ Consent Decree and Compliance (Document No. 696, filed April 11, 1997).5 Moreover, in response6 to a pro se Motion for Contempt, submitted to the Court by a

2

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1997)

number of class members, but not filed at their request, class counsel has informed the Court that, in summary:
*4 1. Once an inmate affected by an alleged breach of the Consent Decree by the Department of Corrections (“Department”) addressed in the proposed Motion has exhausted his administrative remedies, class counsel will initiate discovery and, if appropriate, adopt any of the following claims of contempt of the Consent Decree, as amended, made by pro se movants that are deemed to be meritorious by class counsel:

and he therefore 1) will not investigate those claims further and 2) notes that pro se movants may file suit with respect to such claims in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, as follows:
a. Department’s interference with outgoing mail sent by inmate organizations;
b. Department’s change in policy regarding placement of inmates in institutions most removed from the sentencing community;

a. Department’s violation of Section § I(A), which provides for mandatory review of disciplinary sentences;
b. Department’s failure to conduct a daily sick call as indirectly provided for in Appendix A, Health Care Provisions;
c. Department’s failure to distribute basic issue in the Restricted Housing Unit;
d. Department’s failure to comply with privacy requirements regarding strip searches, as set forth in Appendix E;
e. Department’s prohibition and confiscation of civilian clothing;
f. Department’s failure to respond to grievances in a timely fashion;
2. Class counsel will adopt two of the claims made by pro se movants once those claims are exhausted, as follows:
a. Department’s interference with the right of an inmate preparing defenses to misconducts to have the assistance and advice of any resident of the general population, as set forth in § II(F);
b. Department’s handcuffing of inmate advisors housed in restricted housing units, in violation of § II(H);
3. Class counsel has concluded that other claims made by pro se movants are not subjects of the Consent Decree,

c. Department’s change in visitation policy;
d. Department’s interference with telephone calls;
4. Class Counsel declines to adopt pro se movants claim that some of the hearing examiners who conduct misconduct hearings are biased against inmates on the ground that class counsel has unsuccessfully raised such a claim in a motion for contempt in the past. See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, CA No. 70–354, slip op. at 26–31 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 25, 1987) (Lord, J.).
In sum, class counsel has a long history of competent and vigorous advocacy on the behalf of inmates in this Commonwealth and elsewhere, and movant presents the Court with no evidence that class counsel is not acting with such competence and vigor here. As class counsel has more than adequately represented movant’s interests in this litigation, movant is not entitled to intervene of right.
4. Permissive Intervention: As has been recognized by the Third Circuit, the question of whether a movant may be allowed to intervene permissively is a “highly discretionary decision.” Brody By and Through Sugzdinis v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1115 (3d Cir.1992). The Court will not exercise its discretion to allow permissive intervention in this case because movant’s interests are more than adequately represented by class counsel.
	  

Footnotes

1

Muhammad K. El–Amin and Carlton Estes, two inmates at State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, were granted permission to

be treated as additional movants with respect to the Motion to Intervene (Document No. 711) by separate Order dated June 25,

1997.

2

The original of this document shall be filed.

3

The original of this document shall be filed.

4

For example, movant alleges the illegality and/or unconstitutionality of: 1) the exhaustion requirement of the Consent Decree; 2)

3

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1997)

the requirement that an allegation raised in a motion for contempt of the Consent Decree address an institution or system wide violation of the Consent Decree; 3) the use of administrative directives to change Department of Corrections policies that affect inmates; and, 4) the Court’s ruling that other lawsuits may be filed by inmates who are members of the plaintiff class if they believe that their individual constitutional rights have been violated. None of these arguments has merit, and, assuming arguendo class counsel had notice of them, he was therefore correct in choosing not to raise them before this Court.
First, the Court notes that the basis for the exhaustion and system/institution wide violation requirements of the Consent Decree are set forth in this Court’s Memorandum dated December 9, 1996. See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, No. Civ. A. 70–3054, 1996 WL 735489, *5–7 (E.D.Pa. Dec.9, 1996). Movant’s arguments do not provide meritorious bases for challenging those requirements. Second, with respect to movant’s concern with the alleged “illegality” of various administrative directives promulgated by the Department of Corrections, the Consent Decree provides as follows: “Defendant Commissioner of Correction[s] reserves the right to amend, suspend, alter or modify any of the Administrative Directives and the additions and amendments thereto as provided in this Decree, and plaintiffs reserve their right to contest in this Court any such amendment, suspension, alteration or modification of the provisions of this Consent Decree.” Consent Decree, § XIX. Class counsel carefully monitors all administrative directives and “it is his position ... that newly enacted administrative directives which do not explicitly run counter to rights enumerated in the Consent Decree can not be the subject of contempt citation.” Class Counsel’s Response to Pro Se Motion for Contempt Filed By Class Members Smith, Yount, Boone, Romberger, Kopac and Teater, at 2 (Document No. 720, filed June 9, 1997). The Court agrees with class counsel’s position and notes that throughout his “Response to Pro Se Motion for Contempt” he explicitly states which challenges to current administrative directives he believes run afoul of the Consent Decree and which do not. Finally, there is no merit in movant’s challenge to the Court’s prior ruling that individuals who are not entitled to relief under the Consent Decree but believe that their individual constitutional rights have been violated may file a lawsuit in a Court with jurisdiction and where venue is properly laid. Movant fails to recognize that the subject matter of the Consent Decree is limited in such a manner that inmates within the plaintiff class may file lawsuits claiming violations of their constitutional rights as individuals. Such suits are permissible because the Consent Decree only addresses institution and system wide violations of its terms—not individual violations, nor unrelated violations of an inmate’s individual constitutional rights. See Imprisoned Citizens Union, 1996 WL 735489, at *5–6 (concluding that Section XXIII of the Consent Decree does not create an individual cause of action under the Decree and requires that motions for contempt of the Decree be based upon system and/or institution wide violations of the Decree). Thus, lawsuits based upon the violation of individual inmate’s constitutional rights are not preempted by the Consent Decree. See Moore v. Lehman, 940 F.Supp. 704, 708 (M.D.Pa.1996).

5

The Court was recently notified that defense counsel has provided class counsel with some of the documents and other information

covered by the Motion to Compel and that discussions are continuing with respect to production of additional documents and

information. At the joint request of counsel the Court ordered that the Motion to Compel be held in abeyance. Imprisoned Citizens

Union v. Shapp, Civ.A.No. 70–3054 (E.D.Pa. June 24, 1997) (order holding Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Defendants’

Consent Decree and Compliance in abeyance). The current procedural status of the Motion supports the Court’s conclusion that

class counsel has more than adequately represented movant’s interests.

6

That response is entitled Class Counsel’s Response to Pro Se Motion for Contempt Filed By Class Members Smith, Yount, Boone,

Romberger, Kopac and Teater (“Response to Pro Se Motion for Contempt”) (Document No. 720, filed June 9, 1997). The title of

the response is in error because the Motion for Contempt was not filed.

	  

4

 
 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

1988 WL 59270 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, et al. v.
Milton SHAPP, et al.
CIV.A. Nos. 70–3054, 71–513, 71–1006 and 70–2545. | June 8, 1988.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Senior District Judge.
*1 This is the third application for attorney’s fees in this 18–year-old prisoners’ civil rights case.1 This application was filed in February, 1988 by John T. Snavely, who represented the plaintiff class in several aspects of this case mainly from 1976 until 1985.
It is useful to recount briefly Snavely’s role in this case. In their amended complaint filed May 8, 1972, the plaintiff class comprising prisoners at several Pennsylvania Correctional Institutions alleged that defendants, who are officials responsible for those institutions, violated their civil rights in numerous ways. Through the efforts of Snavely’s predecessors and with the sometimes grudging cooperation of the defendants, a proposed consent decree was negotiated which offered substantial benefits to plaintiffs in many areas. Other issues upon which no agreement was reached were litigated by counsel other than Snavely, with mixed success. See ICU v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893 (E.D.Pa.1978).
Three obstacles arose which jeopardized final approval of the proposed Consent Decree. Defendants sought to decertify the plaintiff class and to withdraw their previously granted consent. Some inmates protested that the proposed Decree did not go far enough in protecting their rights. It was at this time, in September 1976, that Snavely assumed the role of plaintiffs’ lead counsel with respect to the proposed Consent Decree. He successfully opposed the defendants’ efforts to decertify the class and withdraw their consent. Together with defendants, he successfully opposed the dissident inmates’ efforts to scuttle the proposed Decree. The proposed Consent Decree was modified in response to a number of inmates’ objections and was approved by me on May 22, 1978.

Following my approval, Snavely undertook to insure that defendants implemented the Consent Decree. He investigated many reports by prisoner-class members that violations of the Decree were taking place. Based on his investigation, on February 22, 1980, Snavely filed on plaintiffs’ behalf a motion asking that defendants be held in contempt. After lengthy negotiations, the motion for contempt was resolved by amending the Consent Decree. The amendments conferred substantial new benefits upon the plaintiff class and I approved them on May 11, 1983. Following that, Snavely’s involvement in the case declined although he has remained a counsel of record. In 1986, other counsel filed a second motion for contempt charging that several defendants continued to violate the Decree and its amendments. That motion was granted in part and denied in part on November 25, 1987. Snavely has not sought any compensation for work performed on the second motion for contempt.
II.
Defendants first argue that Snavely’s application for attorney’s fees is untimely and should be denied on that basis. They say Snavely could have applied for fees in 1978 when the Consent Decree was entered, or in 1983 when plaintiffs’ first motion for contempt was resolved by amending the Consent Decree. Defendants contend that they have been unfairly surprised and prejudiced by Snavely’s failure to apply earlier.
It is true that Snavely could have applied for fees earlier. However, the statute which governs Snavely’s application for attorney’s fees, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, contains no deadline for filing an application. Nor has this district court established by local rule any time limit on fee applications. Until my order of November 25, 1987, I had not established any deadline either. Therefore, in and of itself the fact that Snavely postponed applying for fees is of no significance. Only where a fee applicant “unfairly surprises or prejudices the affected party” may a court, in the exercise of its discretion, deny his application for attorney’s fees. White v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 445, 454, 71 L.Ed.2d 325, 333 (1982); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 716 F.2d 177, 179 (3d Cir.1983). I am not persuaded that defendants have suffered either unfair surprise or prejudice. Indeed, in one respect defendants have benefited significantly from Snavely’s delay.
*2 If this case had been entirely resolved in 1978 or 1983, then defendants might be entitled to enjoy a sense of repose about it, and their claim of unfair surprise might be convincing. But this case has never yet been closed.
1

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

Under the terms of the Consent Decree, I have retained jurisdiction over it and proceedings have continued. In these circumstances, defendants cannot be unfairly surprised by Snavely’s application. Cf. Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 611 F.2d 624, 635 (6th Cir.1979) cert. denied, 447 U.S. 911 (delay of several years in filing fee application excused where litigation had continued); Amico v. New Castle County, 654 F.Supp. 982 (D.Del.1987) (three-year delay excused where litigation had continued); compare Baird v. Bellotti, 724 F.2d 1032, 1033 (1st Cir.1984) cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 2680 (two-and-a-half-year delay not excused where litigation had ended).
Defendants assert that they have been prejudiced by Snavely’s delay in that they “no longer have clear recollections of possibly significant occurrences which could affect the amount of any award.” Of course, memories fade as time passes. But that hardly means we must abandon the past as beyond recall. I trust that defendants’ counsel, like all good counsel, have kept notes and copies of significant documents and events throughout the many years this case has been active. These notes and documents could be used to refresh defendants’ recollection.
Defendants also say that their lead counsel changed in 1979. I recognize that this change makes it more difficult for them to reconstruct past events, but I am not persuaded that it is impractical for them to do so. They have not established that their former lead counsel, Jay Andrew Smyser, is unavailable for consultation. Nor have they established that Mr. Smyser is the only one who is familiar with the conduct of their case before 1979.
I am puzzled about what sort of “possibly significant occurrences which could affect the amount of any award” defendants fear they cannot recall. Defendants have not offered any convincing example of what such an occurrence might be. I will not deny Snavely compensation on the basis of speculative prejudice.
I consider it significant that Snavely’s delay has substantially benefited defendants in one respect. Had Snavely filed a fee application in 1978, he would have received his compensation for the years 1976 to 1978 ten years sooner. Defendants have enjoyed for ten years the use of the money which Snavely now claims. Snavely is not seeking any enhancement of his fees to compensate for his delayed receipt of the fees, even though he might have sought an enhancement. Institutionalized Juveniles v. Secretary of Public Welfare, 758 F.2d 897, 922 (3d Cir.1985). Snavely has by delaying his application in effect granted defendants a ten-year interest-free loan, which is a significant benefit. Likewise, Snavely’s decision not to seek fees in 1983 for his services from 1979 to 1983, resulted in another interest-free loan, of five years’ duration.

*3 Most of the labors for which Snavely seeks compensation produced documents which are of record. I have reviewed the principal documents Snavely has produced since 1976 as well as his detailed fee application. I am convinced that it is fair and reasonable to evaluate Snavely’s application on its merits in spite of the passage of time.
III.
Next defendants challenge a number of particular hours for which Snavely seeks compensation. Among defendants’ challenges I find one which has merit: Snavely’s claim for 32.5 hours spent opposing defendants’ 1978 motion to reopen the “Glass Cage” at Huntingdon Prison.
A.
One form of relief which plaintiffs originally sought was the closing of the maximum security cell blocks at four state prisons. I visited those cell blocks in 1974 and 1975 to observe their condition. Because of protracted settlement negotiations, I deferred ruling on the cell block issue until May 30, 1978. I then ruled that while the maximum security cells at three institutions met the constitutional minimum “the three cells at Huntingdon known as the ‘Glass Cage’ are constitutionally unacceptable and must be closed.” ICU v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893, 894 (E.D.Pa.1978). Jack Levine, who represented plaintiffs in that aspect of the litigation, was awarded attorney’s fees in 1979 for his efforts. 473 F.Supp. at 1017.
One week after my order closing the Glass Cage, defendants moved to have the cells reopened. At this time, Snavely began representing plaintiffs in this aspect of the case. Plaintiffs opposed the reopening of the cells.
On November 20, 1978, I dissolved my injunction and permitted the Glass Cage to reopen. I found after a hearing that defendants had renovated the cells to the point where although they were still harsh, they met the constitutional minimum. It is significant that I found that most of the renovations took place in 1977. Also in 1977, defendants adopted explicit administrative procedures which reduced the number of inmates subjected to the Glass Cage and shortened the duration of most inmates’ stays there.
Thus, all of the benefits to the plaintiff class with respect to the Glass Cage were achieved before May 30, 1978. Snavely’s efforts to prevent the Glass Cage from reopening which began after that date produced no
2

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

tangible benefit to the plaintiff class. I rejected his contentions that the Glass Cage should remain closed forever or, in the alternative, that defendants be prohibited from confining psychiatrically disturbed inmates there. Under these circumstances, Snavely’s claim for compensation for 32.5 hours will be denied. Institutionalized Juveniles, 758 F.2d at 920.
B.
*4 Besides the Glass Cage issue, defendants challenge Snavely’s claim for 106 hours spent in 1977. Snavely spent those hours preparing a brief in response to those plaintiff class members who, through a court-appointed attorney, opposed the tentative Consent Decree. In their brief, defendants challenged those hours simply as being “excessive”. At oral argument, defendants also argued that these hours produced no benefit to the plaintiff class and so are not compensable. I will address the latter contention first.

Snavely need not show that particular hours produced particular benefits for the class. It is enough that his correspondence with class members produced information which led to plaintiffs’ first motion for contempt and the 1983 amendments to the Consent Decree. It is also significant that I myself referred many inmate complaints to Snavely. Where a court directs plaintiffs’ attorney to monitor compliance with the court’s order, compensation is especially warranted. Adams v. Mathis, 752 F.2d 553, 554 (11th Cir.1985).
D.
Defendants’ remaining contentions are that Snavely’s claims of hours spent on various tasks are excessive. Defendants offered no evidence to support these contentions. I have reviewed Snavely’s affidavits and most of the documents he produced in those hours. I see nothing which suggests to me his claimed hours are excessive.2

Without Snavely’s brief advocating my approval of the tentative Consent Decree, that Decree might well have never been approved. Plaintiffs would then have faced protracted litigation and an uncertain outcome. As the objectors’ brief itself makes clear, the tentative Consent Decree provided substantial benefits to the class in many areas. Defendants suggest that had Snavely never filed his brief, I would somehow have forced the defendants to accede to all the objectors’ demands. That is sheer and improbable speculation.
A significant part of Snavely’s brief was devoted to opposing defendants’ efforts to decertify the plaintiff class. Obviously Snavely’s success in preserving the class was an essential factor in achieving the benefits conferred upon plaintiffs by the Consent Decree.
Defendants produced no evidence to support their contention that Snavely’s 106 hours were excessive. I have reviewed the brief which Snavely produced in that time and his affidavit. I find nothing on the face of either document which suggests to me that 106 hours is excessive. One can hardly measure the worth of a brief by its length, as defendants suggest. A concise brief often takes longer to write than a verbose one, yet it is much more effective.
C.
Defendants contend that many hours which Snavely spent corresponding with plaintiff class members are not compensable because they produced no benefit for the class. Time spent monitoring compliance with a consent decree is compensable, provided it is spent reasonably. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. ––––, 92 L.Ed.2d 439, 452 (1986). In order to show that his monitoring efforts were reasonable,

IV.
Snavely has asked that I increase the lodestar by a factor of 1.5 on account of the contingent nature of the case and the quality of his work. While I respect both the quality of Mr. Snavely’s work and his perseverance in pursuing this case in the face of substantial risks, I cannot award him any such multiplier. The Supreme Court has made it clear that contingency and quality multipliers can be awarded only in rare cases, if ever, and only where the attorney presents exhaustive factual evidence in support of his or her claim. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, ––– U.S. ––––, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (contingency multipliers); Blum v. Witco, 829 F.2d 367, 379 (3d Cir.1987) (contingency multipliers); Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. ––––, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986) (quality multipliers). Snavely has not made the requisite showing.
V.
*5 A table prepared by Snavely summarizing his fee petition by year and hourly rate is appended to this memorandum. Defendants have not contested his hourly rates and I find them to be reasonable. I will grant his fee request except as follows:
1. The hours from 1978 are reduced by 32.5, reflecting the Glass Cage’s reopening. At his hourly rate of $70, this reduces his award by $2,275.
3

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

2. The hours from 1977 are reduced by 3.0, with Snavely’s consent, reflecting mistakenly included clerical chores. At his hourly rate of $65, this reduces his award by $195.
3. No multiplier is allowed.
Thus, defendants will be directed to pay John T. Snavely the sum of $30,832.25 as attorney’s fees.

Services Rendered and Sumary of Rate at Which Compensation Sought:
	  

1976–77	   	  	   	   1978	   	  	   	   1979	   	  	   	   1980	   	  	   	   1981	   	  	   	   1982	   	  	   	   1983	   	  	   	   1984	   	  	   	   1985	   	  	   	   1986	   	  	   	   1987	   	  	   	  
	  
Plus	  compiling	  and	  drafting	  Fee	  

142.60	  hours	  @	  $65.00/hr	   	  	   	   80.20	  hours	  @	  $70.00/hr	   	  	   	   61.05	  hours	  @	  $75.00/hr	   	  	   	   68.40	  hours	  @	  $80.00/hr	   	  	   	   24.90	  hours	  @	  $85.00/hr	   	  	   	   29.65	  hours	  @	  $90.00/hr	   	  	   	   4.30	  hours	  @	  $95.00/hr	   	  	   	   2.55	  hours	  @	  $100.00/hr*	   	  	  
	  
6.20	  hours	  @	  $100.00/hr*	   	  	  
	  
1.00	  hours	  @	  $100.00/hr*	   	  	  
	  
Litigation	  of	  2nd	  Motion	  for	   Contempt,	  etc.—no	  charge	  although	   counsel	  present	  throughout.	  $–0–	   	  	   	   Grand	  Total:	  420	  Hours	   	  	   	   	  

$	  9,269.00	   	  	   	   $	  5,614.00	   	  	   	   $	  4,578.75	   	  	   	   $	  5,472.00	   	  	   	   $	  2,116.50	   	  	   	   $	  2,668.50	   	  	   	   $	  408.50	   	  	   	  
$	  255.00	   	  	   	   $	  620.00	   	  	   	   $	  100.00	   	  	   	  
	  
$31,102.25	   	  	   	   	  

4

Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1988)

Application,	  Legal	  Memorandum	  of	   Entitlement	  and	  Affidavit	  (not	   including	  typing	  production)	   	  	   	   	  
	  
Lodestar	  Factor	  (Multiplier)	   Requested:	  +	  1.5	  X	  above	  total	  of	   $33,302.25	  yields	  total	  fee	  of:	   $49,953.38**	   	  	  
	  

22	  hours	  @	  $100.00/hr*	   	  	  
	  
TOTAL	  (“Lodestar”):	   	  	   	  
	  

$	  2,200.00	   	  	  
	  
$33,302.25	   	  	   	  
	  

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 1988, for reasons expressed in my accompanying memorandum, it is

ORDERED that the application of plaintiffs’ counsel John T. Snavely for attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: defendants shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, pay John T. Snavely the sum of $30,832.25.
	  

Footnotes

2

Snavely voluntarily withdrew his request for compensation for 3 hours spent on April 19, 1977, on clerical chores.

*

Mr. Snavely’s rate charged his own clients had never exceeded $100.00 per hour except in contingent fee cases.

1

The first petition was filed in 1979 by Jack Levine, who represented ICU from 1972 into 1975. The second petition was filed in

January, 1988 by Stefan Presser and Lorray Brown of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, who have represented

plaintiffs since 1985. My ruling on Jack Levine’s petition was reported at 473 F.Supp. 1017 (E.D.Pa.1979). My order concerning

the petition of Mr. Presser and Ms. Brown was filed on May 24, 1988.

** See discussion of “Lodestar” and “Lodestar” evaluation factor in legal memorandum submitted herewith at 12.

	  

5

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:70-cv-03054-JD

CLOSED

IMPRISONED CITIZENS, et al v. JOHNSON, et al Assigned to: HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS Demand: $0 Case in other court: 96-02175
97-01145 97-01179 97-01244 98-01536 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 11/04/1970 Date Terminated: 05/28/1978 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II P.O. BOX 216 LANSDOWNE, PA 19050 TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff HERBERT LANGNES, JR.

STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA 7803 ST. MARTIN'S LANE PHILADELPHIA, 19 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff MILTON TAYLOR

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Plaintiff JACK LOPINSON
Plaintiff MACKEY R. CHOICE
Plaintiff RICHARD. O.J. MAYBERRY
Plaintiff FRANK PATTERSON
2 of 103

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/17/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Plaintiff DANIEL DELKER
Plaintiff HAROLD A.X. BROOKS
Plaintiff CARLINE COEFIELD
Plaintiff THELMA SIMON
Plaintiff AUDREY MASON

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996

3 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Plaintiff SHARON WIGGINS
Plaintiff DOMINIC CODISPOTI
Plaintiff PHILIP HOUSEHOLDER
Plaintiff JAMES HARBOLD

LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

4 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Plaintiff JOSEPH OLIVER
Plaintiff PAUL LYONS
Plaintiff ROBERT BROWN
Plaintiff GERALD MAYO
Plaintiff

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

5 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

WELSLEY HARRIS
Plaintiff JAMES SZULCZEWSKI
V. Defendant GOVERNOR MILTON SHAPP STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/01/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 15TH FLOOR, STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717-787-3874 Fax: 717-772-4526 Email: ffilipi@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS P.O. BOX 598 CAMP HILL, PA 17011-0598 TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THREE SOUTH PENN SQUARE CORNER OF JUNIPER AND S. PENN PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107-3499 215-686-9607 Email: sarah.hart@phila.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997

6 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL J. SHANE CREAMER STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT L. JOHNSON STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION GRATERFORD PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant LEONARD MACK SUPERINTENDENT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DALLAS, PENNSYLVANIA

LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

7 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Defendant SUPERINTENDENT JAMES MURPHY STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MUNCY, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant SUPERINTENDENT ERSKINE DEREMUS STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION HUNTINGDON, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant DR. JOSEPH P. MAZURKIEWICZ SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ROCKVIEW, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant

represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY

8 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

SUPERINTENDENT JOSEPH BRIERLY STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant COMM. OF CORRECTIONS ALLYN R. SEILAFF
Intervenor Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 901 E STREET, N.W. ROOM 1040 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARY E. KOSTEL U.S. GOVERNMENT 901 E. STREET, N.W. FED. PROGRAMS BRANCH, ROOM 912 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

9 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Movant CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR.
Movant JAMES HARDWICK
Movant JEROME SILO
Movant STEVEN A. BLACKISTON
Movant BOBBY BRIGHTWELL
Movant JOHN A. NIGRO

represented by CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR. AK-6567 SCI - GRATERFORD P.O. BOX 244 GRATERFORD, PA 19426-0244 PRO SE
represented by JAMES HARDWICK AM9629 S.C.I. ROCKVIEW BOX A BELLEFONTE, PA 16823-0820 PRO SE
represented by JEROME SILO F3298 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION-PITTSBURGH P.O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by STEVEN A. BLACKISTON #AS2977 SCI GREEN 175 PROGRESS DRIVE WAYNESBURG, PA 15370 PRO SE
represented by BOBBY BRIGHTWELL M 5842 P.O. BOX 200 CAMP HILL, PA 17001-0200 PRO SE
represented by JOHN A. NIGRO CD-1017 SCI - CAMP HILL P.O. BOX 200 CAMP HILL, PA 17001-0200 PRO SE

10 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Movant DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I
Movant SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR.
Movant RAYMOND J. STANTON
Movant KEITH BRANCH
Movant SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR.
Movant GERALD MAYO #AD-8047 Movant LEROY J. LEVETT

represented by DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I AY-7513 P.O. BOX 244 GRATERFORD, PA 19426-0244 PRO SE
represented by SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. BLOCK B, AS-2871 SCI-DALLAS DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by RAYMOND J. STANTON BM 3057 SCI DALLAS DRAWER K E BLOCK 6 on 4 DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by KEITH BRANCH 1213 RIDGE AVENUE PHILADELPHIA, PA 19121 PRO SE
represented by SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. (See above for address) PRO SE
represented by LEROY J. LEVETT BI-0317 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE

11 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Movant SHELDON MILLER AS-2871
Movant ROBERT ANDERSON #AF4845
Movant ANGEL RODRIGUES BJ8105
Movant ALAN B. DAVIS #AF1282
Movant ALLEN J. BROWN
Movant

represented by SHELDON MILLER STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #AS2857 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by ROBERT ANDERSON AF4845 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #AF4845 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by ANGEL RODRIGUES BJ8105 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #BJ8105 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by ALAN B. DAVIS AF1282 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612-0286 PRO SE
represented by ALLEN J. BROWN AP-2532 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BOX A BELLEFONTE, PA 16823 PRO SE

12 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

MUHAMMAD KHALID EL-AMIN CF-3251
Movant CARLTON ESTES CG5607
Movant WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AP4826
Movant WAYNE O. AULTMAN AS0374
Movant WADE D. LEE BV8651
Movant GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP4884

represented by MUHAMMAD KHALID EL-AMIN STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #CF3251 P. O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by CARLTON ESTES STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #CG5607 P. O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AP4826 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION RD #2 BOX 10 GREENSBURG, PA 15601 PRO SE
represented by WAYNE O. AULTMAN AS-0374 P.O. BOX 244 GRATERFORD, PA 19426-0244 PRO SE
represented by WADE D. LEE BV8651 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP-4884 1040 E. ROY FURMAN HIGHWAY WAYNESBURG, PA 15370-8090 PRO SE

13 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Movant AC8297 JON E. YOUNT
Movant DAVID B. KOPAC
Movant DEREK S. SMITH
Movant GUY BICKLING
Movant JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER
Movant KENNETH W. TEATER

represented by JON E. YOUNT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DAVID B. KOPAC AP4900 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DEREK S. SMITH AY2053 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by GUY BICKLING AS1243 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER AY0262 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by KENNETH W. TEATER AF9460 STATE CORRECTIONAL

14 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

Movant GENE ALLEN

INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by GENE ALLEN AJ3390 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1040 EAST ROY FURMAN HIGHWAY WAYNESBURG, PA 15370-8090 PRO SE

Date Filed 11/04/1970
11/04/1970 11/04/1970 12/22/1970 12/28/1970 01/05/1971
01/12/1971

#

Docket Text

1 Affidavit by PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS, PLAINTIFF HERBERT LANGNES JR., PLAINTIFF MILTON TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF JACK LOPINSON, PLAINTIFF MACKEY R. CHOICE, PLAINTIFF RICHARD. O.J. MAYBERRY, PLAINTIFF FRANK PATTERSON, PLAINTIFF DANIEL DELKER, PLAINTIFF HAROLD A.X. BROOKS, PLAINTIFF CARLINE COEFIELD, PLAINTIFF THELMA SIMON, PLAINTIFF AUDREY MASON, PLAINTIFF SHARON WIGGINS, PLAINTIFF DOMINIC CODISPOTI, PLAINTIFF PHILIP HOUSEHOLDER, PLAINTIFF JAMES HARBOLD, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH OLIVER, PLAINTIFF PAUL LYONS, PLAINTIFF ROBERT BROWN, PLAINTIFF GERALD MAYO, PLAINTIFF WELSLEY HARRIS of poverty and ORDER GRANTING plff. leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (JL) (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)
Complaint. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
Summons(es) exit. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
2 ORDER that motion of Thomas M. High for leave to intervene as party plff is GRANTED. 12/23/70 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
3 ORDER that Albert Locke Jr. is GRANTED leave to intervene as party plff. 12/29/70 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
4 Summons returned on 12/15/70 deft's RAymond Shafer, Fred Speaker, Allyn Seilaff Commissioner of Corrections of Pa. served on 12/14/70 defts Joseph R. Brierley, Frank C. Johnston, Eugene Powell Supts Served on 12/21/70 served Alfred T. Rundle on 12/29/70 served Edward J. Hendricks Supt. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
5 ORDER that Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Edwin D. Wolf be appointed counsel for plff. 1/13/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

15 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

01/18/1971 01/19/1971 01/19/1971 01/19/1971 01/22/1971 02/01/1971 02/01/1971 02/04/1971 02/04/1971
02/04/1971 02/26/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971

6 Answer of deft. Edward J. Hendrick to complaint. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
MOTION of Louis C. Cathcart to join as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
MOTION of Louis C. Cathcart to join as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
7 MOTION of Louis C. Cathcart to join as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
8 Deft's Demand for jury trial . (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
9 MOTION of Willie Brooker TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
10 MOTION by Kenneth W. Owens Jr. TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
11 MOTION of Gary P. Bates FOR LEAVE to join as party plff. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
12 MOTION of Richard O.J. Mayberry, Willie L. Broker, Lester M. English Jr., Harry Davis, K.W. Owens, Jr. Charles Leftenant, Kenneth Garwin, Melvin Melvin, Paul L. Lyon, curtis Davis FOR LEAVE to join as party plff. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
13 MOTION of Richard O. J. Mayberry and Jeffery R. Mims to JOIN as party plffs. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
14 MOTION of Sylvester Lockhart Jr. TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
15 MOTION of K. W. Queus Jr. TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
17 MOTION of Carl X. Bailey TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
18 MOTION by Samuel Carter TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
19 MOTION of Dominick Codispoti TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
20 MOTION of Henri Bennett TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
21 MOTION by Donald Montgomery TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) Modified on 10/22/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)
22 MOTION of Doninick Codispoti TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
23 MOTION of Harvey Jones TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
24 MOTION of Richard Cromley TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

16 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/02/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971

25 MOTION of Robert Riley TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
26 MOTION of James Harbold TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
27 MOTION of Samuel Carter TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
28 MOTION by Paul H. Boley TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
29 MOTION of Julius Daniel Snowden TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
30 MOTION of Robert E. McGrogan TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
31 MOTION of Curtis Davis TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
32 MOTION of Paul L. Lyons TO INTERVENE as party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
33 ORDER that motion of Robert E. McGrogan for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of Class Action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
34 ORDER that motion of Julius D. Snowden for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the dtermination of Class Action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (JL). (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
35 ORDER that motion of Sylvester Lockhart, Jr. for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class Action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
36 ORDER that motion of K. W. Owens Jr. for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class Action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
37 ORDER that motion of Angus R. Everett Jr. for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a Class. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
38 ORDER that motion of Carl F. Bailey for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class Action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
39 ORDER that motion of Henri Bennett for leave to interven is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
40 ORDER that motion of Dominick Codispoti for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

17 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971

41 ORDER that motion of Donald Montgomery for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (JL). (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
42 ORDER that motion of Harvey Jones for leave to interven is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
43 ORDER that motion of Robert Riley for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
44 ORDER that motion of Richard Cromley for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
45 ORDER that motion of James Harbold for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
46 ORDER that motion of Samuel Carter for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
47 ORDER that motion of Paul H. Bailey Jr. for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
48 ORDER that motion of Curtis Davis for leave to interven is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
49 ORDER that motion of Melvin Carter for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
50 ORDER that motion of Kenneth Garwin for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
51 ORDER that motion of Charles Lefteant for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
52 ORDER that motion of Harry Davis for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
53 ORDER that motion of Lester M. English Jr. for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
54 ORDER that motion of Jeffrey R. Mims for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

18 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971 03/04/1971
03/04/1971 03/04/1971 04/07/1971 04/27/1971 05/18/1971 05/21/1971 05/21/1971 06/18/1971 07/02/1971 08/18/1971 08/27/1971

55 ORDER that motion of Gary P. Bates for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
56 ORDER that motion of Willie Brooker for leave to intervene is hled in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
57 ORDER that motion of Louis C. Cathcart for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
58 ORDER that motion of Paul T. Lyons for leave to intervene is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
59 ORDER that Order of 12/22/70 granting Thomas M. High leave to intervene VACATED and motion is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
60 ORDER that Order of 12/28/70 granting Albert Locke Jr. leave to interven class action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
61 ORDER that motion of Richard O.J. Mayberry for leave to intervene as party plff. is held in abeyance pending determination of a Class Action. 3/5/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
62 Deft's MOTION TO DISMISS , MEMORANDUM in support thereof. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
63 MOTION of defts' TO DISMISS , and MEMORANDUM in Support. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
64 Petition and Order granting Samuel carter leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 5/19/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
65 Petition of Russell Brown to intervene and affidavit of verification. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
66 ORDER that motion of R. Brown for leave to intervene as a party plff. is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 5/24/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
67 Request of K.W. Owens, Jr. for counsels withdrawal and affidavit. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
68 MOTION of Mayberry FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER . (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
69 Application of Edwin D. Wolf, Esq. to withdraw as counsel for William F. Stewart, et al. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
70 MOTION TO DISMISS counsel and to proceed in propria persona. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

19 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/27/1971
08/30/1971 11/05/1971 11/11/1971
12/08/1971 12/08/1971 12/17/1971
01/10/1972 02/04/1972 02/15/1972
03/14/1972 03/21/1972 04/10/1972 04/10/1972 04/20/1972

ORDER dated 8/26/71 permitting E.D. Wolf, Esq. and The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to withdraw as counsel for Imprisoned Citizens Union and its members, etc. 8/30/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (see doc.# 69) (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
70 A. MOTION of certain plffs. TO DISMISS Counsel and to proceed in propria persona. (lm) Modified on 10/22/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)
71 MOTION of F. Phelan, et al. TO WITHDRAW from suit. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
72 ORDER that letter dated 10-29-71 and executed by F. Phelan, et al be treated as a motion to opt out of class action and as such the motion is GRANTED and said F. Phelan, et al shall no longer be considered members of the class. 11/12/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
73 Appearance of L.A. Richette, Esq., T. B. Harvey III, Esq. and J. Levine, Esq. for plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
74 Petition to permit plff's counsel's investigators access to correctional facilities and certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
74 A. ORDER permitting Robert Ajello, et al access to the State Correctional Institutions of the Comm. of PA for interviewing inmates, etc. () 12/20/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 10/22/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)
75 Withdrawal of appearance of Lisa Aversa Richette, Esq. as counsel for the Imprisoned Citizens' Union, et al. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
76 Appearance of C. E. Temin, Esq. for plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
77 Plffs' MOTION to retain plff. Mayberry in custody at Holmesburg & Order dated 2/14/72 that Richard Mayberry be retained in custody at the Phila. County Prison at Holmesburg, PA pending further order of this court. 2/16/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
78 Copy of ORDER consolidating C.A. 71-1006 for all purposes with this action an re-assigned to the Hon. Joseph S. Lord, III. 3/15/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
79 Complaint of K.W. Owens, Jr. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
80 MOTION of J. H. Vaughn FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party-plaintiff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
81 ORDER that motion of J.H. Vaughn for leave to intervene as a party-plff. is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 4/14/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
82 Supplemental ORDER that the order of 12/17/71 granting access to R. Ajello, et al and others to State Correctional Institutions be supplemented to include K. Swanger, et al. for purpose of interviewing inmates at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, PA. 4/21/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)

20 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/03/1972
05/03/1972 05/08/1972 05/09/1972 05/15/1972 05/23/1972 05/23/1972
05/23/1972 05/23/1972
05/23/1972 05/23/1972
05/26/1972
06/09/1972
06/29/1972 07/27/1972 07/27/1972
08/02/1972

83 ORDER that the motion of H. Trowbridge for leave to intervene as a party-plff. is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 5/4/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
84 MOTION of H. Trowbridge FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
85 Amended complaint. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
86 ORDER of Court amending caption. 5/10/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
87 Appearance of T. W. Jennings, Esq. for defts., (Amended Complaint). (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
88 MOTION of R.C. Schultz FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
89 ORDER that motion of R. C. Schultz for leave to intervene as a party plff. is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 5/24/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
90 MOTION of V. Nielsen FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
91 ORDER that motion of V. Nielsen for leave to tinervene as a party plff. be held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 5/24/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
92 MOTION of J. J. Pletcher FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
93 ORDER that motion of J.J. Pletcher for leave to intervene as a party plff. be held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 5/24/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
94 ORDER that the caption of the amended complaint be amended to exclude Jack Lopinson as a plff. and that J. Lopinson is excluded from the class. 5/30/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
95 ORDER dated 6/8/72 that motion of James Wilkinson for leave to intervene as party-plff is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 6/12/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
96 Answer of defts. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
97 MOTION of R. Meholchick FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party-plaintiff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
98 ORDER that the motion of R. Meholchick for leave to interven as a party-plaintiff is held in abeyance until the determination of a class action. 7/28/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
ORDER consolidating this action with C.A. 71-513 (C.A. 71-513) (TM) (lm) Modified on 10/22/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)

21 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/02/1972 08/02/1972 08/08/1972 08/08/1972 09/08/1972 09/08/1972 09/08/1972 09/08/1972 09/14/1972 09/19/1972 10/17/1972
10/17/1972 10/20/1972 10/20/1972 10/20/1972
10/20/1972
10/20/1972
10/27/1972 10/27/1972

99 Plffs. MOTION TO DETERMINE class action, memorandum and notice. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
100 Plffs. MOTION for sealed correspondence with the class and notice. (lm) Modified on 10/22/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)
Plffs' MOTION to give Richard O.J. Mayberry status of co-counsel in this suit and Notice thereof. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
101 Plffs' MOTION to give Richard O. J. Mayberry status of co-counsel in this suit and Notice thereof. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
102 ORDER that J. Pletcher be dropped as a party-plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
103 Answer of defts. to motion to determine class action and memorandum. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
104 Answer of defts. to motion to five plff. Mayberry the status of co-counsel and memorandum. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
105 Answer of defts. to motion for sealed correspondence with the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
106 ORDER fixing 9/19/72 at 10:00 a.m. on certain motions of plffs. 9/18/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
Argued sur motion of plffs. to maintain suit as a Class Action continued to 9/25/72 at 10:00 a.m. (lm) Modified on 10/22/1996 (Entered: 10/22/1996)
107 ORDER that motion of Rodney A. Garlock for leave to intervene as party-plff. is held in abeyance until the determination of class action. 10/18/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
108 MOTION of Rodney A. Garlock FOR LEAVE to intervene as a party-plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/22/1996)
109 Report of Pretrial Conference, Lord, III, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
110 Appearance of Bruce E. Endy, Esq. for plffs. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
111 ORDER that defts., etc. are order to grant entrance to certain persons to the State Correctional Institutions at Pittsburgh et al. 10/24/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
99 A. ORDER that plffs. motion that the instant suit be maintained as Class Acton on behalf of themselves and all other persons who are now or will be incarcerated in the Penna. State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, et al is granted. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
101 A. ORDER denying motion to give R. O.J. Mayberry status of co-counsel etc. 10/24/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
112 Appearance of Leonard Packel, Esq. for defts. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
113 ORDER that plffs. have sealed correspondence with their attorneys, etc. 10/30/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)

22 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

10/27/1972 11/20/1972
11/20/1972 11/20/1972
11/20/1972 11/21/1972
11/21/1972 11/22/1972 11/22/1972 11/22/1972 11/22/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972

114 ORDER approving attached for of notice as notice to be sent to members of plff. class, etc. () 10/30/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
115 ORDER that letter of Josep Montanez, dated 11/15/72 be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class the said Jose Montanezis no longer considered a member of the class. 11/21/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
116 Notification of J. Montanez to opt out of the class. (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
117 ORDER that letter of Vincent A. Kuhn, dated 11-17-72 be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said Vincent A. Kuhn is no longer considered a member of the class. 11/21/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
118 Notification of V. A. Kuhn to opt out of the class. (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
119 ORDER that letter of David Tyrrell, dated 11/20/72 be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said David Tyreell is no longer considered a member of the class. 11/22/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
120 Notification of D. Tyrell to opt out of the class. (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
121 Appearance of Joanna K. Weinberg, Esq. for Milton Humphrey. (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
122 MOTION of M. Humphrey FOR LEAVE to intervene as intervenor plff., notice of motion and Order granting same. (kv) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
122 A. ORDER that Intervenor plff's motion for a temporary restraining order be granted, etc. and memorandum. (kv) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
122 B. Complaint of intervenor plff. Milton Humphrey and motion for temporary restraining order and affidavit. (lm) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
123 ORDER that letter of W. Vickers, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said W. Vickers in no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
123 A. Notification of William Vickers to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
124 ORDER that letter of E.W. Caylor, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said E.W. Caylor is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
124 A. Notification of Eli William caylor to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
125 ORDER that letter of J. Beyer, et al., etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said J. Beyer, et al. are no longer considered members of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)

23 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972

125 A. Notification of Joan Beyer, et al to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
126 ORDER that letter of R.H. Esser, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said R.H. Esser is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
126 A. Notification of Robert Harry Esser to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
127 ORDER that letter of C.L. Kocher, Sr., etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said C.L. Kocher, Sr. is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
127 A. Notification of Curtis L. Kocher, Sr. to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
128 ORDER that letter of L. F. Rogozinski, Sr. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said L.F. Rogozinski, Sr.is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
128 A. Notification of Lawrence F. Rogozinski, Sr. to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
129 ORDER that letter of M.E. Cross be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said M.E. Cross is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
129 A. Notification of Merval E. Cros to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
130 ORDER that the letter of H. E. Umholtz, Jr. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said H.E. Umboltz, Jr. is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
130 A. Notification of Hary E. Umboltz, jr. to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
131 ORDER that letter of M. Walzack be docketed as a notification to opt out of the clas and the said M. Walzack is no longer considered a member of the Class (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
131 A. Notification of Michael Walzack to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
132 ORDER that the letter of A. Takacs etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said A. Takacs is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
132 A. Notification of Anthony Takacs to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
133 ORDER that letter of P.e. Nouse, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said P. E. Nouse is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)

24 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972 11/28/1972

133 A. Notification of Philip Eugene Nouse to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
134 ORDER that the letter of R.W. Gillespie, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said R.W. Gillespie is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
134 A. Notification of Richard W. Gillespie to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
135 ORDER that letter of M. Diamond, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said M. Diamond is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
135 A. Notification of Michael Damond to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
136 ORDER that letter of O.E. Pearson, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said O. E. Pearson is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
136 A. Notification of Oscar E. Pearson to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
137 ORDER that letter of J. R. Thomas, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and said J.R. Thomas is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
137 A. Notification of Jerome R. Thomas to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
138 ORDER that letter of D.O. Pack, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said D.O. Pack is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
138 A. Notification of Donald O. Pack to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
139 ORDER that the letter of H. Brewer etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said H. Brewer is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
139 A. Notification of Henry Brewer to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
140 ORDER that letter of C. Richardson, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said C. Richardson is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
140 A. Notifacation of Clair Richardson to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
141 ORDER that the letter of R.P. Budd, etc. be docketed as a notification opt out of the class and the said R.P. Budd is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)

25 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/28/1972 11/28/1972
11/28/1972 11/28/1972
11/28/1972 11/28/1972
11/28/1972 11/30/1972
11/30/1972 11/30/1972
11/30/1972 11/30/1972
11/30/1972 11/30/1972
11/30/1972 12/06/1972
12/06/1972

141 A. Notification of Russell P. Budd to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
142 ORDER that the letter of S. Pavkovich etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said S. Pavkovich is no longer considered a member of the calss. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
142 A. Notification of S. Pavkovich to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
143 ORDER that the letter of B. Clark, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said B. Clark is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
143 A. Notification of Blair Clark to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
144 ORDER that letter of J. Baiardi, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said J. Baiardi is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
144 A. Notification of Joseph Baiardi to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
145 ORDER that letter of C.C. Patrick and G. Smith, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said C.C. Patrick, et al are no longer considered members of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
145 A. Notification of Charles C. Patrick and George Smith to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
146 ORDER that letter of J.J. Telford, etc. be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said J.J. Telford is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
146 A. Notification of Joseph J. Telrd to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
147 ORDER that letter of J.W. Casebaum be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said J.W. Cassebaum is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
147 A. Notification of Joseph Warren Cassebaum to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
148 ORDER that letter of W. Ross be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said W. Ross is no longer considered a member of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
148 A. Notification of Wilbur Ross to opt out of the clss. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
149 ORDER that the note of Harvey Frazier, not dated but received 12/6/72, be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said Harvey Frazier is no longer considered a member of the class. 12/7/72 entered and copies Mailed. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
150 Notification of Harvey Frazier to opt out of the Class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)

26 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/11/1972
12/11/1972 12/20/1972
12/20/1972 02/05/1973 02/15/1973 03/14/1973
03/14/1973 03/29/1973
04/09/1973 04/16/1973 04/16/1973 04/16/1973 04/19/1973 04/19/1973 06/07/1973 06/29/1973 07/03/1973 07/17/1973

151 ORDER that letter of W. H. Neikirk be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said W. H. Neikirk is no longer considered a member of the class. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
152 Notification of Walter H. Neikirk to out of the class. (lm) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
153 ORDER that letter of L.S. Perva be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said L.S. Perva is no longer considered a member of the class. 12/21/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
154 Notification of Larry S. Perva to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
155 5 Plffs. Interrogatories. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
156 Appearance of Harry F. Swanger, Esq. for plffs. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
157 ORDER that letter of G.A. Leamer be docketed as a notification to opt out of the class and the said G.A. Leamer is no longer considered a member of the class. 3/14/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
158 Notification of Glenn A. Leamer to opt out of the class. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
159 ORDER that defts., etc. are ordered to grant entrance of Aggie Murray, et al to the State Correctional Institutions at Pittsburgh, et al or purpose of interviewing inmates, etc. 3/30/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
160 ORDER that all counsel appear for a conference in chambers on 4/18/73 at 4:00 p.m. 4/11/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
161 Plffs. MOTION TO COMPEL answers to interrogatories, certification of notice and service and notice. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
162 Answer to motion to compel answers to interrogatories. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
163 Defts. Interrogatories. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
164 Report of Pretrial Conference, Lord, III, Ch. J. re case to be specially listed for trial in Sept., etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
161 A. ORDER withdrawing plffs. motion to compel answers to interrogatories. (JL) (lm) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
165 Affidavit of Joseph Fleischmann. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
Plffs' MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION and NOTICE thereof. (70-2545). (lm) Modified on 10/23/1996 (Entered: 10/23/1996)
166 Appearance of Michael L. Rosenfield, Esq. as co-counsel for Imprison Citizens Union. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
ORDER granting motion for consolidation and C.A. 70-2545 is consolidated into C.A. 70-3054 (C.A. 70-2545) 7/18/73 ENTERED AND COPIES. (lm) (Entered:

27 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/13/1973 08/21/1973
08/24/1973 09/18/1973 09/18/1973 09/27/1973 10/02/1973 01/04/1974 01/04/1974 01/09/1974
01/09/1974
01/09/1974
01/09/1974
01/09/1974
01/14/1974 01/15/1974 01/16/1974 01/17/1974

10/23/1996)
167 Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
168 ORDER that action is specially listed for trial without jury before Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III on 10-9-73 at 10:00 am. 8/22/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
169 Withdrawal of appearance of C.E. Temin, Esq. for plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
170 Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch. J. re: trial date be rescheduled to early 1974. (lm) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
DUE TO ERROR THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL COURT PAPER FILE FROM # 171 THRU # 179. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
180 ORDER dated 9/25/73 appointing C.E. Temin, Esq. as counsel for plff. class. 9/28/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
181 ORDER/rescheduling action for trial without jury on 1/2/74 at 10:00 a.m. 10/3/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
182 Report of Pretrial Conference, Lord, III, J. Trial set for 1/14/74. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Non-Jury Trial - Witness sworn. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
183 ORDER that the Warden of State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon and the U.S. Marshal for the East. Dist. of PA. PRODUCE Dominic Codispoti on 1-14-74., etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
184 ORDER that the Warden of State Correctional Institution at Muncy and the U.S. Marshal for the East. Dist. of PA PRODUCE Marilyn Dobrolensky of 1/14/74, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
185 ORDER that the Warden of State Correctonal Institution at Graterford and the U.S. Marshal for the East. Dist of PA PRODUCE Herbert Langnes on 1/14/74, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
186 ORDER that the Warden of State Correctional Institution at Graterford and the U.S. Marshal for the East. Dist. of PA PRODUCE James Sculczewski on 1/14/74, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
187 ORDER that the Warden of State Correctional Institution at Dallas and the U.S. Marshal for the East. Dist. of PA PRODUCE Richard O.J. Mayberry on 1/14/74, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
188 ORDER that the Warden of the State Correctional Institution at Muncy PRODUCE Sharon Wiggins on 1/15/74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

28 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

01/21/1974 01/22/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/16/1974
05/24/1974 05/30/1974
05/30/1974
05/30/1974
06/06/1974
06/06/1974
06/06/1974
06/08/1974 06/09/1974 06/10/1974 07/29/1974
09/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/17/1974 09/17/1974

Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Case adjourned sine die. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 1/14/74 (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 1/15/74 (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 1-16-74 (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 1/17/74 (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 1/21/74 (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 1/22/74 (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
189 Withdrawal of appearance of B.E. Endy, Esq. for plffs. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
190 Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
191 ORDER that the Warden of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, PA PRODUCE Mr. M. Szulczewski on 6/12/74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
192 ORDER that the Warden to The State Correctional Institution at Graterford PRODUCE Mr. H. Langnes, Jr. on 6/12/74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
193 ORDER that the Warden of The State Correction Institution at Dallas, PA PRODUCE Mr. R. O. J. Mayberry on 6/12/74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
194 ORDER that the Warden of The State Correctional Institution at Graterford, PA produce H. Langnes, Jr. on 7-8-74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
195 ORDER the the Warden of The State Correctional Institution at Dallas, PA PRODUCE R.O. J. Mayberry on 7/8/74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
196 ORDER that the Warden of The State Correctional Institution at Graterford, PA PRODUCE J. Szulczewski on 7/8/74 for trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Trial resumes (Non-Jury). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
197 Affidavit of Gerald L. Lightcap re: Correction of testimony given on 7/9/74. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 7/8/74 (C.A. 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 7/9/74, (C.A. 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 7/10/74, (C.A. 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
198 Plffs. MOTION TO AMEND Complaint. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
198 A. ORDER amending complaint by deleting all allegations and requests for relief fegarding use of civilian clothing by inmates etc. 9/18/74 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)

29 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

09/20/1974 10/04/1974
10/29/1974 11/01/1974 11/01/1974 11/04/1974 11/04/1974 12/13/1974 01/09/1975 01/14/1975
01/30/1975 01/30/1975 02/21/1975 03/04/1975 03/19/1975
03/19/1975
03/19/1975 04/09/1975
04/14/1975

199 ORDER fixing 10-11-74 for final argument. 9/23/74 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
200 ORDER that parties file requests for findings of fact and conclusions oflaw and briefs not later than 11/1/74 and oral argument thereon be had on 11/4/74. 107/74 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
201 ORDER that the Warden of State Correctional Institution at Graterford produce Herbert Langnes on 11/4/74 to appear for plffs., etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
202 Plffs. proposed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Defts. PROPOSED OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. (C.A. 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Final Argument. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
203 Report of Settlement Conference, Lord, III, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 11/4/74. (C.A. 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
204 Petitioner's letter of 1/2/75 to have a copy of his notes of testimony and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
205 ORDER that the motion of Clarence Marshall for copy of the notes of testimony is DENIED. 1/15/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
206 Notice of appeal by Clarence Marshall, Jr. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
207 Copy of Clerk's notice to U. S. Court of Appeals. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
ORDER fixing Feb. 27, 1975 for conference (C.A. 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Record transmitted to Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals. (Documents 204, 205, 206 & 207) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
207 A. Certified copy of order, U.S. Court of Appeals, that the appeal in this case be docketed and the record filed out of time. (3/30/75 entered and copy to J. Lord) (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)
208 Certified copy of order, U.S. Court of Appeals, granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denying the motion for trial transcript and DISMISSING the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Copy to Judge Lord) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Record on appeal returned. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
209 ORDER that a conference be held on Wednesday April 16, 1975 at 4:30 PM in chambers with all counsel in attendance. 4/11/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
210 Withdrawal of appearance of Thomas B. Harvey, Jr., Esq. for plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

30 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/14/1975
04/15/1975
04/16/1975
04/29/1975 04/30/1975 08/05/1975
08/13/1975
08/29/1975
09/09/1975
09/19/1975 12/11/1975 12/11/1975 01/08/1976 02/28/1976
03/23/1976 03/23/1976 03/24/1976 03/31/1976 04/06/1976
04/08/1976 04/08/1976
04/08/1976

211 Appearance of Gilbert M. Cantor, Esq. on behalf of plff. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
212 Appearance of J. Andrew Smyser, Esq. in place of Benjamin Lerner. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
213 Notice of Withdrawal of appearance of Michael L. Rosenfield as Co-Counsel for plaintiffs. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Transcript of 2/27/75 filed (C.A. 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
214 Report of status report. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
214 A. ORDER that a conference be held on 8/13/75. 8/6/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)
215 Report of conference - Conference cancelled at reqeust of plaintiff counsel. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
216 ORDER dated 8/8/75 that the U.S. Marshal provide transportation for Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III from Phila., PA to Dallas and Huntingdon, PA and return during week of 8/11/75, costs to be paid from court funds. 9/2/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
ORDER that a conference be held on 9/18/75 at 10:00 a.m. (CA 70-2545) 9/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
217 Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Error no offical court paper no. 218. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
219 Report of status report. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
220 Report of Status Report Lord, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Brief of Defts in reponse to brief of Amicus Curiae in support of objections to proposed settlement (CA 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
221 Objections to consent decree of Ulyssess Tate. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
222 Objection to consent decree of DAryl Brown. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
223 Objection of Ronald Riley et al to consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
224 Objection to consent dedree of Ulysses Tate, et al. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
225 MOTION of George J. Feigley TO AMEND Settlement and Memorandum of law, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
226 Proposed consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
227 Objections of Robert Gunsallins et al to consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
228 Objection of K. Owens et al to consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

31 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/08/1976
04/12/1976 04/27/1976 10/11/1976 12/16/1976
01/27/1977 04/19/1977
05/20/1977
06/21/1977 07/26/1977 09/12/1977 10/13/1977 11/22/1977
11/22/1977 12/20/1977 12/22/1977 01/13/1978 02/03/1978 02/09/1978

226 A. CONSENT DECREE of 4/8/76 is approved as modified by Order of 5/22/78. 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)
229 Plffs MOTION for trial before a three judge panel. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
230 Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
234 Report of status report held by Chief Judge Lord. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
MEMORANDUM, Lrod, Ch.J., RE: impossible for the Court to amend the Consent Decree, etc. (70-2545). 12/17/76 entered and copies mailed. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Appearance of John T. Snavely on behalf of plffs. (CA 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Plffs' Brief of class in response to brief of Amicus Curiae in support of objectins to proposed settlement and further responding to brief of defts in response to brief of Amicus Curiae. (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
ORDER that a conf. will be held in chambers (17614) on 6/20/77 at 10:00 a.m. with all counsel of record in attendance JL/ck. 5/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
231 Report of Status Report, Lord,III, Ch.J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Imprisoned Citizens Union's Objection to consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
233 ORDER fixing 9/23/77 at 11:00 a.m. for conference. 9/13/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
235 Appearance of Alan J. Davis, as Amicus Curiae (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
236 ORDER dated 11/21/77 that the motion of defts' to decertify this as a class action is DENIED, the letter dated 2/14/77 from the Commonwealth of Pa. seeking leave to withdraw the consent of the defts' to the proposed Consent Decree shall be docketed as a motion to withdraw such consent motion is DENIED. 11/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
237 Commonwealth defts' letter dated 2/14/77 motion to withdraw consent. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
238 Stipulation and ORDER re: libraries at state correctional institutions. 12/21/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
239 ORDER dated 12/21/77 that a conference be held on 1/12/78 at 3 PM, etc. 12/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
240 Status report, hearing set for 2/7/78. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
241 Withdrawal of appearance of David L. Hill, Esq. for plaintiffs. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
242 ORDER fixing hearing for 2/24/78 at 10:00 a.m. 2/10/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

32 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

02/27/1978 05/22/1978
05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/26/1978 05/28/1978 05/30/1978 06/07/1978 06/07/1978
08/07/1978 08/31/1978 09/18/1978 09/22/1978 09/22/1978 10/16/1978

243 Hearing on approval of consent decree 2/24/78 on motion of Alan Davis, Francis R. Filipi & Michael H. Garrety are sworn & admit the Bar of this Court, witnesses sworn, CAV. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
244 Stipulation & ORDER that Sections VI & VII of proposed consent Deccree at pp. the amendment of Administrative Directive 803 will be revised to strike word "libelous or" etc., 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
245 ORDER that deft's must provide an adequate law library at Graterford et al. 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
246 ORDER that counsel report to chambers on 5/26/78 at 3:30 p.m. to discuss status of case & distribution of consent decree. 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
247 ORDER that proposed Consent Decree filed 4/8/78 is APPROVED with certain modifications. 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
ORDER dated 5/26/78 that defts are enjoined from confining any in the Glass Cage, etc. 5/30/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
248 Report of settlement conference. (JL.Clk.) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
249 OPINION, Lord, Chief, J. 6/7/78 entered and copies mailed. (lm) Modified on 10/24/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)
250 MOTION of defts FOR NEW TRIAL or Amendment of judgment under Rule 59 of F.R.C.P. as to the issue of the use by defts of three cells at S.C.I. Huntingdon, notice and memorandum of law in support, certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Stipulation and order dated 8/2/78 that the Consent Decree is AMENDED, etc. 8/7/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
251 Reply to plffs' answer to defts' motion for new trial or amended or judgment under Rule 59 or F.R.C.P. as to the issue of the by defts of three cells at S.C.I. Huntingdon and certificate service. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
252 ORDER that argument on the motion of deft's for new trial or amendment of under Rule 59, etc. shall be had on 9/22/78 at 120:00 a.m. in courtroom 17-A. 9/19/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
253 Argued Sur: Motion for new trial -- Further hearing is needed and will be scheduled. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
254 ORDER dated 9/22/78 that hearing on the motin of defts for new trial or amendment of judgment shall be had on 10/6/78 at 10:00 a.m. 9/25/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL.Clk) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
255 ORDER dated 10/16/78 that the Warden of S.C.I. at Dallas produce Robert Moses Africa on 10/27/78 at 10:00 a.m., etc., JL 10/17/78 entered and copies

33 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

10/16/1978
10/27/1978 11/21/1978 11/21/1978
12/11/1978
12/11/1978 12/26/1978
01/15/1979 01/23/1979 02/07/1979
02/23/1979 02/26/1979 03/01/1979
04/05/1979
04/20/1979 04/23/1979 06/19/1979

mailed. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
256 ORDER dated 10/16/78 that a hearing on the motion of defts for new trial or amendment of judgment under Rule 59 is scheduled for 10/27/78 at 10:00 a.m. 10/17/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
257 Hearing on: Motion for New Trial--witnesses sworn--CAV. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
258 OPINION, Lord, Ch.J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
259 ORDER that our judgment of 5/20/78 enjoining continued use of the Glass Cage at Huntingdon be and hereby is SUSPENDED so long as imporoved conditions in the observation facility are maintained. 11/21/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
MOTION OF JACK LEVINE FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT AND AFFIDAVIT. (CA 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
Defts' Memorandum in opposition to plffs' former counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
260 ORDER DATED 12/22/78 THAT A CONFERENCE IS SCHUDULED FOR 1/19/79 AT 3:00 P.M. 12/26/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL.CLK (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)
261 Petitioner's copy of Complaint filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, U.S. District Court. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
262 Report of Status Report. JL.CLK (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
263 ORDER DATED 2/7/79 THAT A CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 2/23/79 AT 2:00 P.M., 2/7/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL.CLK) (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
STATUS CALL, LORD, CH.J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
264 Report of Status Report. JL.CLK (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
265 MOTION OF JACK LEVINE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
266 ORDER FIXING 4/20/79 AT 2 PM IN COURTROOM 17-A FOR HEARING ON PLFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 4/5/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
265 A. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law re: Counsel fees of Jack J. Levin, Esq. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/24/1996)
266 Argued sur: plff's motion for summary judgment as to atty's fees, C.A.V. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
267 Opinion Lord III, Ch.J. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)

34 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/19/1979
07/02/1979
09/19/1979 09/21/1979
12/17/1979 12/19/1979 01/08/1980 01/24/1980 02/01/1980
02/14/1980 02/22/1980
02/22/1980 02/25/1980 04/08/1980

268 ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF JACK LEVINE, ESQ. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PETITION AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE SUM OF $10,374.75 PLUS $630.59 COSTS. 6/20/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
269 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DISMISSAL OR DISPOSAL OF THESE MATTERS. 7/3/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
270 J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Attorney General petition for leave to withdraw appearance for deft. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
270 A. ORDER THAT J. ANDREW SMYSER, ASSIT. ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHDRAW APPEARANCE AND FRANCIS R. FILIPI, ASSIST ATTORNEY GENERAL ENTER HIS APPEARANCE. 9/21/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
271 Deft's Memorandum in opposition to Mr. Levine's motion concerning supplement counsel fees. (lm) (Entered: 10/24/1996)
272 PLFFS' MOTION CONCERNING SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM IS SUPPORT, AFFIDAVIT OF JACK J. LEVINE, ESQ. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
273 STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSENT DECREE. 1/9/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
274 JACK LEVINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
275 ORDER THAT DEFTS' SHALL BE PERMITTED TO FILE THEIR RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR IS FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT JUDGMENT ON 2/25/80. () 2/1/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
276 Affidavit of Susan Arnhold re: she served copies of plffs' Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment upon counsel. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
274 A. ORDER THAT JACK LEVINE IS AWARDED SUPPLEMENTAL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,250.00 PLUS $300.00 FEES AND COSTS, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,550.00. 2/22/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
277 PLFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR CONTEMPT JUDGMENT, NOTICE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
278 Deft's brief in opposition to motion for issuance of order to show cause why defts should not be adjudged in contempt of the consent decree of this Court dated 5/22/78. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
279 Plffs' supplemental memorandum in response to defts' brief in opposition to motion for issuance of order to show cause why defts should not be adjudged in

35 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/20/1980 07/14/1980 07/15/1980
07/16/1980 07/22/1980 07/23/1980 07/24/1980 09/11/1980 09/11/1980 09/11/1980 09/11/1980
10/28/1980
11/13/1980 12/03/1980

contempt. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
280 Plffs' supplemental affidavits and exhibits in support of motion and proposed show cause order for contempt of consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
281 Defts' Demand for jury trial on plff's motion for issuance of order to show cause for contempt judgment. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
282 ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT SECREE IS DET FOR 7/28/80 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A ETC., (C.A. 70-2545) 7/15/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
283 Appearance of Sherree L. Sturgis, Esq. on behalf of defts. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
284 Plff's brief in opposition to demand for a jury trial on plff's motion for issuance of order to show cause and for contempt judgment. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
285 Defts' memorandum of law in support of their demand for a jury trial. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
286 DEFTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING , NOTICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
287 Appearance of Jose Hernandez-Cuebas, Deputy Attorney General for deft. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
288 Argued Sur: deft's motion for jury trial on contempt proceddings, Motion denied, order entered. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
289 ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS DENIED. 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
277 ORDER THAT DEFTS ARE ORDERED TO ANSWER AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD ON BE ADJUDGED IN CIVIL AND CRIM. CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT FOR HAVING VIOLATED AND DISREGARED THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THIS COURT OF 5/22/78, ETC. 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
290 ORDER THAT THIS ACTION IS SPECIALLY LISTED FOR A HEARING ON 12/3/80 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A, U.S. COURTHOUSE, PHILA., PA BEFORE THE HON. HOSEPH S. LORD CHIEF JUDGE, DEFTS SHALL SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR HAVING VIOLATED AND DISREGARDED THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THIS COURT OF 5/22/80. 10/28/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
291 Appearance of A. Charles Peruto, Esq. for William B. Robinson. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
292 PETITION OF FRANCIS R. FILIPI, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WITHDRAW APPEARNCE. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)

36 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/03/1980 12/03/1980 03/31/1981
11/09/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981

293 PETITION OF SHERREE L. STRUGIS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
294 PETITION OF JOSE HERNANDEZ-CUEBAS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
295 ORDER THAT THIS ACTION IS REFERRED TO THE HON WILLIAM F. HALL, JR., U.S. MAGISTRATE TO DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: WHETHER VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE ARE OCCURRING AND WHETHER WHETHER ANY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ARE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT OR ARE EITHER INSTITUTION-WIDE OR STATE WIDE, ETC. 3/31/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
296 ORDER DATED THAT COUNSEL APPEAR FOR A CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT ON 11/12/81 AT 10:00 A.M. IN RM. 5918. 10/9/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
297 Letter dated 9/29/81 from Raynor Colonna to Judge re: filing a civil right complaint. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
298 Letter dated 5/21/81 from Paul B. Owens to Mag. Hall re: consent decree at Huntingdon institution is being violated. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
299 Letter dated 4/14/81 to Judge Lord from Paul B. Owens re: deft's are in violation of the consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
300 Letter dated 3/16/81 to Andrew T. Rodgers from Deputy Clerk re: letter of 3/13/81. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
301 Letter dated 10/27/81 to Judge Lord from Raynor J. Colonna re: threat of being transferred to distant institution. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
302 Letter dated 11/6/81 to Judge Lord from John Glessner re: requests slips incoming mail. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
303 Letter dated 11/27/81 to Mag. Hall from Bruce Martin re: applicable document relative to the original Official Inmate Complaint (Form BC-140). (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
304 Letter dated 11/27/81 to Mr. Snavely from Bruce Martin re: applicable relataive tothe original Ofgficial Inmate Compalint (Form BC-140). (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
305 Letter dated 11/27/81 to Pennsylvania State Police from Bruce Martin re: answer to complaint which substantiates an obstruction of justice, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
306 Letter dated 11/18/81 to Deputy Superintendent Treatment from Bruce Martin appeal to the program review committee. (lm) Modified on 10/25/1996 (Entered: 10/25/1996)
307 Letter dated 11/18/81 to P. Barone, Complaint Officer from Bruce Martin re: shakedown in cell. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)

37 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 12/11/1981 01/08/1982
01/11/1982
01/22/1982
01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/26/1982

308 Letter dated 11/18/81 to Mr. Lefebre - Caseworker from Bruce Martin re: specific time was that Directive 801 was suspended. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
309 Copy of Answer to original complaint. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
310 Letter dated 11/20/81 to Judge Lord from Allen Lertzman re: pending suit pertaining to Misconduct Hearings at S.C.I. Graterford. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
311 Letter dated 7/24/81 to Judge Lord from Omar H. Lee re: visiting rights. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
312 Letter dated 8/4/81 to Judge Lord from Bor' Howard Watson re: denial of Rights of Freedom of Religion. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
313 Letter dated 8/24/81 to Mag. Hall from Omar H. Lee re: visiting trouble. (lm) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
314 ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTIUTION AT GRATERFORD AND THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT SHOULD PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., BRUCE MARTIN AND RAYNOR L. COLONNA APPEAR ON 1/19/82, AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5A FOR THE PUPOSE GIVING TESTIMONY, ETC., 1/8/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILDED. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
315 ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD SHALL PRODUCE INMMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., BURCE MARTIN AND RAYNOR J. COLONNA TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 19, 1982 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5A, ETC., 1/12/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
316 ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD SHALL PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR. BRUCE MARTIN, WILLIAM HALLOW TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 26, 1982 AT 10:00 AM. IN COURTROOM 5-A FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY, ETC., 1/25/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (WH) (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
317 Letter to Judge Lord fom Hiram R. Johnston, Jr., re: objections to arabitration strip searching. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
318 Letter to Chief Judge Lord from Jmaes H. Turner re: questions to consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
319 Letter to Judge Lord From Frank St. Clair re: questions on violation of rights. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
320 ORDER THAT THE WARDEN, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUION, GRATERFORD PA, PRODUCE IMATE WILLIAM HOLLOWELL TO APPEAR 1/27/82 AT 10:00 A.M IN CTRM 5-A TO GO OVER TESTIMONY. UPON TERMAINATION OF THE PROCEEDING MR. HALLOWELL SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE DELIVERED INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTONAL INSUTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PA.

38 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

01/27/1982
02/08/1982
02/08/1982 04/20/1982 05/25/1982
06/08/1982
07/20/1982 07/29/1982 07/29/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982
11/12/1982
11/24/1982 12/02/1982 12/05/1982 12/06/1982

1/26/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (Mag. Hall, J.) (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
321 Letter to the Honorable William F. Hall, JR. from John j. Murphy, Esq. re: Vioation of Mr. Owens due Process Rights (CA# 81-1722). (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
322 Letter dated 2/4/82 to Mag. Hall from Sanford Bernstein re: request that something be done to allow medicallly ill inmats in Penns. Penel Colonies to receive their civil and constitutional rights. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
323 Letter to Judge Lord from Leo Walloe Re: violations th the Consent Decree. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
324 Letter re: "Rights to Assigned Counsel". (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
325 Plff's petition for order declaring in forma pauperis and for order directing transcripts of hearing to be prepared at Government's expense. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
326 ORDER THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1915 AND 636(B) PLFFS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC., 6/8/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
327 Transcript of 1/26/82. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
328 Transcript of hearing. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
329 Transcript of hearing. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
330 Agreement between counsel on the definition of th eterm, cell search, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
331 Amendment to Stipulation for Dismissal of outstanding Allegations of Contempt. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
332 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT WITH COURT APPROVAL. 8/2/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
334 WILMER B. GAY'S CONTEMPT MOTION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE. (lm) Modified on 10/31/1996 (Entered: 10/28/1996)
335 PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT & CERTIFICATE. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
336 Plff's Objections to Terms of Proposed Settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
333 MOTION OF WILMER B. GAY FOR CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE. (lm) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
337 Purcell Bronson's Objections to terms of proposed settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)

39 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/08/1982 12/08/1982 12/08/1982 12/08/1982 12/10/1982 12/10/1982 12/10/1982 12/13/1982 12/14/1982 12/21/1982 01/17/1983 03/10/1983
05/04/1983 05/13/1983 10/13/1983
04/10/1984

338 Gerald Claitt's Objections to terms of proposed settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
339 Harold X (Smith) Objections to terms of proposed settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
340 Daivd Bridell's Objections to terms of proposed settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
341 James Banks's Objections to terms of Proposed Settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
342 Carlton Chew's Objections to terms of Proposed Settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
343 Thomas Martin's Objections to terms of Proposed Settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
344 Pauletta Beehler's Objections to terms of Proposed Settlement. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
345 PLFF CARL LEE JOHNSON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO. OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
346 Letter to clerk form Russell Shoats re: status of motion for contempt. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
347 PLFF'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE , AFFIDAVIT OF HAROLD X. SMITH, ET AL, PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
348 Affidavit and proposed order of Nathaniel N. Owens with an affidavit of William K. Hallowell in support and Mr. Owens not eot William K. Hallowell (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
349 DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATION OF CONTEMPT & DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, BRIEF, CERTIFICATE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
350 Report - Recommendations, Magistrate Hall that defts' motion for approval of stipulation for dismissal of outstanding allegations of contempt and for a motion for contempt be granted, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
351 MEMORANDUM LORD, JR. THAT HE WILL ADOPT REPORT RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATAE. 5/16/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
352 ORDER THAT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED. THE COURT FINDS THE TERM OF SETTLEMENT ARE FAIR AND REASONALBE. COMPROMISE OF THE PLFFS' ACTION FOR APPROVED AND ACTION IS DISMISSED, ETC., 5/16/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
354 PLFFS MOTION TO APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)

40 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/08/1984 04/29/1985 05/20/1985 08/06/1985
09/27/1985 03/21/1986 04/16/1986 05/16/1986 05/28/1986
06/20/1986 07/03/1986 07/15/1986 07/15/1986 07/16/1986 07/30/1986 08/04/1986

353 Petitioner Eric G. Burgess's request to have contempt of ocurt charges filed against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
355 Defts Response to Plffs Motion to Appoint ADditional Class Counsel, Ceftificate of Service. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
354 ORDER THAT MR. STEFAN PRESSER BE APPOINTED ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS IN THIS ACTION. 5/21/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
356 ORDER THAT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BE REFERRED TO HONORABLE WILLIAM F. HALL, U.S. MAGISTRATE FOR CONSULTATION, MAGISTRATE TO MAKE A REPORT & RECOMMENTDATION 8/7/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 10/30/1996 (Entered: 10/30/1996)
357 PLFF JOHN TOTH, III,S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR DEFTS' IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT, CERT OF SERVICE (85-3803.) (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
358 PLFF ANDRE WRIGHTS'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVIT & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
Conference of 4/15/86 re:"Plffs seek guidance - Plffs will consider filing motions for contempt, etc.," (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
PLFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SHALL BE DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 6/13/86. (70-2545) 5/29/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
359 Defts' Memo in opposition to Plffs' second motion for contempt, cert. of service. (lm) Modified on 10/30/1996 (Entered: 10/30/1996)
360 PLFF'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
361 PLFF WILLIAM S. JONES' MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE , (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
362 PLFF WILLIAM S. JONES' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITH DECLARARTION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
363 PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , MEMO, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
364 Defts' Brief in opposition to Plffs' motion to compel discovery, unsworn declaration, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
365 Plffs' response to defts' brief in oppostion, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)

41 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/18/1986 08/18/1986 09/12/1986 09/12/1986 09/12/1986
09/19/1986 09/23/1986 09/30/1986
01/05/1987 01/14/1987

366 MOTION OF THOMAS MARTIN TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO BETWEEN PLFF. MOVANT AND DEFTS. IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION, SUPPORTING MEMO., CERTIFICATE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
367 MOTION of THOMAS MARTIN FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL , CERTIFICATE. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
368 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD ON CONTEMPT OF COURT IS DENIED. 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
369 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF PURCELL BRONSON (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 360) IS DENIED. 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
370 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ANDRE WRIGHT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO MOVANT'S RIGHT TO FILE AN INDIVIDUAL CIVIL ACTION TO SEEK REDRESS FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS. 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
371 A. Argued sur: conference of 9/19/86, re: Plffs' second motion for contempt and Plffs' motion to compel- held in abeyance, etc., " (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
371 ORDER THAT PLFF SHALL FILE AN AMEDNED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT EXPRESSLY SETTING FOR THE ALLEGED GROUNDS CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND ITS ADDENUM. 9/24/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
372 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, FIELD BY THOMAS MARTIN IS DENIED; ITS APPEARING THAT JOHN SNAVELY,ESQ AND STEFAN PRESSER, ARE ALREADY COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR THE PLFF. CLASS AND THE MOTION OF THOMAS MARTIN FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED. 10/1/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lm) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
373 DEFTS' MOTION TO ENLARGE THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, CERTIFICATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
373 ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION TO ENLARGE THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLFF'S AMENDED SECONDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT IS GRANTED AND DEFTS' HAVE UNTIL 1/30/87 IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND MOTION CONTEMPT. 1/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)

42 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

02/02/1987
02/06/1987 02/13/1987 02/20/1987 02/20/1987
03/04/1987
03/04/1987
03/18/1987 03/23/1987 04/06/1987 04/06/1987
04/09/1987

374 STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (AMENDED) SHALL BE DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 2/6/87. 2/3/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
375 Defts' Memo in opposition to plffs' amended second motion for contempt, certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
376 Defts' memo in opposition to plffs' amended second motion for contept. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
377 Conference of 2/18/87, re: plffs' amended second motion for contempt-C.A.V.; Plffs' motion to compel - granted, motion for contempt set for 5/26/87 at 10:00 a.m. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
378 ORDER THAT DEFTS WILL PRODUCE AT THE OFFICE OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION BY 2/23/87 THE PERSONNEL FILES OF ANY HEARING EXAMINER WHO HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF THE DECREE AND BIAS, 2/24/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
379 ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING REGARDING PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT WILL BE HELD ON 5/26/87 AT 10:00 A.M. 3/5/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
380 ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE REGARDING SCHEDULING APPEARANCES OF INMATES FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING WILL BE HLED ON 4/24/87 AT 2:00 P.M. 3/5/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
381 PLFF'S MOTION FOR CHANGE AND/OR APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
382 PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO., DECLARATION, CERT. OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
383 Affidavit of Statement and Fact of Harvey K. Grant P4809. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
384 ORDER THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT MOTION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES OF ANDRES VALDEZ IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 4/8/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 10/31/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
385 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF WILLIAM C. MUELLER AND JOSEPH C. WALER FOR VENUE CHANGE, ETC. IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO MOVANTS' RIGHT TO RAISE THEIR CLAIMS AND /OR FILE SAID MOTION IN AN INDIVIDUALIZED CIVIL ACTION SEEKING REDRESS, ETC. 4/9/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 10/31/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)

43 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/22/1987 04/23/1987 04/27/1987 04/30/1987 04/30/1987 05/12/1987 05/12/1987 05/13/1987
05/13/1987 05/13/1987
05/13/1987
05/13/1987

386 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ad Testificandum, Delcaration & cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
387 PLFF'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVITS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
388 Argued Sur: Hearing of 4/24/87 re: scheduling of inmate witnesses for appearance at evidentiary hearing, etc. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
389 ORDER THAT MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT FILED PRO SE BY JOSE M. TOTH, III, IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. 5/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
390 ORDER THAT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPOUS AD TESTIFICANDUM, FILED PRO SE BY HAROLD SMITH IS DENIED WITHOUT PRJUDICE, ETC., 5/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
391 Plff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum as to Gerald Mayo et al. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
392 Plff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum for Jeffrey Alan Edelman. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
393 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSITUTION GRATERFORD, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODIES OF C. ALTON WADE, JR., WILLIAM S. JONES, JAMES ANDERSON, JOHN FREDERICK NOLE, AND WILLIAM KING ON WEDNESDAY 5/27/87, ETC. 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
394 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGTON PRODUCE BEFORE THE COURT THE BODY OF RICHARD R. CANADY ON TUESDAY, 5/16/87, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
395 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT DALLAS, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODIES OF JOHN H. BARTEE, PAUL J. BURCH, GREGORY P. POWELL AND KENNETH PATE ON TUESDAY, 5/26/87 AT 2:00 P.M. FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
396 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, DALLAS, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODIES OF GERALD MAYHO, ANTHONY PORTER, JAMES DEITER, ME.VIN BROCK AND DAVID JULIUS PROCE, SR. ON TUESDAY 5/26/87 AT 10 A.M. FOR EVIDENTARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
397 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSITUTION OF GRATERFORD, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODIES OF JAMES ARCHER, ROBERT BISHOP, MACK MCKENZIE, WILLIAM BROWN AND MICHAEL JOHNSON ON WEDNESDAY, 5/27/87 AT 2 P.M. FOR AN EVIDENTARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES

44 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987
05/13/1987 05/18/1987 05/27/1987 05/28/1987 05/28/1987 05/29/1987

MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
398 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE COREECTIONAL INSTITUTION WAYNESBURG, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODY OF PAULETTA BEEHER ON THURSDAY, 5/28/87 AT 10 A.M. FOR AN EVIDENTARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
399 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION GRATERFORD PA PRODUCE BEFORE THE COURT THE BODY OF ANDRE WRIGHT ON THURSDAY 5/28/87 AT 2 P.M. FOR AN EVIDENTARY HEARING ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
400 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION MUNCY, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODY OF TONI ANDERSON ON THURSDAY, 5/28/87 AT 2 PM FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
401 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTIUTION OF GRATERFORD PA PRODUCE BEFORE THE COURT THE BODIES OF MAURICE TALLEY, THOMAS W. MARTIN, JAMES RILEY, ROBERT DeVANEY ON THURSDAY 5/28/87 AT 10 A.M. FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
402 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT ADALLAS, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THIS COURT THE BODY OF PURCELL BRONSON ON THURSDAY, 5/28/87 AT 2 P.M. FOR AN EVIDENTARY HEARING, ETC., 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
403 ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GRATERFORD, PA PRODUCE BEFORE THE COURT JEFFREY ALAN EDE ON 5/28/87 at 10:00 A.M., ETC., 5/19/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
404 ARGUED SUR: HEARING OF 5/26/87 PLFF'S AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT DAVE B. FANNEY, ESQ. ADMITTED PRO HAV VICE, ETC., (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
405 ORDER THAT DEFT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD R. CANADY IS DENIED. 5/29/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
406 Hearing of 5/27/87 resumes. Argued Sur: Plff's oral motion for recondiereation of evidentary ruling re: certain testimony of Stephen Ettinger, witnessess sworn. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
407 Evidentiary Hearing of 5/28/87 re: plffs' amended second motion for contempt. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)

45 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/29/1987 05/29/1987
06/02/1987 06/03/1987
06/09/1987 06/09/1987 06/10/1987
06/11/1987
06/19/1987 06/23/1987
07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/23/1987 07/27/1987 07/27/1987

408 Hearing of 5/29/87 resumes. Argued Sur: Defts' motion to dismiss-C.A.V. (lm) Modified on 11/01/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
409 ORDER THAT ORDER DATED 5/13/87 DIRECTING WARDEN OF SCI, MUNCY, PA TO PRODUCE BODY OF TONI ANDERSON ON 5/28/87 IS VACATED, ETC., 6/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
410 Hearing resumes 6/1/87, Plff's motion Amended Second Motion for Contempt, witnesses sworn. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
411 Argued Sur: Hearing of 6/2/87 re: Plff's Amended Second Motion for Contempt Plffs to file post hearing brief, defts to file responsive brief. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
412 Plff's Post-Hearing Brief. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
413 PLFF'S MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEF SCHEDULE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
414 ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE THEIR POST HEARING BRIEF NO LATER THAT 14 DAYS AFTER TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARING ON PLFF'S AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ARE FILED OF RECORD, ETC., 6/11/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
415 ORDER THAT PLFF'S MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE IS DENIED AS MOOT., 6/12/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
416 Plff Walter M. Guyer's MOTION FOR CONTEMPT . (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
417 ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED PRO SE BY WALTER M. GUYER, ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO (i) MOVANT'S RIGHT FO FILE AN INDIVIDUAL CIVIL ACTION IN A COURT OF PROPER VENUE TO SEEK REDRESS FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS, ETC., 6/24/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
418 Transcript of 5/26/87. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
419 Transcript of 5/27/87. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
420 Transcript of 5/28/87. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
421 Transcript of 5/29/87. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
422 Transcript of 6/1/87. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
423 Transcript of 6/2/87. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
424 Deft's Post Hearing Brief. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
425 Plff's reply to post-trial briefs. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
426 Supplement to Plff's Post-Hearing Brief. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)

46 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/04/1987 11/05/1987 11/25/1987 11/25/1987
12/03/1987
12/15/1987
12/17/1987
12/18/1987
12/23/1987
01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/14/1988
01/27/1988

427 Deft's Reply Brief, Certificate of Service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
428 Plffs counsel Notice of change of address. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
429 OPINION, LORD, S.J. 11/25/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
430 ORDER THAT DEFT COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS DAVID OWENS IS ADJUDGED TO BE IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF DECREE DATED 5/22/78, AND SHALL BEGINNING 30 DAYS COMMENCE PARYING TO THE CLERK A DAILY FINE $500.00, UNLESS WITHIN 30 DAYS HE CERTIFIES THAT HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT., ETC., 11/25/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
431 PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND DISTRICT COURTS ORDER OF 11/25/87, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
432 PLFFS MOTION FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME to TO FILE AN ATTORNEYS FEES, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
433 DEFTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
432 A. ORDER THAT PLFFS SHALL FILE THEIR ATTORNEYS' FEES REQUEST BY 1/14/88. 12/21/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
434 Letter from David S.Owens, Commissioner, Dept. of Corrections to Judge Lord re: response to Order of 11/25/87.(lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
435 Application for Attorneys fees for ACLU Counsel. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
436 Affidavit of Stefan Pressler. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
437 Itemization of services and expenses of Stefan Pressler, Esq. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
438 Affidavit of Lorray Brown. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
439 Itemization of Services of Lorray Brown. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
440 Plffs memorandum in support of of ACLU Counsels application for attorneys fees. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
441 ORDER THAT THE ORDER OF 11/25/87 AS AMENDED, IS FURTHER AMENDED AS TO JOHN T. SNAVELY, ESQ. SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS FROM 1/14/88 WITHIN WHICH TO FILE HIS FEE APPLICATION. 1/15/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
442 ORDER THAT DEFTS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IS GRANTED & DEFTS ARE PERMIT TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN

47 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

02/08/1988 02/16/1988 02/23/1988 03/07/1988 03/08/1988 03/08/1988
03/30/1988 05/12/1988
05/18/1988 05/19/1988 05/24/1988
06/08/1988 06/08/1988

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY THE ACLU ON OR BEFORE 2/8/88. 1/28/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
443 Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, Cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
444 PLFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COUNSEL'S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
445 Plffs response to Defts opposition for ACLU's attorneys' fee application, Cert. of Service. (lm) Modified on 10/31/1996 (Entered: 10/31/1996)
446 Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
447 Telephone Conference Call-Argued-plffs motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Granted in part/denied in part. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
448 ORDER THAT PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER OF 11-25-87 IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT DEFT OWENS SHALL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER CAUSE TO EXPUNGED FROM ALL RECORDS UNDER HIS CONTROL AND UNDER CONTROL OF HIS SUBORDINATOR FOR ALL INMATES WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, ALL CHARGES AND ALLCONVICTION IN ALL ORTHER RESPECTS PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED, 3/9/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
449 Plffs reply memorandum to defts memorandum in opposition to application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Esq., Cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
450 ORDER THAT A HEARING REGARDING JOHN T. SNAVELYS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND ACLU COUNSELS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 5/18/88 2:00 PM. COURTROOM 17A, PHILA., 5/12/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
451 Plffs revised application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
452 Hearing argued sur: application of John T. Snavely, Esq. for attorney's fees C.A.V. on 5/18/88. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
453 ORDER THAT DEFTS DAVID S. OWENS, JR., COMMR OF PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, SHALL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER PAY THE SUM OF $30,000 TO STEFAN PRESSLER AND LORRAY BROWN, JOINTLY, AS ATTORNEYS FEES, 5/25/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
454 MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS DIRECTED TO PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY ATTORNEYS FEES, ETC. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
455 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF PLFFS COUNSEL JOHN T. SNAVELY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

48 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/05/1990 03/19/1991
09/13/1991 01/06/1992 03/16/1992 07/08/1992 09/21/1992 09/25/1992 09/29/1992
10/05/1992 10/19/1992

IN PART: DEFENDANTS SHALL, WITHON 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY THE SUM OF $30,832,25. 6/8/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
456 PLFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR CONTEMPT JUDGMENT, PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
457 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AND FOURTEEN OTHER INMATES AT SCI HUNTINGDON, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO RENEW SUCH PETITION SHOULD COUNSEL CONSIDER RENEWAL APPROPRIATE. 3/20/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
458 (WILLIAM SEYMOUR JONES') MOTION FOR THIS COURT TO HOLD THE DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT IN THE ABOVE SETTLED CASE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
459 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CASES ARE REASSIGNED FROM JUDGE LORD,III, DECEASED TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE STEWART DALZELL, 1/7/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
460 Plff's memorandum of law brief, requesting modification of consent decree, affidavit. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
461 PLFFS (PURCELL BRONWON) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE, DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
462 PLFFS (PAUL BALLOD) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
Copy of letter to J.J. Reid, Esq. Deputy Commissioner, Camp Hill, Pa., Dated 9-20-92 re: changes that were not disseminated amongst inmates in SCI, RHU. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
463 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE ARISING OUT OF THIS CASE, AND THIS COURT FINDING THAT PLFF HAS NOT ENLISTED THE ASSISTANCE OF CLASS COUNSEL IN FILING THIS MOTION AND THEREFORE, HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSENT DECREE'S PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF SYSTEM-WIDE VILATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLFF'S MOTION IS DENIED. 9/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
464 PLFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE PROOF OF SERVICE. (Derrick Fontroy, etc.) (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
465 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE CONSENT DECREE ARISING OUT OF THIS CASE

49 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/16/1992
11/18/1992
04/14/1993 06/11/1993 06/16/1993 06/28/1993
06/28/1993
07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/14/1993

(PAPER #464), AND THIS COURT FINDING THAT PLFFS HAVE NOT ENLISTED THE ASSISTANCE OF CLASS COUNSEL IN FILING THIS MOTION AND, THEREFORE, HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSENT DECREE'S PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLFF'S MOTION IS DENIED. 10/20/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
466 PLFF'S (MARTIN HARRIS; JAMES JONES; JEFFREY COMMODORE) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATION, DECLARATION(S) IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
467 ORDER THAT BASED ON DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE ARISE ASSISTANCE OF CLASS COUNSEL IN FILING THIS MOTION AND, THEREFORE, HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSENT CEDREE'S PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION, ETC., IS DENIED. () 11/19/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
468 Plaintiff's (Paul Ballod's ) certificate of service, order to show cause (re: motion for contempt). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
469 PLFF'S (JOHN FIYOGGA) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT . (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
470 PLFF'S (JOSEPH J. TAYLOR) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT NOTICE, DECLARATION. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
471 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (PAPER NO. 469) BASED ON DEFTS' ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE, ETC., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. 6/29/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
472 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT (PAPER NO. 470) BASED ON DEFTS' ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE ARISING OUT OF THIS CASE, ETC., IT HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. 6/29/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. . (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
473 Plff's (Joseph S. Taylor) pages 6 through 9 and cover letter dated 6/28/93 of his motion for judgment of contempt, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
474 Plff's (Joseph S. Taylor) pages 10 through 14 of his motion for contempt of judgment. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
475 Plaintiff's (Joseph S. Taylor's) Notice of appeal. 7/14/93 copies to: Stefan Presser, Esq., Theodore G. Otto, III, Esq. John T. Snavely, II, Esq., Francis R. Filipi, Esq. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)

50 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

07/14/1993 08/05/1993 08/17/1993 08/18/1993 10/14/1993 11/03/1993 11/17/1993
11/19/1993
12/07/1993
02/08/1994
02/17/1994

476 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
477 Notice of change of address of plaintiff, Jeffrey Commodore. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
478 (PLAINTIFF'S PURCELL BRONSON) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , UNSWORN AFFIDAVITS. (lm) Modified on 11/01/1996 (Entered: 11/01/1996)
478 ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED. 8/19/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
479 Certified copy of order from USCA dated 10/14/93 re: Motion for leave to appeal ifp is granted. This appeal is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
480 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CERT. OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
481 Plff's (Joseph D' Amato) letter to the Court, dated 11/3/93, re: an on-going violation of the ICU Consent Decree v Shapp, here at the institution (Huntingdon 1100 Pike St., Huntingdon, PA 16652) regarding the extension of punishments beyond the sanctions imposed by misconduct hearing examiners, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
482 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF JOSEPH D'AMATO'S LETTER REQUESTING RELIEF BASE ON DEFTS' ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE ARISING OUT OF THIS CASE (PAPER 481) AND THIS COURT FINDING THAT MR. D'AMATO HAS NOT ENLISTED THE ASSISTANCE OF CLASS COUNSEL IN FILING THIS MOTION AND, THEREFORE, HAS NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT DECREE'S PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF VIOLATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT MR. D'AMATO'S REQUEST IS DENIED. 11/22/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
483 ORDER THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S PROCEDURE FOR THE RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF CASES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE STEWART DALZELL TO THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS. 12/8/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
484 PLFF'S (JEROME SILO'S) MOTION TO INVOKE RULE 24 (1966 AMEND) OF F.R.C.P. TO INTERVENE TO ASK COURT TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF CLASS TO APPLY I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE TO SHOW THAT NEW (AS OF 10/29/92) D.O.C. POLICIES PROCEDURES VIOLATE I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
485 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE WHETHER ICU V SHAPP (CONSENT DECREE) COVERING PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELQTED TO SEGREGATION CONFINEMENT OF INMATES RENDERS THE NEW DEPT OF CORRS PROCEDURES RELATED TO DISCIPLINARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY TO BE INVALID

51 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

02/18/1994
02/18/1994 04/15/1994
04/29/1994 04/29/1994 05/02/1994 05/09/1994

(DOC 3484 DOCKETED 2/8/94) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION CHARGING A VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE, AS AMENDED, IN THIS CASE, IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT JEROME SILO HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSENT DECREE, AS AMENDED, FOR ADDRESSING CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE, ETC. 2/18/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
486 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT DESCRIBED BY JEROME SILO AS VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF SILO WHICH COURT UNDER COVER OF FEBRUARY 2,4 AND 7, 1994, SENT TO COUNSEL FOR PLFFS AND DEFTS PURSUANT TO REQUIRING SAID COUNSEL TO FILE A RESPONSE WITH THE COURT. "IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IS DENIED FOR THE SEASONS SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1994". 2/22/84 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
Plff (Jerome Silo)'s reply to attorney Filipi's 2/10/94 Letter to Judge Dubois, Proof of Service, (90-7497). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
486 A. (PLFFS) MOTION FOR THE COURT TO REPORT THE WITHIN COMPLAINT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES ON BEHALF OF JEROME SILO AND PLAINTIFF(S) IN ICU V SHAPP AND FOR THE COURT TO ORDER PROMPT CORRECTIVE ACTION IN REGARDS TO: OBSTRUCTION OF SILO'S CORRESPNDENCE FROM PA BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH UPON RECEIVING A PAID-IN-ADVANCE CHECK FROM SILO IN NOVEMBER 1993, ETC., BUT THAT THIS CORRESPONDENCE HAS WILFULLY OBSTRUCTED, ETC. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
487 (PLFFS) MOTION TO COMPEL THE COURT TO RPOVIDE COPIES TO ITSELF AND TO PROVIDE JOHN WOESTANDIEH OF PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER COPIES, ETC. (lm) Modified on 11/01/1996 (Entered: 11/01/1996)
488 Certified copy of order from U.S.C.A. re: the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. (No reccord returned from USCA). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
489 PLFFS' MOTION ON BEHALF OF CLASS MEMBER THAT ON BEHALF OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE BEING LABELED BY THE DEFTS AND BEING A PERSON MENTALLY ILL, THIS COURT IS ASKED TO COMPEL THIS RESOURCE OF THE DEFTS., ETC. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
490 (PLFFS) MOTION TO REQUEST COURT TO PROVIDE (LAWYER ASSISTANCE) TO ADVISE OF RIGHTS, ETC., TO REQUEST COURT TO NOTIFY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S. OFFICE TO ENFORCE RIGHTS TO STOP DISCRIMINATION, ETC., (ALSO SEE 90-7497, 93-6239). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)

52 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/27/1994 01/05/1995
01/05/1995 01/06/1995 01/12/1995 01/19/1995
01/19/1995
01/20/1995 01/26/1995 01/27/1995 01/30/1995

491 PLFF'S (MOVANTS) (PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS, FRED MILLER, DEERING E. CARTER) MOTION TO ENFORCE PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
489 A. ORDER THAT THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF CLASS MEMBER AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO OPPSE BEING LABELED BY THE DEFENDANTS, AND BEING A PERSON MENTALLY ILL (SIC) THIS COURT IS ASKED TO COMPEL THIS RESOURCE OF THE DEFENDANTS, ETC., IS DENIED. 1/6/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
490 ORDER THAT THE MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO REQUEST COURT TO PROVIDE LAWYER ASSISTANCE, ETC. TO REQUEST COURT TO NOTIFY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S. TO ENFORCE RIGHT TO STOP DISCRIMINATION, ETC., IS DENIED. (etc.) 1/6/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/01/1996)
492 Class counsel's response to motion to enforce, certificate of service. (Filed by Stephan Presser, Esq., Amr. Civil Liberties Union)(71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545) (lm) Modified on 11/01/1996 (Entered: 11/01/1996)
493 PLFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE , PROOF OF SERVICE, (Filed by D. Fontroy, i, Stephen Blackiston, Bobby Brightwell & John Nigro, P.O. BOX 200, Camp Hill). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
494 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS, FRED MILLER AND DEERING E. CARTER, TO ENFORCE THE CONSENT DECREE ENTERED IN THIS CASE IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID MOVING PARTIES ARE INMATES INCARCERATED AT SCI CAMP HILL AND, AS SUCH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS IN THIS CASE, (ETC.) 1/19/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
495 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO ENFORCE CONSENT DECREE FILED ON JANUARY 12, 1995, BY DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I, STEPHEN A. BLACKISTON, BOBBY BIRGHTWELL AND JOHN NIGRO IS DENIED ON THE GOUND THAT THE SAID MOVING PARTIES ARE INMATES INCARCERATED AT SCI-CAMP HILL AND, AS SUCH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS IN THIS CASE, (ETC), 1/19/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
496 Defendants' response to the motion to enforce, certificate of service, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
497 Plffs' Traverse, Proof of Service. (Filed by Peter Cook, Derick Jacobs, Ceming Carter, & Fred Miller, P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
498 Letter from Brian F. Ross, An inmate (incarcerated at SCI Coal Towhship 1 Kelley Drive, Coal Twp. PA 17866) re: grievance re: personal property. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
499 MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT BY DERRICK DALE FONTROY, PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)

53 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

01/30/1995
02/01/1995
02/08/1995 02/21/1995 02/21/1995 02/23/1995 04/14/1995 06/23/1995

500 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT FILED BY PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS (#497) FRED MILLER, AND DEERING E. CARTER ENTITLED "TRAVERSE" IN WHICH THEY TAKE EXCEPTION TO COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION TO ENFORCE THE ICU CONSENT DECREE, ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS IN THE ICU CASE SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO THE TRAVERSE OF PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS FRED MILLER AND DEERING E. CARTER ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 13, 1995, ETC., 2. COUNSEL FOR DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE TRAVERSE AND TO THE RESPONSE OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 23, 1995; AND 3. TWO (2) COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 HEREOF SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS, ROOM 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. 1/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
501 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER RECEIVED FROM AN INMATE, BRIAN F. ROSS, DATED JANUARY 23, 1995, DEALING WITH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ICU CONSENT DECREE, DOCUMENT NO. 487), IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS IN THE AUSTIN CASE SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 10, 1995. COUNSEL FOR DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE LETTER FROM BRIAN F. ROSS ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 20, 1995. ONE COPY OF EACH RESPONSE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER AND THE LETTER FROM BRIAN F. ROSS SHALL BE SERVED ON THE FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS; DAVID RUDOVSKY, ESQ.; STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ.; FRANCIS R. FILIPI. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON BRIAN F. ROSS #AM-7035, SCI COAL TWP., ONE KELLY DRIVE, COAL TWP, PA 17866. 2/2/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
502 Plff Class Counsel's Response to Traverse (By Stefan Presser, Esq.), cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
503 PLFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
504 Defts' response to the Letter of Brian F. Ross, AM-7035, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
505 Defts' response to the traverse, certificate of service, (71-513, 70-2545, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
506 MOTION OF BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL, NIGRO, JACOBS AND FONTROY TO ENFORCE , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
507 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT OF CASE RELATED. PUSUANT OT E.D.PA LOCAL RULE (3)(C)(1), VERIFICATION, PROOF OF

54 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

07/24/1995 07/28/1995 07/28/1995
07/28/1995 07/28/1995
07/31/1995

SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
508 PLFF'S (EDWARD GOVEN) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
509 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF EDWARD GOVAN FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (DOC 508 FILED 7/24/95), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO BE SERVED ON EDWARD GOVAN, AY-9511, AT: SCI-DALLAS, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA 18612-0286, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545) 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
510 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT FILED BY PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS, FRED MILLER AND DEERING E. CARTER ENTITLE "TRAVERSE", ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE TRAVERSE FILED BY PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS, FRED MILLER AND DEERING E. CARTER TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS ORDER DATED JANUARY 18, 1995 IS DENIED. THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF PETER COOK, DERRICK JACOBS, FRED MILLER AND DEERING CARTER, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON (ETC). 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
511 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM INMATE, BRIAN F. ROSS, DATED 1/23/95, (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY BRIAN F. ROSS, IN HIS LETTER OF 1/23/95, IS DENIED. 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
512 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS: 1. MOTION OF STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, (ETC) TO ENFORCE (DOCUMENT NO. 503, FILED 2/21/95); 2. MOTION OF STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, ETC TO ENFORCE (DOC. NO. 506, FILED 4/14/95 AND # MOTION OF DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I, (ETC), TO VACATE ORDER DATED 1/19/95, (DOC. NO. 49 FILED 1/30/95) IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL SERVE THEIR RESPONSES TO THE AFORESAID MOTIONS ON OR BEFORE 8/2 TWO COPIES SERVED ON CHAMBERS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON, ETC., 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
513 ORDER THAT MOTION OF STEVEN A. BLACKISTON ET AL FOR REASSIGNMENT OF CASE RELATED PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 3(c)(1), NEWLY NUMBERED RULE 40.1(c)(1) IS DENIED ETC., FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPY OF ORDER SHALLBE SERVED ON STEVEN A. BLACKISTON ET AL AS INDICATED. 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES

55 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/07/1995 08/14/1995 08/16/1995 08/21/1995 08/21/1995 08/23/1995 08/24/1995 08/29/1995
08/30/1995 09/07/1995

MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
514 Plff's (Edward Goven's) certificate of service, (with exhibits), (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
515 Plff class counsel's response to motions filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, certificate of service, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
516 Plff's letter (Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Fontroy) to request that the court appoint counsel (other than the ACLU) to respond to herein members motions to enforce, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
517 Class counsel's (Stefan Presser, ACLU) response to motion for contempt filed by Edward Govan, cert. of service. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
518 Defendant's response to the motion to vacate judgment and motions to enforce, certificate of service, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
519 Plaintiff's reply to counsel Stefan Presser's response to motions filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, verfication, proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
520 Defendants' response to motion for contempt of court proceedings, certificate of service (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
521 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS; 1. MOTION OF DERRICK DALE FONTROY, STEVEN BLACKISTON, ETC., TO VACATE ORDER DATED JANUARY 19, 1995(#499); 2. MOTION OF STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, ETC., (#503), ETC. 3. MOTION OF STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, ETC. TO ENFORCE (#506), ETRC: AND THE RESPONSES OF COUNSEL (#515, 518, 519), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFTS SHALL ON OR BEFORE 9/15/95 FILED AND SERVE SUPPEMENTAL RESPONSES TO THE 3 MOTIONS IN WHICH THEY ADDRESS THE CLAIMS MADE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ON OR BEFORE 9/15/95 COUNSEL FOR DEFTS SHALL PROVIDE THE COURT WITH COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 1. A COMPLETE COPIES OF THE CONSENT DECREE, AS AMENDED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDER THAT ON OR BEFORE 9/29/95 STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, ETC., ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE A REPLY TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES OF COUNSEL ETC., IS IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION, ETC, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON (BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL, NIGRO AND FONTROY). 8/29/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
522 Plaintiff Govan's response to both defendants and Mr. Presser's responses, certificate of service, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
523 Letter from Steven A. Blackiston to Mr. Stefan Presser, Esq., with attached institutional grievances. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)

56 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

09/12/1995 09/14/1995
09/14/1995
09/15/1995 09/21/1995 09/22/1995 09/27/1995 10/03/1995 10/06/1995 10/11/1995 10/11/1995 10/11/1995 10/12/1995

523 A. Plaintiff class counsel's further response to motions filed by Blackiston, brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, certificate of service (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
524 PLFF'S (STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, JOHN A. NIGRO AND DERRICK DALE FONTROY) MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (TO PERMIT HEREIN PLAINTIFFS TO PRESENT THEIR WITENSSES AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPPORT OF HEREIN PLFF'S PENDING MOTIONS, ETC.) PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
525 MOVANT'S (FONTROY, BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL ADN NIGRO) MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO SCHEDULE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO ALLOW MOVANTS TO PRESENT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PENDING MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT, ETC.) PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
526 Defendants' supplemental responses to the motion to vacate judgment and motins to enforce filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Jacobs, Nigro and Fontroy, certificate of service, (71-513, 71-1006 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
527 Plff (Derrick Dale Fontroy) notice to the Court, proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
528 Plff's (Steven A. Blackiston) letter/request to the Court re: plaintiff's (Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro and Fontroy) motions to enforce and motion to vacate judgment, proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
529 Plff's (Fontroy, Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro) SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
530 Plffs' (ACLF-Stefan Presser) letter to the Court dated 9/29/95 re: request for an evidentiary hearing, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
531 Plff's supplemental pleadings to the motions to enforce, proof of service, (Blackiston, Brightwell, Fontroy, Keith Branch). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
532 Plff's notice to the court (Movant(s): Fontroy, Blackiston, Brightwell and Nigro) reply as follow to class counsel's missive dated 9/29/95), proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
533 Stefan Presser's letter fo the Court, dated 10/2/95, re: in response to the Court's courtesy furnishing of movants' latest supp motion for an evidentiary hearing, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
534 Plff class counsel's response to supp pleading to motions to enforce filed by Balckiston, Brightwell, Nogro, Jacobs and Fontroy, cert. of service. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
535 Plff's (Stephen A. Blackiston's ) reply to the supplemental responses of counsels for plaintiff class and for defendants, etc. (Movants Steven A. Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Fontroy, move this court to permit plff Balckiston to present and file their documentary evidence in supprt of herein plff's motion to enforce,

57 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

10/17/1995 10/20/1995
11/02/1995 11/02/1995
11/09/1995 11/24/1995
11/24/1995 11/27/1995 12/04/1995 12/06/1995 12/06/1995 12/06/1995 12/14/1995 12/18/1995
12/19/1995

etc), verification, proof of service (exhibits). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
536 Defendants' response to the motion for an evidentiary hearing, certificate of service (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
537 Letter to Judge DuBois, dated 9-25-95, re: about confiscation of legal material (signed by Steven A. Blackiston) (s/Brightwell, Nigro, Fontroy), verification, proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
538 (PLFF'S) MOTION FOR SPEEDY DISPOSITION , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
539 Plffs' copy of letter to Stefen Presser, Esq. dated 10/30/95 re: request to supply specific documents of exhaustion of administrative remedies concerning transfers, etc., (signed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Fontroy). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
540 Defendants' supplemental response to the motion to enforce, certificate of service, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
541 Plff's (Fontroy, Balckiston, Brightwell, Nigro) notice of appeal. (USCA 95-2) Copies to Presser, Otto, Snavely, Filipi, USCA, Carlos Cardona. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
542 Clerk's notice to USCA. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
RECORD COMPLETE FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
543 Cmw of Pa Dept of Corrections, Camp Hill, Pa, official inmate grievance forms re: Bob Brightwell). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
544 Plffs' (Fontroy) financial statement in forma pauperis. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
545 Plff's (Fontroy, Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro) Amended Notice of appeal (and in forma pauperis form) (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
546 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
547 Plff's (Steven A. Balckiston) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS & proof of service. (lm) Modified on 11/01/1996 (Entered: 11/01/1996)
549 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF STEVEN A. BLACKISTON'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (# 546) THE AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL, ETC. (# 499, FILED 1-30/95 WITH RESPECT TO THE JANUARY 18, 1995 ORDER, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATION OF BLACKISTON, ET AL TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL IS GRANTED, ETC. 12/19/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
548 Letter to Judge DuBois (rec'd 12-18-95) from ACLF, re: Stefan Presser is in receipt of Mr. Fontroy's motions, etc. Mr. Fontroy's request for a speedy disposition regarding his ICU motions is undercurt by his notice of appeal, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)

58 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/21/1995 12/28/1995 12/28/1995 01/17/1996 01/18/1996 01/23/1996 01/23/1996
01/26/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996
02/14/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996

550 Letter to Judge DuBois (dated 12/18/95) from Off Atty General, Filipi, Esq., re: response to the Court's communication of 12/12/95 regarding the motion filed in and ICU and request for classification filed in Austin by Fontroy, Blackiston, Brightwell and Nigro, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
551 Movants' (Fontroy, Blackiston, Brightwell and Nigro) notice to the court, proof of service (Also see 90-7497). (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
552 Movants' (Fontroy, Balckiston, Brightwell and Nigro) judicial notice, proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
553 Certified copy of order from USCA that in accordance with the agreement of the parties in the above entitled case, it is entered dismissed by the Clerk under authority conferred upon him by Rule 42(b), etc. (Fontroy, Blackiston, Brightwell and Nigro) (USCA 95-2013). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
554 PLFF'S (SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. AND JAMES HARDWICK) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
555 Letter from Jerome Silo, dated 1/12/96 to the Court re: request entitle "Emergency Relief from Retailation" and an application for appointment of Counsel", (Also see 90-7497 - AUSTIN v. PA DEPT CORR) (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
556 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDEARTION OF A REQUEST FROM JEROME SILO ENTITLE " EMERGENCY RELIEF FROM RETALIATION" AND AN APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S REQUEST FOR (ETC) ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (ALSO SEE 90-7497) 1/24/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
557 Plff's (Derrick Dale Fontroy) notice to the Court (attaching USCA staff atty's letter and an order issed by the USCA etc), proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
558 Plff's letter, dated 1/30/96, request for relief by Court - light went in cell eleven days, etc., appointment of cunsel, (90-7497) (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
559 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT SENT TO THE COURT BY JEROME SILO IN WHICH HE REQUESTS APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED, (90-7497). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
560 Movants' signed by only Bobby Brightwell) (Brightwell, Blackiston, Nigro and Fontroy) petition of mandamus, proof of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
561 PLFF'S (CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR.) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (70-2545; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
562 PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , DECLARATION, CERTIFICATION. (70--2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)

59 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

02/21/1996 02/26/1996 02/28/1996 02/28/1996 02/29/1996
02/29/1996
02/29/1996 03/06/1996

563 PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER MEMO., AFFIDAVIT, PROOF OF SERVICE. (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
564 Plff's (ZEHRING) notice of change of financial status, (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
565 Defendant's response to petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Bobby E.Grightwell, certificate of service (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
566 Deftendants' response to the motion for contempt filed by Spencer R. Dobson, Jr. and James Hardwick, certificate of service (70-2545, 71-513, 71-2006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
567 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S LETTER/DIRECTIVE OF SAID DATE TO STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ., IN WHICH THE COURT STATED THAT IT WOULD EXPECT MR. PRESSER TO RESPOND TO A PETITION OF MANDAMUS FILED BY STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, BOBBY BIRGHTWELL, JOHN A. NIGRO AND DERRICK DALE FONTROY AND ANY OTHER PENDING MOTION ON THIS CASE, ON BEHALF OF THE PLFF CALSS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE COURT NOT REQUIRE A RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE PLFF CLASS TO MOTIONS FILED IN THIS C.A. BY BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL, NIGRO, AND FONTROY UNTIL THE PENDING LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ. IS FINALLY ADJUDICATED, ETC., IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL, NIGRO AND FONTROY. 3/1/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
568 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM JEROME SILO, A COPY OF WHICH SHALL BE FILED IN EACH OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASES, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY DECREE IN ICU V. SHAPP 70-3054 AND AUSTIN V PA DEPT CORR 90-7497, HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, (90-7497). 3/1/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
569 Copy of letter, dated 2/27/96, re: scheme to thwart access to Court. (from Jerome Silo) (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
570 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AS SCI PITTSBURGH (ETC) IT APPEARING FROM THE DOCUMENT JEROME SILO IS REQUESTING THE COURT TO MONITOR THE PROVISION OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO THE PA DEPT OF CORR, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY DECREE IN ICU V SHAPP 70-305 AND AUSTIN V PA DEPT OF CORR 90-7497 HAS BEEN

60 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996
03/08/1996 03/08/1996

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3/7/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
571 PLFF'S (JEROME SILO) MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO RESTRAIN THE PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES FROM IMPLEMENTING ACT 20 OF 1995 AMENDED SECTION 5704 OF TITLE 18 WHICH ADDS A PARAGRAPH TO PERMIT D.O.C. EMPLOYEES TO INTERCEPT RECORDS, ETC., (90-7497) (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
572 PLFF'S (JEROME SILO) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO FILE EXPEDITED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO ...."EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION TO REQUEST EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF SILO, ET AL., ETC., 90-7497). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
573 PLFF'S (JEROME SILO) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION TO REQUEST EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF SILO, ET AL. THAT ACT 20 OR 1995 AMENDED SECTION 5704 OF TITLE 18 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ETC., (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
573 A. ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, RELATING TO INTERVENTION AND CLAIMING EXIGENT CIRCIMSTANCES, REGARDING TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS WITH INMATES AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY REASON OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC., ARE DENIED, 3/11/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
574 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HIS COURT'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 29, 1996, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION, ETC., IS DENIED FOR THE REASON SET FORTH IN THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 29, 1996. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO TO FILE THE MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION IN CAMERA AND NOT TO SEND COPIES TO COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS OR TO DEFENSE COUNSEL IS DENIED. THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SHALL BE FILED, ETC., AND COPIES OF THE MOTION AND THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL OF RECORD. (90-7497) 3/11/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
574 A. PLFF'S (JEROME SILO) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 2/29/96 ENTERED 3/1/96 IS SUMBITTED "IN CAMERA" FOR REASONS THAT INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CONCERNS OF RETAILIATION JEROME SILO RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS THE FOLLOWING "IN CAMERA", ETC. (90-7497) (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
575 Defendants' certificate of supplemental service, (of defendants' response to the motion for contempt filed by Spencer R. Dobson, Jr. and James Hardwick). (lm)

61 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/08/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996 03/19/1996 03/22/1996 03/22/1996
03/26/1996 03/26/1996
04/03/1996
04/03/1996

(Entered: 11/04/1996)
576 Plff's (John A. Nigro, Jr., Steven A. Balckison, Derrick D. Fontroy, I, Bobby Brightwell) notice to the Court, certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
577 Defendants' memorandum concerning the motion for appointment of counsel by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of Service. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
578 Defendants' memorandum in opposition to the motion for a rule to show cause and for temporary restraining order filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., Cert. of Service. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
579 Defendants; response to the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
580 Plffs' (Charles D. Zehring, Jr.) consolidated rebuttal to the defendants' answer to the motions filed (by Zehring) in this matter. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
581 Plff's (Jerome Silo's) Emergency Exigent Circ. justifying that the plff members class and/or those inmates adversely affected by the Austin Settlement Agreement or lack of complaince thereto, etc. (see #90-7497) (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
582 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JEROME SILO ENTITLED " EMERGENCY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES ETC.,) IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S REQUEST, ETC., IS DENIED, ETC., (SEE 90-7497) 3/25/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
583 Plff's (Jerome Silo's) request for reconsideration of Order of Judge DuBois enterd 3/11/96, denying exigent circimstances motion to request expedited proceedings to consider the claim of Silo, etc. re: telephone call to inmate etc., (Also See 90-7497). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
584 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, ETC., FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER ENTERED MARCH 11, 1996, ETC., IS IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, ETC., IS DENIED, (90-7497). 3/27/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
585 PLFF'S JEROME SILO MOTION TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO PLEASE CORRECT MISTAKE OR INADVERTANCE OF THE COURT WHICH SILO MAY HAVE INTENTIONALLY CAUSED TO HAPPEN (I.E. THE COURT FAILED TO ADRESS THE "ACTUAL" ENTITLE MOTION REQUEST WHICH DID NOT APPEAR UNTIL SILO'S PAGE FOUR) (Also see 90-7497). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
585 A. ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO UNDER RULE 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF 34,000 PA STATE PRISONERS TO REQUEST COUNSEL FOR INMATE TO REINSTITUTE THIS ACTION IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE MOTION SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK OF

62 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/09/1996
04/16/1996 04/16/1996
04/23/1996 04/24/1996 05/23/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 06/05/1996 06/05/1996 06/05/1996 06/05/1996 06/05/1996 06/05/1996

COURT ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR WHATEVER ACTION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE, (90-7497) 4/4/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
586 PLFF (RAYMOND J. STANTON) MOTIONS THE COURT ATTENTION TO HEARING EXAMINER D. J. JONES LOCATED AT SCI DALLAS, THAT JUST COMMITTED AN ACT OF THEFT OF SERVICE CHARGE COLLECTIVELY, ETC. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
587 PLFF (JEROME SILO'S) MOTION ENTITLED "EMERGENCY LEGAL ACTION" NEEDED BY SILO, ETC. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
587 A. ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "EMERGENCY LEGAL ACTION NEEDED BY SILO., (ETC.) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY JEROME SILO IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (90-7497) 4/17/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
589 PLFF (RAYMOND J. STANTON) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT , AFFIDAVIT, VERIFICATION. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
590 PLFF (FRANK ST CLAIR, JOHN BOSKIE, ANTHONY ALLEN) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , INJUCTION ADN TEMPORARY RELIEF (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
588 PLFF (RAYMOND J. STANTON) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , AFFIDAVIT. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
591 PLFF (JOHN BOSKIE) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
592 PLFF (FRANK ST. CLAIR) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (70-2545, 71-1006, 71-513). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
593 PLFF (RAYMOND J. STANTON) MOTION OPPOSING MOTION TO THE RESPONDENT'S FORMAL LETTER DATED MAY 23, 1996. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
594 Letter from Spencer R. Dobson dated 2/28/96 re: in response to the letter submitted by attornye Presser, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
595 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 2/22/96 re: concerning the motion for contempt filed by Dobson and Hardwick, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
596 Letter from James Hardwick dated 2/28/96 re: acknowledging receipt of a copy of the letter sent via Mr. Presser, etc., (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
597 Letter from Spencer R. Dobson dated 3/19/96 re: letter dated 3/14/ 96 and complaint in contempt, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
598 Letter from James Hardwick dated 5/22/96 re: information which shows the blatant disregard for the I.C.U. consent decree and varioius other laws by the staff at the Dallas State Correctional Institution, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)

63 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/07/1996 06/13/1996
06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996
06/20/1996 06/20/1996 06/20/1996 06/20/1996 06/24/1996 07/11/1996 07/18/1996 07/24/1996 08/15/1996

599 PLFF'S (RAYMOND J. STANTON) MOTION FOR WITNESSES . (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
600 PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDERATION AND REVERSE THE COURT'S ORDER OF JANUARY 18, 1995 EXCLUDING INDIVIDUALS INCARCERATED AT SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE CLASS COVERED BY THIS LITIGATION, MEMORANDUM OF LAW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
601 Defendants' response to Raymond J. Stanton's motions for contempt, to proceed in forma pauperis, for witnesses and opposing defendants' May 23, 1996, letter, cert. of service (70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
602 Defendants' response to the motion for sanctions injunctive and temporary relief filed by Frank St. Clair, John Boskie and Anthony Allen, cert. of service (70-2545, 71-513, 71, 1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
603 Letter to Judge DuBois, dated May 23, 1996, from Office of Attorney General re: Mr. Stanton's April 3, 1996, motion, apparently seeking a Court Order finding defts in comtempt, appears to raise three issues, etc. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
604 Letter to Judge DuBois, dated May 23, 1996, from Amr Civil Liberties Foundation, re: response to the motion filed by Raymond J. Stanton seeking relief via ICU v. Shapp, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
605 Letter to Judge DuBois, dated June 6, 1996, from ACLF of PA., re: Mr. Presser is in receipt of Courts 6/5/96 transmittal papers filed by James Hardwick, AM-9629, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
606 Copy of letter from ACLF, Stephen Presser, Esq., dated 3/14/96, to Spencer R. Dobson, Jr., re: request to be sent copies of all documents establishing exhaustion of the issues which were raised by Mr. Hardwick, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
607 Letter to Judge DuBois, dated 6/6/96 from ACLF re: receipt of Mr. Wylesol June 4, 1996, correspondence concerning the above named inmate's (Raymond J. Stanton), documents, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
608 Defts' Memorandum of law in opposition to plffs' motion to reconsider the Court's 1/18/95, Order, certificate of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
609 Affidavit on Raymond J. Stanton, verification. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
610 Letter from Spencer R. Dobson, Jr., to the Hon Jan E. DuBois, dated 7/9/96, re: to further stress his "total dissatisfaction with attorney Presser, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
611 Letter from Raymond J. Stanton, to the Court, dated 7-19-96 re: legal notice to inform the Court of Change to E block; E-4; release from RHU, verification. (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
612 Letter dated 8/12/96 from Charlesw D.Zehring, Jr. to the Court re: requesting Court's response regarding decree. Also requestng that this letter be considered an appropriate motion for requested relief. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)

64 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/21/1996 08/21/1996 09/03/1996 09/05/1996 09/05/1996 09/10/1996 09/13/1996
09/27/1996 10/01/1996 10/03/1996
10/31/1996 11/01/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996

613 Affidavit of Raymond J. Stanton, verification. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
614 Letter dated 8/17/96 from James Hardwick #AM9629, to Judge DuBois re: response to Mr.Presser's letter dated 8/12/96. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
615 Defts' memorandum in opposition to the letter submitted by Charles D. Zehring, Jr. concerning his motion for a rule to show cause and for a temporary restraining order, cert. of service (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
616 Plff's (Spencer R. Dobson) letter to Mr. Stefan Presser, Esq., dated 8/20/96 re: mischaracterization of complaints, etc. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
617 PLFF (RAYMOND J. STANTON'S ) MOTION TRIVETS TO THE RETURN , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
618 Plff (Charles D. Zehring, Jr.'s) letter dated 9/3/96, re: he received a motion opposing his recent letter to the Court, etc., and requesting relief sought in his previous motions and letters. (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
619 PLFF'S (RAYMOND J. STANTON) MOTION TO ENTER EXHIBITS (A) AND (B) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT, AND MOTION TRAVEST TO THE RETURN 8/30/96 AND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID ABOVE MOTION MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT. (EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED). (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
620 Defts' response to the document submitted by Raymond J.Stanton entitle "motion trivets to the return", cert. of service (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/04/1996)
621 Plff (James Hardwick) letter, dated 9/21/96, re: transfer and change of address to S.C.I. Rockview, Bellefonte, PA (lm) Modified on 11/04/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
622 PLFF'S MOTION TO OBJECT TO THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND AFFIDAVIT TRIVETS TO THE RETURN OF THE DEFENDANT AND FILE EXHIBITS, AFFIDAVIT VERIFICATION, (FILED BY RAYMOND J. STANTON). (lm) Modified on 11/05/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
623 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL BY AMEEN MCKELVIE. (lm) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
624 PLFF (GERALD MAYO) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , AFFIDAVIT(S), PROOF OF SERVICE. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
625 MEMORANDUM, FILED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS 12/6/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED) (aa) Modified on 12/09/1996 (Entered: 12/09/1996)
626 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT (DOCUMENT NO. 499) IS DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE NOTICES TO THE COURT, TREATED AS REQUESTS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS ON THE MOTION TO VACATE (DOCUMENT NOS. 527 AND 576), ARE DENIED AS MOOT; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ETC. (

65 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/09/1996
12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996
12/09/1996 12/09/1996
12/09/1996

SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/9/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
627 ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE CONSENT DECREE (DOCUMENT NOS. 503 AND 506), ARE DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS TO ENFORCE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTIONS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (DOCUMENT NOS. 524 AND 525) AND THE NOTICE TO THE COURT (DOCUMENT NO. 551), ARE DENIED AS MOOT; FURTHER THAT THE MOTION FOR SPEEDY DISPOSITION (DOCUMENT NO. 538) IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/9/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
628 Letter from Bob Brightwell dated 11/10/95 RE: copy of the Grievance concerning illegal transfer, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
629 ORDER THAT THE LETTER/MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCUMENT NO. 516) IS DENIED AS MOOT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT DENIED THE MOTIONS TO ENFORCE (DOCUMENT NOS. 503 AND 506), TO WHICH THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS ADDRESSED; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/9/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
630 ORDER THAT THE PETITION OF MANDAMUS (DOCUMENT NO. 560) IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITION WAS IMPROPERLY FILED WITH THIS COURT; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/9/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
631 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT (DOCUMENT NO. 508) IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT, AS IS SET FORTH IN THIS COURT MEMORANDUM OF 12/9/96; 1. MOVANT FAILED TO AVER, SETTING FORTH COMPLETE DETAILS, THAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE WERE INSTITUTION OR SYSTEM WIDE; ETC; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/9/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
632 Letter from Edward Govan dated 10/17/95 RE: Motion for contempt of Court proceedings, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
633 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DOCUMENT NO. 563), IS DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCUMENT NO. 561) IS DENIED AS MOOT; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
634 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 2/29/96 RE: Charles D. Zehring, Jr., etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)

66 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996
12/09/1996 12/09/1996
12/09/1996 12/09/1996
12/09/1996

635 Letter from Charles D. Zehring, Jr., dated 3/3/96 RE: receipt of Mr. Presser's letter, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
636 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 3/14/96 RE: receipt of letter dated 3/3/96, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
637 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 9/18/96 RE: Charles D. Zebring, JR., etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
638 Letter from Charles D. Zehring, Jr., dated 10/1/96 RE: receipt of copy of Mr. Presser's 9/18/96 letter to Court, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
639 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOCUMENT NO. 562) IS DENIED AS MOOT, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
640 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (DOCUMENT NO. 554) IS DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENT FOR FILING SUCH A MOTION AS SET FORTH IN THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF 12/9/96; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
641 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 8/12/96 RE: Spencer Dobson, Jr., etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
642 ORDER THAT THE COMPLAINT, VIOLATION I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE (DOCUMENT NO. 586), AND THE MOTION OF COMPLAINT (DOCUMENT NO. 589), BOTH TREATED BY THE COURT AS MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE, ARE DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND OF THE MOTION OF COMPLAINT, IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ETC. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION FOR RELEVANT WITNESSES (DOCUMENT NO. 599) IS DENIED; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
643 Letter from Raymond J. Stanton dated 5/30/96 RE: cash slips, certified mail slips for proof of service, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
644 ORDER THAT THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RAYMOND J. STANTON (DOCUMENT NO. 609), TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT IS DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO REPLACE CLASS COUNSEL (DOCUMENT NO. 617) IS DENIED; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
645 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 8/12/96 RE: Raymond Stanton, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)

67 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996 12/09/1996
12/09/1996
12/09/1996
12/09/1996
12/09/1996
12/09/1996

646 Letter from Francis R. Filipi dated 8/30/96 RE: Allegations presented by Mr. Stanton's submissions to the Court, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
647 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 9/18/96 RE: Raymond J. Stanton, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
648 Letter from Raymond J. Stanton dated 9/21/96 RE: received Stefan Presser's responds to the Court, etc. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
649 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOCUMENT NO. 588) IS DENIED AS MOOT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MEMBERS OF THE CLASS TO FILE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
650 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS INJUNCTIVE AND TEMPORARY RELIEF, TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE (DOCUMENT NO. 590) IS DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
651 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOCUMENT NO. 591) IS DENIED AS MOOT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MEMBERS OF THE CLASS TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
652 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUERPIS (DOCUMENT NO. 592) IS DENIED AS MOOT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR MEMBERS OF THE CLASS TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
653 ORDER THAT THE PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REVERSE (DOCUMENT NO. 600) IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MOTION WAS FILED ON 6/24/96 PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(B)(2) AND HAVING BEEN FILED MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COURT'S 1/18/95 ORDER; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)
654 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DOCUMENT NO. 624), TREATED AS A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE, IS DENIED; FURTHERED ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL TO THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/10/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/10/1996)

68 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/19/1996
12/19/1996 12/20/1996
12/27/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996
01/02/1997 01/08/1997 01/09/1997 01/10/1997

655 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., CONTAINED IN HIS LETTER OF 12/12/96, TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 12/9/96, DENYING THE MOTION OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, IS DENIED, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 12/20/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
656 Letter from CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., dated 12/12/96 in re: request for reconsideration of court order dated 12/9/96, etc.. (fb) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
657 Notice of appeal by MOVANT RAYMOND J. STANTON. Fee Status: ifp. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and GERALD MAYO, SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., KEITH BRANCH, RAYMOND J. STANTON, DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, JOHN A. NIGRO, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, JEROME SILO, JAMES HARDWICK, CHARLES D. ZEHRING JR., THEODORE G. OTTO, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, JOHN T. SNAVELY II, STEFAN PRESSER. (fb) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
658 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: [657-1] appeal. (fb) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE TO REQUEST PLFFS' COUNSEL TO REINSTATE 90-7497 AND 70-3054 TO COMPEL CORRECTIVE PROTECTION OF MENTAL HEALTH LIBERTY INTERESTS, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 12/30/1996)
659 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE TO REQUEST PLFFS' COUNSEL TO REINSTATE 90-7497 AND 70-3054 TO COMPEL CORRECTIVE PROTECTION OF MENTAL HEALTH LIBERTY INTERESTS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED ACTIONS IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/30/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 12/30/1996)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: appeal USCA NUMBER: 96-2175. 1/2/97 (gm) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
660 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL OF AMEEN MCKELVIE IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE HE SEEKS TO RAISE IS NOT COGNIZABLE IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CLASS ACTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. COPY FAXED 1/9/97. (gm) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
661 Request by MOVANT RAYMOND J. STANTON to recertify the in forma pauperis status, etc. (gm) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
662 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM RAYMOND J. STANTON, DATED JANUARY 6, 1997, REGARDING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF DECEMBER 9, 1996, DENYING HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (#588 FILED MAY 23, 1996), ETC., IT IS

69 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

01/16/1997
01/16/1997 01/16/1997
01/16/1997 01/17/1997 01/23/1997
01/29/1997 02/11/1997

ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF RAYMOND J. STANTON FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF DECEMBER 9, 1996, ETC., IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S ORDER OF DECEMBER 9, 1996. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS COURT'S ORDER OF DECEMBER 9, 1996, REGARDING RAYMOND J. STANTON'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN THIS COURT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF RAYMOND J. STANTON TO SEEK IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED DECEMBER 16, 1996. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: RAYMOND J. STANTON, BM3057, SCI, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA. 18612-0286. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 01/13/1997)
663 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND POLICY NO. 13.1.6 IS DENIED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 1/17/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) Modified on 01/29/1997 (Entered: 01/17/1997)
664 Request for a preliminary injunction needed to suspend policy No. 13.1.6 by MOVANT JEROME SILO is denied. (fb) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
665 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO RELATING TO INTERVENTION, TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 12/27/96, DENYING JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE, IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE 12/27/96 ORDER. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 1/17/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) Modified on 01/29/1997 (Entered: 01/17/1997)
666 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE . (fb) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
667 Notice of change of address by KEITH BRANCH (gm) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
668 Notice of appeal by MOVANT RAYMOND J. STANTON. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and GERALD MAYO, SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., KEITH BRANCH, RAYMOND J. STANTON, DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, JOHN A. NIGRO, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, JEROME SILO, JAMES HARDWICK, CHARLES D. ZEHRING JR., THEODORE G. OTTO, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, JOHN T. SNAVELY II, STEFAN PRESSER (gm) (Entered: 02/11/1997)
CERTIFIED AND TRANSMITTED RECORD ON APPEAL TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS (Pleadings 1 thru 605, 614 and 621 are not included). (fe) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
669 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 02/11/1997)

70 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

02/28/1997 02/28/1997 02/28/1997
03/10/1997 03/10/1997
03/10/1997 03/12/1997
03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/20/1997

Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: appeal USCA NUMBER: 97-1145. 3/3/97 (gm) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE IN C.A. 90-7497 AND 70-3054 . (SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
670 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE IN C.A. 90-7497 AND 70-3054, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT (ETC) IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE DECEMBER 27, 1996 ORDER. THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WHICH HAS JURISDICTION, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 03/03/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
671 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR (AS OF RIGHT) REQUEST TO HAVE THE COURT PLEAS PROVIDE VOLUNTEER COUNSEL TO ASSIST TO APPEAL IF NOT APPOINT COUNSEL, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
672 Notice of appeal by MOVANT JEROME SILO, proof of service. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and GERALD MAYO, SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., KEITH BRANCH, RAYMOND J. STANTON, DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, JOHN A. NIGRO, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, JAMES HARDWICK, CHARLES D. ZEHRING JR., THEODORE G. OTTO, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, JOHN T. SNAVELY II, STEFAN PRESSER. (gm) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
673 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 03/11/1997)
674 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO (EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES-EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EMERGENCY MOTION) TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24 TO NOTIFY COUNSEL, TO NOTIFY CLASS MEMBERS AND TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
675 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REQUEST VOLUNTARY OR APPOINTED COUNSEL IN CONNECTION WITH HIS APPEAL , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
676 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, ETC., TO REQUEST VOLUNTARY OR APPOINTED COUNSEL IN CONNECTION WITH HIS APPEAL, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION (ETC) IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 03/19/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
677 Withdrawal of appearance by THEODORE G. OTTO for (Cmw) DEFENDANTS, certificate of service. (ALSO SEE 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [672-1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 97-1179. Appeal docketed on 3/19/97. (fb) (Entered: 03/20/1997)

71 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/21/1997 03/24/1997 03/26/1997 03/26/1997 03/26/1997 03/28/1997 03/31/1997
04/01/1997

678 Request by JEROME SILO for mandatory as home volunteer counsel to assist Silo to appeal (lvj) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
679 MOTION BY MOVANT RAYMOND J. STANTON TO WITHDRAW (RESPONDS TO DEFENDANT) , AFFIDAVIT, VERIFICATION, PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
680 MOTION BY MOVANT LEROY J. LEVETT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fb) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
681 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR RECONSIDERATION SILO'S REQUEST FOR COURT TO REQUEST PRO BONO VOLUNTEER COUNSEL WITHOUT FEE OR APPOINTED COUNSEL, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 03/27/1997)
682 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO "RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT JUDGE DUBOIS PLEASE RECONSIDER SILO'S REQUEST FOR COURT TO REQUEST PRO BONO VOLUNTEER COUNSEL WITHOUT FEE OR APPOINT COUNSEL..." IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 03/27/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 03/27/1997)
683 MOTION BY MOVANT SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., MOVANT SHELDON MILLER, MOVANT ROBERT ANDERSON, MOVANT ANGEL RODRIGUES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
684 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF LEROY J. LEVETT, AN INMATE AT SCI DALLAS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (#680 FILED 3/26/97) IT IS ORDERED THAT, ON OR BEFORE 4/14/97, COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL FILE AND SERVE SEPARATE RESPONSES TO THE MOTION, ETC. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: MR. LEROY J. LEVETT (ETC); STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ.; FRANCIS R. FILIPI, ESQ., ( ETC) . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/1/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
685 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF RAYMOND J. STANTON OPPOSING DEFT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF RAYMOND J. STANTON OPPOSING DEFTS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THEODORE G. OTTO, III, ESQ., ETC., TO WITHDRAW HIS APPEARANCE FOR DEFTS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT BECAUSE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE STAFF OF THE ATTY GEN OF PA HAD ENTERED HIS APPEARANCE FOR DEFTS MANY YEARS EARLIER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/02/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/02/1997)

72 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/02/1997
04/02/1997
04/02/1997 04/03/1997 04/04/1997 04/07/1997 04/10/1997 04/11/1997 04/11/1997

686 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF SPENCER DOBSON, JR., SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON AND ANGEL RODRIGUES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (DOC #683 FILED MARCH 28, 1997) (ETC) IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ., AS CLASS COUNSEL, SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS ON OR BEFORE APRIL 14, 1997 AND FRANCIS R. FILIPI, SENIOR DEP ATTY GEN, ON BEHALF OF DEFTS, SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS ON OR BEFORE APRIL 21, 1997 AND TWO COPIES OF THE AFORESAID RESPONSES SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: MR. SPENCER DOBSON; MR. SHELDON MILLER, MR. ROBERT ANDERSON; MR. ANGEL RODRIGUES. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/03/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/03/1997)
687 Notice of appeal by MOVANT JEROME SILO. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and ANGEL RODRIGUES, ROBERT ANDERSON, SHELDON MILLER, LEROY J. LEVETT, GERALD MAYO, SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., KEITH BRANCH, RAYMOND J. STANTON, DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, JOHN A. NIGRO, BOBBY BRIGHTWELL, STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, JEROME SILO, JAMES HARDWICK, CHARLES D. ZEHRING JR., THEODORE G. OTTO, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, JOHN T. SNAVELY II, STEFAN PRESSER, proof of service. (gm) (Entered: 04/03/1997)
688 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 04/03/1997)
689 MOTION BY MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS FOR SANCTIONS/CONTEMPT . (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
690 Class counsel's response to MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT filed by Leroy J. Levett, BI-0317, Spencer Dobson, AS2871, Sheldon Miller AS2857, Robert Anderson AF4845, Angel Rodrigues BJ8105, cert of service. (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
691 Request for assistance by MOVANT ALLEN J. BROWN. (fb) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: appeal USCA NUMBER: 97-1244. 04/11/97 (gm) (Entered: 04/11/1997)
692 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 04/11/1997)
693 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION (ETC) IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/11/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. COPY FAXED. (gm) Modified on 04/11/1997 (Entered: 04/11/1997)

73 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/11/1997 04/11/1997
04/11/1997 04/14/1997 04/16/1997
04/21/1997 04/21/1997

694 ORDER (ETC) THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF ALAN B. DAVIS FOR SANCTIONS/CONTEMPT IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MOTION WAS NOT FILED BY CLASS COUNSEL, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF ALAN B. DAVIS TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/14/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
695 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE OF ALLEN JEROME BROWN IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE, TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION, WAS NOT FILED BY CLASS COUNSEL, AND THE REQUEST DOES NOT RECITE THAT ALLEN JEROME BROWN EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF ALLEN JEROME BROWN TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LAWSUIT IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO SEEK RELIEF, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/14/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
696 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFENDANTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
697 Response by DEFENDANTS to Leroy J. Levett's MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
698 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF LEROY J. LEVETT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (DOC. NO. 680 FILED MARCH 26, 1997), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF LEROY J. LEVETT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MOTION WAS NOT FILED BY CLASS COUNSEL, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO SEEK RELIEF, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/17/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/17/1997)
699 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY THE COURT IN ITS 4-10-97 ORDER WHICH DENIED JEROME SILO'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 04/21/1997)
700 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, TO CORRECT

74 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/21/1997 04/21/1997 04/24/1997 04/24/1997
05/02/1997

DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY THE COURT IN ITS 4-10-97 ORDER WHICH DENIED JEROME SILO'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION SHALL BE DOCKETED) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION, ETC., IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/21/97 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED AND COPIES FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/21/1997)
701 Objection by MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS to court order. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/21/1997)
702 Response by DEFENDANTS to MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS filed by Spencer R. Dobson, Sheldon Miller, Robert Anderson and Angel Rodrigues, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/21/1997)
703 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE OBJECTION TO COURT ORDER FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS (DOC. NO. 701), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE OBJECTION FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS TO THIS COURT'S ORDER OF APRIL 10, 1997 IS OVERRULED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ORDER OF APRIL 10, 1997, AND THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 9, 1996. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/25/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
704 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF SPENCER DOBSON, JR., SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES, FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (DOC. NO. 683, FILED MARCH 28, 1997), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF SPENCER DOBSON, JR., SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES, FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MOTION WAS NOT FILED BY CLASS COUNSEL, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO SEEK RELIEF, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF SPENCER DOBSON, JR., SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE CIVIL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: MR. SPENCER DOBSON, MR. SHELDON MILLER, MR. ROBERT ANDERSON, MR. ANGBEL RODRIGUES. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/25/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
705 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO PLEASE CORRECT AN APPARENT MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE OF FAILING TO APPLY THE COURT'S OWN CITATION" , ETC., PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1997)

75 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/02/1997
05/08/1997 05/08/1997 05/16/1997
05/16/1997 05/27/1997 05/27/1997

706 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE SUBMISSION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "DEMAND TO MODIFY ICU CONSENT DECREE AS AUTHORIZED BY RUFO (US 1992)," WHICH SUBMISSI9ON CONTAINS A "MOTION TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO PLEASE CORRECT AN APPARENT MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE OF FAILING TO APPLY THE COURT'S OWN CITATION" (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE DEMAND TO MODIFY ICU CONSENT DECREE AND RELATED MOTION ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL OF RECORD AND JEROME SILO, F-3298, SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/05/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
707 Letter from Office of Atty Gen, dated 5/6/97, to Judge DuBois, re: request for an enlargement of time to file a memorandum of law addressing plff's motion to compel discovery, etc. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
708 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFTS' LETTER REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF LAW ADDRESSING PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, THE REQUEST IS HEREBY GRANTED. DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE ANY SUCH MEMORANDUM BY TUESDAY MAY 13, 1997 . TWO COPIES WILL BE MAILED DIRECTLY TO CHAMBERS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/08/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
709 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE (DOC NO 696, FILED APRIL 11, 1997) AND THE JOINT REPORT OF COUNSEL DATED MAY 12, 1997 (A COPY OF THE JOINT REPORT SHALL BE DOCKETED), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE WILL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 23, 1997 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/16/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
710 Letter from Francis R. Filipi, Esq., Atty General Office, dated 5/12/97 to Judge DuBois re: Joint Report, etc. (Also see #709) (gm) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
711 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24, AS AMENDED IN 1966 , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 05/27/1997)
712 Submissions by MOVANT JEROME SILO RELATED TO INTERVENTION, ETC. (gm) (Entered: 05/27/1997)

76 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/27/1997
06/02/1997 06/03/1997 06/03/1997
06/03/1997 06/09/1997 06/09/1997

713 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL, ON OR BEFORE JUNE 17, 1997, FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO JEROME SILO'S PRO SE MOTION TO INVOKE STANDING, ETC. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES OF CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (ROOM 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/27/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/27/1997)
714 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 06/03/97 TERMINATING appeal(s); (USCA #97-1145,97-1179,97-1244) the above-entitled case is hereby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute, etc. (gm) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
715 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE M.L.B. V S.L.J. (US SUPREME CT 12-16-96) TO CLAIM THAT INSOFAR AS AN IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL FEDERAL RIGHTS ISSUE IS AT STAKE HERE EFFECTING 35000 PA STATE PRISONERS, ETC.) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
716 ORDER THAT THE COURT HAVING RECEIVED ON JUNE 2, 1997, FROM JEROME SILO AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, A "MOTION TO INVOKE M.L.B. V. S.L.J. (ETC)" IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE DOCKETED AND 2. CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL, ON OR BEFORE JUNE 17, 1997, FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES OF CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (#12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/03/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
717 Response by Class Counsel to Jerome Silo's MOTION TO INTERVENE, certificate of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
718 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY INVOKE RULE 201 OF RULES OF EVIDENCE TO REQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE WITHIN SET FORTH ADJUDICATORY FACTS AND TO FURTHER ASSESS THE TENOR OF SAID ADJUDICATORY FACTS , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
719 ORDER THAT UPON RECEIPT OF A TWENTY-EIGHT (28) PAGE DOCUMENT FROM JEROME SILO, ETC., ENTITLED "MOTION TO RESPECTFULLY INVOKE RULE 201 OF RULES OF EVIDENCE TO REQUEST THE HONORABLE COURT TO PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE WITHIN SET FORTH ADJUDICATORY FACTS AND TO FURTHER ASSESS THE TENOR OF SAID ADJUDICATORY FACTS," (ETC), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION (ETC) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE MOTION SHALL BE

77 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/09/1997 06/10/1997 06/10/1997 06/13/1997 06/13/1997 06/16/1997 06/16/1997
06/16/1997

SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS, STEFAN PRESSER, AND COUNSEL FOR DEFTS, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, SR., DEPUTY ATTY GENERAL, FOR WHATEVER ACTION, IF ANY, THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/09/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 06/09/1997)
720 Response by Class Counsel IMPRISONED CITIZENS to MOTION FOR CONTEMPT filed by Class Members Smith, Yount, Boone, Romberger, Kopac and Teater, cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
721 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24, AS AMENDED IN 1966, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
722 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF AN ADJUDICATORY FACT, TO WIT: THAT STEFAN PRESSER HAS UNDISPUTABLY (AS YET) NOT ADDRESSED, IN PARTICULARITY, ANY OF THE IMPORTANT FEDERAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES , ETC., PROOF OF SERVICE. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/11/1997)
723 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MAY 27, 1997, AND/OR TO COMPEL A RESPONSE, IN PARTICULARITY, TO JEROME SILO'S OBJECTION(S) TO THE BINDING EFFECT" OF THE CONSENT DECREE, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
724 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE ADKINS V DUPONT, ETC., PURSUANT TO INVOKING JEROME SILO'S IFP STATUS AS AN ICU CLASS MEMBER... (ETC)...TO APPOINT AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF MENTAL HEALTH AND TO APPOINT AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF IMPRISONMENT, ETC., , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
725 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REQUEST "AS OF RIGHT" ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (ETC) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
726 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REQUEST CLASS COUNSEL TO ACT ON BEHALF OF JEROME SILO, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CLASS MEMBERS AFFECTED ADVERSELY BY THE RETALIATORY AND LIFE-THREATENING ACTS AGAINST JEROME SILO AND/OR TO URGE THIS COURT TO REQUEST CLASS COUNSEL TO TAKE SUCH ACTION TO RESTRAIN IMMINENT IRREPRABLE HARM INFLICTED UPON JEROME SILO, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
727 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A PRO SE MOTION SUBMITTED BY JEROME SILO, ETC., ENTITLED "MOTION TO REQUEST CLASS COUNSEL TO ACT ON BEHALF OF JEROME SILO, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER CLASS MEMBERS AFFECTED ADVERSELY BY THE RETALIATORY AND LIFE-THREATENING ACTS AGAINST JEROME SILO, ETC.", IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON

78 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/16/1997 06/19/1997 06/19/1997 06/24/1997 06/24/1997
06/24/1997

THE GROUND THAT THE MATTERS ABOUT WHICH THE SAID JEROME SILO COMPLAINS INVOLVE HIS ACTION AGAINST THE U S DEPT OF LABOR IN THE USDC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 96-163 AND DO NOT INVOLVE MATTERS ADDRESSED IN THE CONSENT DECREE ENTERED IN THIS CASE, AS AMENDED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COPIES OF JEROME SILO'S PRO SE MOTION AND THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO AT SCI PITTSBURGH AND ON COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THIS CASE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/17/97 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
728 Response by DEFENDANT to Jerome Silo's MOTION TO INTERVENE, cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
729 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 06/20/97 TERMINATING appeal; the appeal is dismissed. The appellant's letter, dated February 8, 1997, indicates that appellant's petition filed January 23, 1997, was not intended as a notice of appeal. Thus, we treated the letter as a motion to dismiss the appeal voluntarily which is granted. The district court was instructed not to assess the filing fees prescribed, etc. (gm) (Entered: 06/20/1997)
730 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 06/20/97; the foregoing appeal (Raymond J. Stanton) is dismissed as frivolous. (USCA #97-1145,97-1179) (gm) (Entered: 06/20/1997)
731 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE SECTION XVIII OF I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE: (TO SEEK I.C.U.REMEDIAL (JUDICIAL PROCESS),ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
732 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "MOTION TO INVOKE SECTION XVIII OF I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE" (THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION SHALL BE DOCKETED), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO (ETC) IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID JEROME SILO TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER OF JUNE 16, 1997, BY BRINGING THE MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE USDC FOR THE DIST OF COLULMBIA IN C.A. 96-1673, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/25/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
733 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRO SE MOTION OF DEREK S. SMITH, JON E. YOUNT, BISHOP JOHNATHAN M. BOONE (THE COURT NOTES THAT MR. BOONE DIED ON MAY 29, 1997), JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, DAVID B. KOPAC AND KENNETH W. TEATER, INMATES AT SCI HUNTINGDON, ETC., IT IS PREMATURE FOR DEFTS TO ARGUE THE FACTS AND LAW CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MOTION, ETC., THE COURT WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/25/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm)

79 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/24/1997 06/24/1997
06/24/1997
06/26/1997 06/26/1997
06/26/1997

(Entered: 06/25/1997)
734 JOINT REPORT OF COUNSEL DATED JUNE 23, 1997. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
735 ORDER THAT UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (#696) ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE WILL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ETC) ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 1, 1997, ETC. . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/25/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
736 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY JEROME SILO, ETC., ON MARCH 12, 1997, ETC., (DOC. NO. 674 IN 70-3054) IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S "EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24 TO NOTIFY COUNSEL", ETC., IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND WHERE VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED (ETC). (ALSO SEE 90-7497) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/25/97 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) Modified on 06/25/1997 (Entered: 06/25/1997)
737 MOTION BY MOVANT MUHAMMAD KHALID EL-AMIN, MOVANT CARLTON ESTES OF THE WITHIN NAMED I.C.U.CLASS MEMBERS AT S.C.I.PITTSBURGH WHO ARE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY STATUS, ETC., TO JOIN AS ADDITIONAL MOVANTS ALONG WITH THE CLASS MEMBER WHO FILED A PRO SE MOTION TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION TO INTERVENE, ETC. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/26/1997)
738 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF "MOTION OF THE WITHIN NAMED I.C.U.CLASS MEMBERS AT S.C.I.PITTSBURGH WHO ARE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY STATUS, ETC.", IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST OF MUHAMMAD K. EL-AMIN AND CARLTON ESTES TO BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL MOVANTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24, AS AMENDED IN 1966 (#711, FILED MAY 27, 1997) AND IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS (ETC). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/26/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/26/1997)
739 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REPLY TO DEFTS' RESPONSE TO JEROME SILO'S MOTION TO INTERVNE BY REQUESTING COURT

80 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/26/1997 06/26/1997
07/03/1997 07/03/1997 07/08/1997 07/08/1997

TO PLEASE APPOINT EXPERT IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
740 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE 28 PAGE DOCUMENT FROM JEROME SILO (WHICH HAD IMPROPERLY BEEN SUBMITTED AS A REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATORY FACTS, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
741 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM (ETC) THAT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS IS DENIED: MOTION TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24, AS AMENDED IN 1966 (#711); MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INVOKE MLB V SLJ (#715); (ETC); MOTION TO INVOKE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION TO INTERVENE (#721); MOTION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MAY 27, 1997, ETC., (#723); MOTION TO INVOKE ADKINS V DUPONT, ETC., (#724); MOTION TO REQUEST "AS OF RIGHT" ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL #(#725); MOTION TO REPLY TO DEFTS' RESPONSE TO JEROME SILO'S MOTION TO INTERVENE, ETC., MOTION TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE 28 PAGE DOCUMENT FROM JEROME SILO, ETC., THE DENIAL OF JEROME SILO'S MOTIONS IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING (ETC). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/27/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) Modified on 06/27/1997 (Entered: 06/27/1997)
742 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO MAKE A REQUEST IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S 6-25-97 ORDER GRANTING TWO ICU CLASS MEMBERS LEAVE TO JOIN AS ADDITIONAL MOVANTS IN A MATTER BEFORE THE COURT (ETC) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) Modified on 07/07/1997 (Entered: 07/07/1997)
743 ORDER THAT UPON RECEIPT OF A DOCUMENT FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH ENTITLED "MOTION TO MAKE A REQUEST IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S 6-25-97 ORDER GRANTING TWO ICU CLASS MEMBERS LEAVE TO JOIN AS ADDITIONAL MOVANTS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S "MOTION TO MAKE A REQUEST, ETC.", IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 07/07/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 07/07/1997)
744 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROTECTING AGBAINST DISCRIMINAATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE ETC AND JUNE 25, 1997 ORDER GRANTING 2 ADDITIONAL MOVANTS (EL-AMIN AND ESTES) TO BE ADDED TO SILO'S MOTION, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
745 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF JEROME SILO'S PRO SE "MOTION TO INVOKE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROTECTING AGBAINST DISCRIMINAATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE ETC AND JUNE 25, 1997 ORDER GRANTING 2 ADDITIONAL MOVANTS (EL-AMIN AND ESTES) TO BE ADDED TO SILO'S MOTION, ETC.", IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S PRO SE "MOTION (ETC)" IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY

81 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

07/14/1997 07/14/1997 07/16/1997 07/16/1997 08/05/1997
08/05/1997 08/05/1997 08/05/1997

JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 07/08/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
746 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGE DUBOIS' ELEVEN PAGE 6-25-97 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WHICH DENIED ALL OF SILO'S MOTIONS TO INTERVENE , ETC., PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
747 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF JEROME SILO'S PRO SE SUBMISSION ENTITLED "MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGE DUBOIS' ELEVEN PAGE 6-25-97 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WHICH DENIED ALL OF SILO'S MOTIONS TO INTERVENE..."(ETC), IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S PRO SE "MOTION ETC" IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 07/14/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 07/14/1997)
748 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITING AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND TO INVOKE CAREY V PIPHUS (US 1977) "RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IS ABSOLUTE", ETC., , PROOF(S) OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
749 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF JEROME SILO'S P[RO SE "MOTION TO INVOKE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITING AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND TO INVOKE CAREY V PIPHUS (US 1977), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT JEROME SILO'S PRO SE "MOTION (ETC)" IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 07/16/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
750 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ., COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS, DATED AUGUST 1, 1997 (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE WILL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, ETC. (A COPY OF THE REPORT SHALL BE DOCKETED). RESET RESPONSE DUE 9/30/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 08/06/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
751 Report of Stefan Presser, Esq., counsel for the plff class dated August 1, 1997, etc. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
752 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INVOKE HADIX V JOHNSON, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
753 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI-PITTSBURGH, TO INVOKE HADIX V JOHNSON, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION (ETC) IS

82 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/05/1997 08/05/1997 08/05/1997
08/08/1997 08/08/1997
08/13/1997 08/14/1997
08/14/1997

DENIED, ETC. (THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION SHALL BE DOCKETED). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 08/06/97 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED AND COPIES FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
754 Request for relief relating to Americans With Disabilities Act, etc., by MOVANT JEROME SILO. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
755 Request for relief relating to the Americans With Disabilities Act, etc., by MOVANT JEROME SILO, proof of service. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
756 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF TWO SUBMISSIONS OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, RELATING TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSIONS IS DENIED. (THE ORIGINALS OF THE TWO SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE DOCKETED). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 08/06/97 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED AND COPIES FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
757 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO BEING SUBJECTED TO LIFE-THREATENING ETHNIC INTIMIDATION (ETC) BY USE OF DEFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY (ETC) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
758 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI-PITTSBURGH, STYLED AS " MOTION OF JEROME SILO BEING SUBJECTED TO LIFE-THREATENING ETHNIC INTIMIDATION (ETC) BY USE OF DEFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY (ETC) AND THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT (ETC) ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF SAID JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDING IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND VENUE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 08/08/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
759 Petition of PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS by WADE D. LEE for contempt proceedings of the I.C.U. consent decree, certificate of service. (fb) (Entered: 08/14/1997)
760 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO THAT THE COURT SEND COPIES OF HIS MOTION STYLED "MOTION OF JEROME SILO BEING SUBJECTED TO LIFE-THREATENING ETHNIC INTIMIDATION (ANTISEMITISM) BY USE OF DEFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY AND DISCIPLINARY MISCONDUCT REPORTING SYSTEM WHICH ARE SYSTEM PROTECTED BY I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE...," IS DENIED, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 8/15/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 08/15/1997)
761 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO BEING SUBJECTED TO LIFE-THREATENING ETHNIC INTIMIDATION (ANTISEMITISM) BY USE OF DEFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY AND DISCIPLINARY MISCONDUCT REPORTING SYSTEM WHICH ARE SYSTEM

83 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/21/1997
08/21/1997
08/28/1997 09/03/1997 09/03/1997 09/09/1997 09/09/1997 09/10/1997

PROTECTED BY I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE... (fb) (Entered: 08/15/1997)
762 ORDER THAT CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION ON OR BEFORE 9/9/97. TWO COPIES OF EACH RESPONSE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON WADE D. LEE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/22/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lvj) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
763 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO THAT THE COURT SEND COPIES OF HIS MOTION STYLED "MOTION OF JEROME SILO BEING SUBJECTED TO LIFE-THREATENING ETHNIC INTIMIDATION BY USE OF DEFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE CUSTODY AND DISCIPLINARY MISCONDUCT REPORTING SYSTEM WHICH ARE SYSTEM PROTECTED BY I.C.U. IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/22/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 08/22/1997)
764 Response by Class Counsel DEFENDANT to pro se plaintiff, Wade D. Lee, petition for contempt, cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
765 JOINDER MOTION BY MOVANT WILLIAM L. MARSHALL TO MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY LEROY J. LEVETT, SPENCER DOBSON, SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , PROOF OF SERVICE. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
766 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 09/04/97; that the above-entitled case is heeby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute, etc. (97-1179) (gm) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
767 MOTION BY MOVANT DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, MOVANT WAYNE O. AULTMAN FOR CONTEMPT OF CONSENT DECREE , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
768 Response by DEFENDANTS to Wade D. Lee, Secretary, Imprisoned Citizens Union of the SCI PITTSBURGH, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
769 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE "JOINDER BY WILLIAM L. MARSHALL TO MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY LEROY J. LEVITT, ETC., AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (#765 FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTIONS OF WILLIAM L. MARSHALL FOR CONTEMPT OF THE ICU CONSENT DECREE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ARE DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE ICU CONSENT DECREE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO SEEK RELIEF, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE PRO SE MOTIONS OF WILLIAM L. MARSHALL IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS RIGHT TO

84 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

09/12/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997
09/15/1997

FILE AN APPROPRIATE CIVIL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: MR. WILLIAM L. MARSHALL, ETC., GREENSBURG, PA., 15601. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 09/11/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 09/11/1997)
770 Response by NOTICE ONLY WADE D. LEE to class counsel's response to petition for contempt, certificate of service. (fb) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
771 Brief by WADE D. LEE in support of plaintiffs' motion for contempt proceedings, cert of service. (gm) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
772 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF WAYNE O. AULTMAN AND DERRICK D. FONTROY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, FOR CONTEMPT OF CONSENT DECREE (#767), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION (ETC) IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE A MOTION FOR CONT EMPT, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE MOVANTS TO BRING AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CONSENT DECREE FILED BY WAYNE O. AULTMAN AND DERRICK P. FONTROY (#767) AND COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: WAYNE O. AULTMAN, (ETC); DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I, (ETC). DENYING [767-1] MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF CONSENT DECREE ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 09/15/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
773 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION OF WADE D. LEE, ETC., FOR "CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ICU CONSENT DECREE" (DOC 759, FILED AUGUST 13, 1997), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION (ETC) IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING SUCH A MOTION AS SET FORTH IN THE COURT'S MEMO OF 12/9/96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE INVOLVED INMATES TO BRING AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION, IN A COURT IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFTS, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: WADE D. LEE, BV8651, SCI PITTSBURGH, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 09/16/97 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 09/16/1997)

85 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

09/23/1997
09/23/1997 09/30/1997 10/01/1997 10/07/1997 10/07/1997 10/09/1997

774 Appearance by Sarah B. Vandenbraak, Esq., for DEFENDANT MILTON SHAPP, DEFENDANT J. SHANE CREAMER, DEFENDANT ROBERT L. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT LEONARD MACK, DEFENDANT JAMES MURPHY, DEFENDANT ERSKINE DEREMUS, DEFENDANT JOSEPH P. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRIERLY, DEFENDANT ALLYN R. SEILAFF. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
775 MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
776 Response (motion) in opposition, by PLAINTIFF, to defts' MOTION TO TERMINATE preliminary relief and in the alternative to declare the prison litigation reform act unconstitutional, etc., cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
777 Request that the Court accept comments re: consent decree, etc., by MOVANT CHARLES D. ZEHRING JR. (gm) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
778 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 10/08/1997 (Entered: 10/08/1997)
779 Brief by DEFENDANTS in support of constitutionality of Section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 10/08/1997 (Entered: 10/08/1997)
780 ORDER THAT ON OR BEFORE 10/14/97 PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A SUPP MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CONTEMPT, ETC.; ON OR BEFORE 10/17/97 DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, AS AMENDED, ETC. (DEFTS WILL ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH A COPY OF THEIR RESPONSE BY THE END OF THE DAY ON 10/16/97. IF THE GOVT NEEDS ADDITIONAL TIME FOR FILING ITS MEMO OF LAW IT MUST BE REQUESTED BY LETTER TO THE COURT ON OR BEFORE 10/23/97, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE STATUS/SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON 10/20/97 AT 11:00 A.M. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES AND THE U.S.GOVERNMENT SHALL PARTICIPATE. PLFFS' COUNSEL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING THE TELEPHONE STATUS/SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. RESET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 11:00 10/20/97 , RESET RESPONSE DUE 10/14/97 BY PLFFS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, ETC., , RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 10/17/97 FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, AS AMENDED, ETC. ON OR BEFORE THE U S GOVT SHALL ADVISE THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO ITS POSITION ON INTERVENTION, ETC . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/10/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND

86 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

10/10/1997 10/14/1997 10/16/1997 10/20/1997 10/20/1997 10/21/1997
10/21/1997 10/21/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997

FAXED 10/9/97. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) Modified on 10/10/1997 (Entered: 10/10/1997)
781 Memorandum of DEFENDANTS in further explication of the relationship between plffs' motion for contempt and defts' motion to terminate prospective relief, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
782 MOTION BY MOVANT WADE D. LEE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE "PETITION FOR CONTEMPT." , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fdc) (Entered: 10/14/1997)
783 Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS in opposition to plff's MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
784 Reply Memorandum of PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
785 Supplemental Memorandum of law in support of motion for contempt by MOVANT WADE D. LEE, cert of service. (gm) (Entered: 10/21/1997)
786 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO MOTION OF WADE D. LEE, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE "PETITION FOR CONTEMPT" (DOC NO 782 FILED OCTOBER 14, 1997) AND THE LETTER/RESPONSE FROM CLASS COUNSEL, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF WADE D. LEE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING CLASS COUNSEL TO FILE "PETITION FOR CONTEMPT" IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFTS, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: WADE D. LEE, BV8651, SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 51233. (NOTE: A COPY OF THE LETTER FROM CLASS COUNSEL DATED OCTOBER 20, 1997, SHALL BE DOCKETED.) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/22/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
787 Copy of letter from class counsel dated October 20, 1997, to the Honorable Jan E. DuBois. (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
788 Response (corrected memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS in opposition to plffs' MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
789 Memorandum of DEFENDANTS relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
790 MOTION BY MOVANT U.S.A. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC S2403 , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
791 Memorandum of law by MOVANT U.S.A. concerning the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service.

87 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

10/22/1997 10/22/1997
10/28/1997
10/28/1997 10/28/1997

(71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
792 Response by PLAINTIFF to defts memorandum relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
793 ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE DEFTS TO TREAT ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE AS BINDING -- INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CONSENT DECREE, ETC., THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE 30 DAY AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISION OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, ETC., AND THE CHALLENGES TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY ASSERTED BY PLFFS, ARE NOT AT ISSUE IN THE CASE AT THIS TIME. THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF DEFTS TO PROVIDE THIS COURT AND PLFFS WITHIN 20 DAYS NOTICE OF A DECISION TO WITHDRAW THEIR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CONSENT DECREE, AS MODIFIED BY AMENDMENTS AND STIPULATIONS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/23/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/22/97. (gm) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
794 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE SUBMISSION OF WADE D. LEE, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REQUEST OF PRO SE MOVANT, WADE D. LEE FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY CLASS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR DEFTS IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY PRO SE MOVANT WADE D. LEE TO THE EXTENT THEY HAVE BEEN RAISED BY CLASS COUNSEL IN HIS SUBMISSIONS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS THE COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF WADE D. LEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PLFF CLASS TO BRING AN ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE SUBMISSION OF WADE D. LEE ENTITLED "SUPP MEM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT" SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THIS CASE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFTS, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON: WADE D. LEE, #BV8651, SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA. 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
795 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE, ETC., THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC S2403 IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
796 ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A STATUS REPORT BY TELEPHONE WITH THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL IS IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON OCTOBER 29, 1997,

88 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

10/28/1997 10/31/1997
11/04/1997 11/04/1997

COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF SHALL FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINES ON OCTOBER 29, 1997, COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL SUBMIT TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS, ETC.; A FURTHER TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 7, 1997, AT 9:30 A.M., ETC. , ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDINGS ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF, ETC., 11:00 11/19/97 IN COURTROOM 12B, US CTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TWO COPIES OF PLFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND THE AGREED UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS, ROOM 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. ( SIGNED BY JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/27/97. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
797 AMENDED MOTION BY PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/29/1997)
798 ORDER THAT SUPPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 27, 1997, IN WHICH PLFFS, THROUGH COUNSEL, WERE DIRECTED TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON OCTOBER 29, 1997, IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 6, 1997. RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 11/6/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/3/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) Modified on 11/03/1997 (Entered: 11/03/1997)
799 (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES) MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO COMPEL CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFTS' COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEFS (ETC) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
800 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A 21 PAGE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY JEROME SILO, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT ALL OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IN HIS "EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION TO COMPEL", IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO INCLUDE ANY OF THE MATTERS RAISED BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IN CLASS COUNSEL'S SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE 21 PAGE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY JEROME SILO, AND THE ONE PAGE INTRODUCTION ENTITLED "EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION TO COMPEL..", SHALL BE DOCKETED AND COPIES SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL. IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F3298, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, PO BOX 99901,

89 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/06/1997 11/06/1997
11/06/1997 11/06/1997
11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/10/1997

PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/5/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
801 Request for MOVANT JEROME SILO for a copy of the motion of the U.S. to intervene, etc. (gm) (Entered: 11/06/1997)
802 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE SUBMISSION OF JEROME SILO, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO FOR A COPY OF THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE, ETC., IS DENIED. TO THE EXTENT JEROME SILO WANTS TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE MOTION (ETC) HE SHOULD REQUEST IT FROM CLASS COUNSEL, STEFAN PRESSER, ESQ. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE SUBMISSION OF JEROME SILO DATED OCT 31, 1997, SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK OF COURT ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, A COPY OF THE INSTANT ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/6/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/06/1997)
803 Copy of Objections by MOVANT WAYNE O. AULTMAN to any and all stipulations and/or agreements made by plff class counsel. (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
804 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED PRO SE BY WAYNE O. AULTMAN, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFF CLASS MEMBER AULTMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO ANY AND ALL STIPULATIONS AND/OR AGREEMENTS MADE BY PLFF CLASS COUNSEL ARE OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS, ETC., SHALL BE DOCKETED AND COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR WHATEVER ACTION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL A COPY OF THE INSTANT ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON WAYNE O. AULTMAN, JR., ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/7/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
805 Memorandum of law in support of defts' response to plffs' amended motion for contempt by DEFENDANTS, Certificate of Service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
806 MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
807 ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A TELEPHONCE CONFERENCE WITH THE PARTIES, ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: A HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLFF'S MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CONTEMPT, PLFFS' MOTION TO

90 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/10/1997 11/12/1997 11/12/1997
11/12/1997

DECLARE THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF, IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOV 19, 1997, AT 11:00 A.M., IN CTROOM 12B, US CTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA.; , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 19, 1997, THE PARTIES SHALL FILE AND SERVE A STIPULATION OF FACTS FOR PRESENTATION TO THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ALL PENDING MOTIONS (ETC); ; ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 12, 1997, DEFTS SHALL ALSO PROVIDE COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND THE COURT WITH THE NAME, ADDRESS, ETC., OF EACH WITNESS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TWO COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS 12613) WHEN, UNDER THIS ORDER, COPIES MUST BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL AND THE COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/12/97 ENTERED. COPIES FAXED 11/10/97. (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
808 Stipulation of Uncontested Facts (by counsel Presser, Vandenbraak, Filipi, Esq.), cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
809 (EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION OF CLASS MEMBER JEROME SILO AND OTHER ICU CLASS MEMBERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO PLEASE SERVE A COPY OF THE 21 PAGE 10-29-97 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION UPON INTERVENING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , ETC. (gm) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
810 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT FILED PRO SE BY JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION OF CLASS MEMBER JEROME SILO, AND OTHER ICU CLASS MEMBERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO PLEASE SERVE A COPY OF THE 21 PAGE 10-29-97 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION UPON INTERVENING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...", IT IS ORDERED THAT (ETC) MOTION IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE "EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION, ETC." SHALL BE DOCKETED AND COPIES SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL. IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F3298 AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
811 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY (#806 FILED 11/6/97) (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (ETC) IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, AP4884 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-GREENE,

91 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

11/13/1997 11/13/1997 11/14/1997 11/18/1997 11/18/1997 11/19/1997
11/21/1997 11/25/1997 11/26/1997
11/28/1997 12/03/1997

1040 E. ROY FURMAN HGHWY, WAYNESBURG, PA., 15370-8090. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
812 Declaration by JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D. (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
813 Declaration by LINDA C. BARRETT, ESQ. (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
814 Petition for writ of mandamus of MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, Memorandum of law, Certificate of Service. (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1997)
815 Notice of Entry of Appearance of JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ for MOVANT U.S.A., Certificate of Service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
816 Notice of recent decision by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
817 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS, (#814), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS IS DENIED, ETC. THE COURT FURTHER NOTES THAT, BY MEMO AND ORDERS DATED DECEMBER 9, 1996, IT RULED THAT THE COURT WOULD CONSIDER A MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL BY THE CLERK; COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL AND PRO SE PLFF, ALAN B. DAVIS, #AF1282, SCI DALLAS, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA., 18612-0286. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/20/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
818 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
819 Transcript for Oral Argument dated 11/19/97. (fb) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
820 ORDER THAT HAVING CONSIDERED PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A POST-HEARING BRIEF AND FINDING IT REASONABLE IN ALL RESPECTS THE COURT NOW HEREBY GRANTS PLFF LEAVE TO FILE THE BRIEF ANNEXED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THAT MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
821 MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR RECONSIDERATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
822 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 12, 1997, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, ETC., IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER

92 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/04/1997 12/08/1997 12/10/1997 12/11/1997
12/11/1997 12/16/1997 12/18/1997

ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, AP-4884, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI GREENE, 1040 E. ROY FURMAN HGY, WAYNESBURG, PA., 15370-8090. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/4/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/04/1997)
823 Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANT to plaintiff's memorandum of law concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
824 ORDER, BY AGREEMENT, THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE IS DENIED AS MOOT. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 12/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
825 Notice of Amendments by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 12/10/1997 (Entered: 12/10/1997)
826 ORDER THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INFORM THE COURT OF GRIEVANCE FINAL REVIEW DECISION INVOLVING VIOLATION OF CONSENT DECREEE IS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS NOT FILED BY CLASS COUNSEL AND OTHERWISE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECEMBER 9, 1996. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO INFORM THE COURT OF GRIEVANCE FINAL REVIEW DECISION INVOLVING VIOLATION OF CONSENT DECREE SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK OF COURT ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND JEROME SILO, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/12/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
827 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INFORM THE COURT OF GRIEVANCE FINAL REVIEW DECISION, ETC. . (lvj) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
828 Objections by MOVANT JON E. YOUNT, MOVANT DAVID B. KOPAC, MOVANT DEREK S. SMITH, MOVANT GUY BICKLING, MOVANT JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, MOVANT KENNETH W. TEATER to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", affidavit(s). (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
829 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTION OF PRO SE PLFFS, GUY BICKING, DAVID B. KOPAC, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, DEREK S. SMITH, KENNETH W. TEATER AND JON E. YOUNT TO PORTIONS OF "STIP OF UNCONTESTED FACTS" (#828) IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE DEC 26, 1997. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES SHALL BE SERVED ON CHAMBERS WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. IT IS

93 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

12/19/1997 12/26/1997 01/20/1998 01/30/1998 02/06/1998
03/18/1998 04/27/1998

FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON GUY BICKING, DAVID B. KOPAC, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, DEREK S. SMITH, KENNETH W. TEATER AND JON E. YOUNT. RESET RESPONSE DUE 12/26/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/19/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-2545, 71-1006, 71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
830 Response by Class Counsel (IMPRISONED CITIZENS) to plff's objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", cert of service. (ALSO SEE 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
831 Response to plaintiff's objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts" by DEFENDANTS, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
832 Stipulation of Uncontested Facts w/exhibits attached. (cb) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
833 Notice of recent decisions by DEFENDANT MILTON SHAPP, cert of service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
834 MOTION by PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS, PLAINTIFF HERBERT LANGNES JR., PLAINTIFF MILTON TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF JACK LOPINSON, PLAINTIFF MACKEY R. CHOICE, PLAINTIFF RICHARD. O.J. MAYBERRY, PLAINTIFF FRANK PATTERSON, PLAINTIFF DANIEL DELKER, PLAINTIFF HAROLD A.X. BROOKS, PLAINTIFF CARLINE COEFIELD, PLAINTIFF THELMA SIMON, PLAINTIFF AUDREY MASON, PLAINTIFF SHARON WIGGINS, PLAINTIFF DOMINIC CODISPOTI, PLAINTIFF PHILIP HOUSEHOLDER, PLAINTIFF JAMES HARBOLD, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH OLIVER, PLAINTIFF PAUL LYONS, PLAINTIFF ROBERT BROWN, PLAINTIFF GERALD MAYO, PLAINTIFF WELSLEY HARRIS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (cb) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO REQUESTS ALSO THAT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO POSTPONE IMPOSING THE "CO-PAY" POLICY UNTIL A FAIR AND FULL HEARING CHALLENGE OR ITS VALIDITY IS COMPLETED , PROOF OF SERVICE. (See paper #928 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
835 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS" (ETC) (#828)ETC.; CLASS COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO PLFFS' OBJECTIONS (#830) AND DEFTS' RESPONSE (ETC) (#831)IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: PLFF'S PRIOR WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PART OF THEIR CONTEMPT MOTIONS THAT SOUGHT CONTEMPT SANCTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DAILY SICK CALL IS VACATED. THE AFFIDAVITS OF JOHN M. PAYNE, STANLEY J. HERTZOG AND JAMES WATSON ON THE ISSUE OF DAILY SICK CALL WILL BE TREATED AS A SUPPLEMENT, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TO THE EXTENT PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UFNCONTESTED FACTS" ETC. (#808) AGREED TO BY COUNSEL, THE OBJECTIONS ARE

94 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

04/27/1998 04/27/1998
04/27/1998 05/04/1998

OVERRULED (SEE #625). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON GUY BICKLING, ETC., DAVID B. KOPAC, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER,DEREK S. SMITH, KENNETH W. TEATER, JON E. YOUNT, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
836 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, FILED FEBRUARY 6, 1998 (#834) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RECORD IS SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THE AFFIDAVITS OF RICHARD ROGERS, DATED JANUARY 24, 1998, ERIC P. MASON, DATED JANUARY 24, 1998, AND MALCOLM MASSEY, SR., DATED JANUARY 24, 1998. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT ON 4/27/98. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
837 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT (ETC) IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT 18 USC S3626(b)(2) ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. BECAUSE THE COURT HAS FOUND THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS, ETC. TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, ETC., DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IS GRANTED AND THE CONSENT DECREE, AS AMENDED, IS TERMINATED. PLFF'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE PRELIMINARY RELIEF, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE TRANSFER OF THIS ACTION'S CONSENT DECREE WITH RELATED ORDERS TO THE CMW OF PA IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ARE DENIED. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. COPIES VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT 4/27/98. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
838 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1998, ETC., SUBMITTED PRO SE BY CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR. ARE OVERRULED AND HIS REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567, B BLOCK, BOX 244, GRATERFORD, PA., 19426-0244. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED. COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 4/27/98. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
839 ORDER THAT THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED APRIL 27, 1998, IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. PAGE 28, LINE 2 THE WORD "INMATE" IS AMENDED TO READ "INMATES" 2. PAGE 30, FOOTNOTE 18 - THE CITATION FOR INMATES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL WHICH

95 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/05/1998 05/06/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/07/1998

READS"1997 WL 685532 AT 12" IS DELETED AND "129F.3D AT 661" IS SUBSTITUTED; (ETC. 3.4.5.) 6. PAGE 46, LINE 14 - THE WORDS "ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND" SHOULD BE INSERTED BETWEEN THE WORD "THEREFORE" AND THE WORD "FOUND." THAT LINE, AS AMENDED, NOW READS: "...THEREFORE ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND FOUND THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CLOTHING REGULATIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE ..." ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) 5/5/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) Modified on 05/05/1998 (Entered: 05/05/1998)
840 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
841 Request by MOVANT CHARLES D. ZEHRING JR. to suspend its decision disposing of the decree and conduct an investigation into the matter of ineffective representation by class counsel, etc. (gm) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
842 Objection by Class-Member ALAN B. DAVIS to court order for imposition of contempt and sanction upon class counsel, Certificate of Service. (70-2545,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
843 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 27, 1998, AND "TO ASK ICU CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARING IN PLRA CASE, C.A. NO. 98-1321, IN THIRD CIRCUIT, IN WHICH JEROME SILO, IN A CLASS ACTION, SEEKS TO HAVE ENTIRE PLRA RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL..."(ETC) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
844 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 27, 1998, AND "TO ASK ICU CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARING IN PLRA CASE, C.A. NO. 98-1321, IN THIRD CIRCUIT, IN WHICH JEROME SILO, IN A CLASS ACTION, SEEKS TO HAVE ENTIRE PLRA RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL...", IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE PART OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO WHICH SEEKS TO STAY EXECUTION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF THIS COURT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO PROCEED WITH THE PENDING MOTION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLFF CLASS IN WHICH THE COURT IS ASKED TO RECONSIDER ITS APRIL 27, 1998 RULING AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER TERMINATING THE CONSENT DECREE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PRO SE MOTION - A REQUEST TO CLASS COUNSEL - REQUIRES NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F-3298, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:

96 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/19/1998 05/19/1998
05/19/1998
05/19/1998

SCI-PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA. 15233. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/08/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
845 Response (memorandum of law) by MOVANT U.S.A. opposing PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
846 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, DATED MAY 7, 1998, RELATING TO THE UNAVAILABILITY OF PENS FOR WRITING AT SCI-PITTSBURGH, AND FOR RELATED RELIEF, (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY JEROME SILO IN HIS MAY 7, 1998 LETTER IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSENT DECREE IN THIS CASE WAS TERMINATED BY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED APRIL 17, 1998, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F-3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA. 15233. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) Modified on 05/20/1998 (Entered: 05/20/1998)
847 ORDER (ETC) THAT THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., (#840) FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BY CLASS COUNSEL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-GRATERFORD, BLOCK B, P O BOX 244, GRATERFORD, PA., 19426-0244. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
848 ORDER (ETC) THAT THE OBJECTION OF CLASS MEMBER, ALAN B. DAVIS (#842) TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF APRIL 27, 1998, AND FOR IMPOSITION OF CONTEMPT AND SANCTION UPON CLASS COUNSEL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE OBJECTION OF CLASS MEMBER, ALAN B. DAVIS, TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF APRIL 27, 1998, IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID ALAN B. DAVIS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON ALAN B. DAVIS, AF-1282, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-DALLAS, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA., 18612-0286. (ALSO SEE

97 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/20/1998 05/22/1998 05/22/1998
05/29/1998 05/29/1998

70-2545,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
849 MOTION BY (MOVANT) GENE ALLEN FOR RECUSAL , AND TO TRANSFER TO THE U.S. WESTERN DISTRICT COURT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
850 Response (memorandum of law in opposition) by DEFENDANTS to plaintiffs' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
851 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF GENE ALLEN, AN INMATE AT SCI GREENE, ENTITLED "RECUSAL MOTION AND TRANSFERRAL REQUEST TO THE U.S. WESTERN DISTRICT COURT" (#849 IN 70-3054, #930 IN 90-7497) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RECUSAL MOTION AND TRANSFERRAL REQUEST TO THE U.S. WESTERN DISTRICT COURT IS DENIED (ETC). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF GENE ALLEN TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF GENE ALLEN'S RECUSAL MOTION AND TRANSFERRAL REQUEST TO THE U.S.WESTERN DISTRICT COURT SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL IN 70-3054 AND 90-7497. IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, A COPY OF WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GENE ALLEN, AJ-3390 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-GREENE, 1040 E. FURMAN HIGHWAY, WAYNESBURG, PA., 15370. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/26/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 05/26/1998)
852 Letter from Charles D. Zehring, Jr., dated 5/23/98 re: relating to alleged ineffectiveness of class counsel in this case, and the Court, by Order dated 5/18/98, having denied a similar request of Charles D. Zehring, Jr., to conduct an investigation of alleged ineffective representation by class counsel, and the said Charles D. Zehring, Jr., having requested in his letter of May 23, 1998, that the Court treat the letter...in whatever light will allow reconsideration of the allegations and or as a notice of appeal. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
853 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF MAY 18, 1998, IS DENIED AND THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., THAT THE LETTER DATED MAY 23, 1998, BE TREATED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, COPIES OF THE LETTER OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, AND THIS ORDER, SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL. A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL ALSO BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI GRATERFORD, (ETC), PA. (A COPY OF THE LETTER SHALL BE DOCKETED.) (ALSO SEE 70-2545, 71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/1/98 ENTERED

98 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

05/29/1998 05/29/1998 06/03/1998 06/08/1998
06/19/1998

AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
854 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (#840) TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT IS DENIED, ETC. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT WILL NOT ALTER OR AMEND ITS JUDGMENT OF APRIL 27, 1998, TERMINATING THE CONSENT DECREE AND HOLDING THE PLRA'S TERMINATION PROVISIONS TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/01/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
855 Letter from the ACLU to the Honorable Jan E. DuBois, dated May 21, 1998, re: parties were able to reach an agreement concerning notification of any Departmental change to the ICU Consent Decree and its amendments, etc. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
856 Objections by MOVANT GENE ALLEN to Judge DuBois' May 22, 1998 order denying Gene Allen, an incarcerated citizen's recusal, vacate, transferral motion. (Also see 90-7049) (gm) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
857 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE "OBJECTIONS OF GENE ALLEN, AN INMATE AT STATE CORRL INSTITUTION (SCI) GREENE, TO JUDGE DU BOIS'S MAY 22, 1998 ORDER DENYING GENE ALLEN, AN INCARCERATED CITIZEN'S RECUSAL, VACATE, TRANSSFERRAL MOTION" (DOC #856 FILED JUNE 3, 1998), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE SAID GENE ALLEN TO THIS COURT'S MAY 22, 1998 ORDER ARE OVERRULED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE MAY 22, 1998 ORDER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF GENE ALLEN TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE, ETC. GENE ALLEN INCLUDED IN HIS OBJECTIONS TO THIS COURT'S MAY 22, 1998 ORDER A "MOTION FOR COPIES OF RELATIVE ORDERS/MEMORANDUMS", ETC. FOR ALL OF THE AFORESAID REASONS, GENE ALLEN'S "MOTION FOR COPIES OF RELATIVE ORDERS/MEMORANDUMS" IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF GENE ALLEN, ETC., AND MOTION FOR COPIES OF RELATIVE ORDERS, ETC., SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL IN C.A. 70-3054 AND 90-7497. IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, A COPY OF WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GENE ALLEN, AJ-3390, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-GREENE, 1040 E. FURMAN HIGHWAY, WAYNESBURG, PA. 15370. (ALSO SEE 90-7049) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/8/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
858 Notice of appeal by PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS. (Also see 71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). Fee Status: 105.00. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ, MARY E. KOSTEL, THEODORE G. OTTO, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, SARAH B.

99 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

06/19/1998 06/24/1998 07/02/1998 07/02/1998
07/06/1998 07/10/1998 07/10/1998

VANDENBRAAK, JOHN T. SNAVELY II.(gm) Modified on 06/19/1998 (Entered: 06/19/1998)
859 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: appeal USCA NUMBER: 98-1536. 6/25/98. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
860 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO COMPEL THE COURT AND/OR COUNSEL TO NOTIFY CLASS MEMBERS TO WHAT THEY WILL DO TO SUPPORT SILO V RIDGE NO. 468 MD 1998, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
861 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT FILED BY PRO SE PLFF, JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF, JEROME SILO, TO "COMPEL THE COURT AND/OR COUNSEL TO NOTIFY CLASS MEMBERS TO WHAT THEY WILL DO TO SUPPORT SILO V RIDGE NO. 468 MD 1998...," IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER AND THE PRO SE MOTION WITH ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE SERVED ON ALL COUNSEL IN C.A. 90-7497 AND 70-3054 AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F-3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/6/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
862 Certified copy of order from USCA that having considered appellants' unopposed motion for substitution of parties, and finding it reasonable in all respects, the motion is now hereby, GRANTED, etc. (USCA #98-1536) (Also see 75-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
863 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED MOTION TO COMPEL THE COURT (AND COUNSEL'S AWARENESS) UNDER THE AUSTIN AND ICU CASES TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF AN ADJUDICATORY FACT, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 07/13/1998)
864 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A PRO SE SUBMISSION FROM JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED MOTION TO COMPEL THE COURT (AND COUNSEL'S AWARENESS) UNDER THE AUSTIN AND ICU CASES TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE ...." (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL IN C.A. 90-7497 AND 70-3054, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F3298 AT THE

100 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

08/25/1998 10/30/1998
11/06/1998
12/08/1998 12/08/1998

FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/13/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 07/13/1998)
865 Certified copy of order from USCA that the unopposed motion by appellants to dismiss Commonwealth Attorney General J. Shane Creamer as a party to this appeal (USCA #98-1536) is granted. (Also see 71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 08/26/1998)
866 ORDER THAT THE COURT NOTING THAT IN ITS APRIL 27, 1998, MEMORANDUM IT STATED AT PAGE 2 THAT, ETC., THERE WERE SEVEN PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRL INSTITUTIONS IN OPERATION, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED AT PAGE 2 SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "SIX" FOR "SEVEN" IN STATING THE NUMBER OF PA STATE CORRL INSTITUTIONS IN OPERATION IN 1970-71 AND TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM FOOTNOTE 2 IN WHICH THE STATE CORRL INSTITUTIONS IN OPERATION AT THAT TIME WERE IDENTIFIED. (ALSO SEE 70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/2/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
867 ORDER THAT THE COURT HAVING BEEN PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE HISTORY OF ONE OF THE SCI INSTITUTIONS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCT 30, 1998 AMENDING THIS COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS VACATED; THE COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 2 THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH UNDER THE HEADING "HISTORY OF THE CASE" IS AMENDED (ETC); FOOTNOTE 2 APPEARING ON PAGE 2 OF THE MEMORANDUM IS AMENDED TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE LIST OF INSTITUTIONS, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-2545,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/6/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
868 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO EXTRAORDINARY AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION UNDER ICU V SHAPP AND UNDER AUSTIN V. PA. D.O.C. TO PLACE THE COURT ON JUDICIAL NOTICE (ETC) , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
869 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A PRO SE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "EXTRAORDINARY AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION UNDER ICU V SHAPP AND UNDER AUSTIN V. PA. D.O.C." TO PLACE THE COURT ON JUDICIAL NOTICE (ETC), (THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION WITH ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE DOCKETED), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE "EXTRAORDINARY AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION" OF JEROME SILO IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/8/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 12/08/1998)

101 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

03/23/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
01/14/2000 04/21/2000 04/27/2000 11/17/2003 11/17/2003

870 Certified copy of order from USCA that judgment of the said district court entered 5/29/98, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this court. (lvj) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
871 "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES" MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTED EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT AUSTIN CASE SITUATION REQUIRED EARLIER AND NOW BASIS TO REINSTATE AUSTIN . . ." , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
872 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A PRO SE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ENTITLED "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION TO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTED EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT AUSTIN CASE SITUATION REQUIRED EARLIER AND NOW BASIS TO REINSTATE AUSTIN . . .", IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIAE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL, IN 90-7497 AND 70-3054, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO (PITTSBURGH, PA.). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/1/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
873 Letter from U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, dated 1-6-2000, to delete MARY E. KOSTEL AND JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ (USA) from these actions. (Also see 70-2545, 71-513, 71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
874 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT THE SITUATION BARRING TERMINATION OF ICU V SHAPP DID EXIST, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) (gm) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
875 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI PITTSBURGH, ..."TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTED PROOF THAT THE SITUATION BARRING TERMINATION OF ICU V SHAPP DID EXIST...", ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO IS DENIED. (ALSO SEE 90-7497) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/27/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
876 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION IS DENIED, ETC.. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 11/17/03. 11/26/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fb) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
877 Submission by JEROME SILO. (See document #950 in 90-CV-7497). (fb) (Entered: 11/26/2003)

102 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159672254271734-L_3...

01/05/2006

878 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION RECEIVED DECEMBER 27, 2005, IS DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 01/04/06. 01/05/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(ac, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/04/2007 10:38:15

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

2:70-cv-03054-JD 2.40

103 of 103

10/4/2007 9:40 AM

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:71-cv-01006-JD

APPEAL

OWENS, et al v. MURDOCK, et al Assigned to: HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 04/28/1971 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff KENNETH W. OWENS, JR.

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II P.O. BOX 216 LANSDOWNE, PA 19050 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KENNETH W. TEATER
Plaintiff JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER
Plaintiff GUY BICKING

STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA 7803 ST. MARTIN'S LANE PHILADELPHIA, 19 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

1 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

CUSTODIAL EMPLOYEES AND "PRIVATE CITIZENS" LISTED BELOW:
Defendant JOHN DOE MURDOCK Box 244 Graterford, PA
Defendant JOHN DOE BELLOFF Box 244 Graterford, PA
Defendant ERSKIND DEHAMUS Box 244 Graterford, PA

represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 15TH FLOOR, STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717-787-3874 Fax: 717-772-4526 Email: ffilipi@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 810 SEVENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20531 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

2 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

V. Intervenor Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. Movant LEROY J. LEVETT
Movant SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR.
Movant SHELDON MILLER

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 901 E STREET, N.W. ROOM 1040 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARY E. KOSTEL U.S. GOVERNMENT 901 E. STREET, N.W. FED. PROGRAMS BRANCH, ROOM 912 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by LEROY J. LEVETT BI-0317 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. BLOCK B, AS-2871 SCI-DALLAS DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by SHELDON MILLER STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #AS2857 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612

3 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Movant ROBERT ANDERSON
Movant ANGEL RODRIGUES
Movant ALAN B. DAVIS
Movant ALLEN J. BROWN
Movant WILLIAM L. MARSHALL

U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ROBERT ANDERSON AF4845 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #AF4845 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ANGEL RODRIGUES BJ8105 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #BJ8105 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ALAN B. DAVIS AF1282 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612-0286 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ALLEN J. BROWN AP-2532 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BOX A BELLEFONTE, PA 16823 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AP4826 STATE CORRECTIONAL

4 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Movant GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP4884
Movant AC8297 JON E. YOUNT
Movant DAVID B. KOPAC
Movant DEREK S. SMITH

INSTITUTION RD #2 BOX 10 GREENSBURG, PA 15601 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP-4884 1040 E. ROY FURMAN HIGHWAY WAYNESBURG, PA 15370-8090 PRO SE
represented by JON E. YOUNT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DAVID B. KOPAC AP4900 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DEREK S. SMITH AY2053 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE

Date Filed
04/28/1971 04/28/1971 05/06/1971

#

Docket Text

1 Petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Referred to Magistrate Powers. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE POWERS AND ORDER OF COURT APPROVING SAME AND DENYING PLFFS

5 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/06/1971 05/06/1971 06/03/1971 06/04/1971
07/02/1971 07/13/1971 07/21/1971 07/26/1971 03/14/1972
08/21/1973
09/18/1973 10/02/1973
01/04/1974 01/05/1974 01/14/1974 01/16/1974 01/17/1974

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS INSOFAR AS PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO INSTITUTE A CRIMINAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION UNDER 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242, AND GRANTING PLFFS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS INSOFAR AS PLFF SEEKS CIVIL DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, 1985; 5/6/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLAINITFF AND DEFTS. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
1 A. Complaint. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Summons(es) exit. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
3 MOTION by PLAINTIFF KENNETH W. OWENS JR. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL . (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Powers and Order of Court accepting same and DENYING plffs motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, 6/7/71 entered and copies mailed. AL (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
5 Summons returned; "on 6/23/71 served". (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
6 Defts MOTION TO DISMISS , notice and memo. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
7 Plffs MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT . (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
8 MOTION of Sharif Abdullah Rahman a/k/a John H. Odums TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and Affidavit. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
9 ORDER CONSOLIDATING THIS CASE WITH C.A. 70-3054 AND REASSIGNING TO THE HON. JOSEPH S. LORD, III; 3/15/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. AL/CLK (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
10 ORDER (copy) that this action be specially listed for trial without jury before Lord, III, Ch.J., on 10/9/73 at 10 AM in Courtroom 5, etc., 8/22/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
11 Report of Status Report, held 9/17/93. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
12 Copy of order dtd 9/27/73 that this case and certain other cases which were specially listed for trial on 10/9/73 are RESCHEDULED for trial without jury on 1/2/74 at 10AM in Courtroom 5, etc., 10/3/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
13 Report of Pretrial Conference, Lord, III, Ch.J. 1/7/74 entered. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Non-Jury Trial. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)

6 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/22/1974 04/05/1974 05/24/1974 07/08/1974 07/09/1974 07/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/20/1974 11/01/1974 11/04/1974 12/13/1974 02/21/1975
04/09/1975
04/29/1975 04/30/1975 08/13/1975 09/09/1975 09/19/1975 12/11/1975 01/08/1976 04/06/1976

Case adjourned sine die. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Transcript of 1/14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22/74...CA 70-2545, (6 Vols.) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
14 Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch.J. 5/28/74 entered. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Trial Resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Transcript of testimony (3 Vols.)(C.A. 70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER fixing 4/16/75 at 10 AM for Final Argument, CA 70-3054; 9/23/74 entered and copies mailed. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defts. proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (C.A. 70-2545) - C.A.V. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
FINAL ARGUMENT. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Transcript of 11/4/74.. CA 70-2545. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER DTD 2/20/75 THAT ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD ATTEND CONFERENCE ON 2/27/75 AT 4 PM, C.A. 70-3054. 2/24/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
15 ORDER FIXING 4/16/75 AT 4:30 PM FOR CONFERENCE, ETC.; 4/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/25/1996 (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Transcript of 2/27/75, CA 70-2545. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
16 Copy of Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch.J., 5/1/75 entered. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
17 Copy of Report of Conference scheduled for 8/13/75 cancelled at Plffs' counsel's request; 8/13/75 entered. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER, THAT A CONFERENCE BE HELD ON 9/18/75; 9/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. CA 70-2545. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
18 Report of Status Report (copy), Lord, III, Ch.J.; 9/22/75 entered. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
19 Report of Status Report (copy), Lord, III, Ch.J.; 12/12/75 entered. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
20 Report of status call. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
MOTION of George Feigley TO AMEND THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE , Memorandum in support thereof, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)

7 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/08/1976 04/27/1976 12/16/1976 12/16/1976
01/27/1977 02/28/1977 04/19/1977
05/20/1977
06/21/1977 07/26/1977 09/12/1977
10/11/1977 10/23/1977 11/22/1977
11/22/1977 02/09/1978 02/27/1978

Proposed Consent Decree, not signed by Judge (CA# 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Report of Status Report, Lord, III, Ch.J., 70-3054. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Memorandum, Lord, Ch.J., re: George Feigley motion to amend Consent Decree, (70-3054). . (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER dtd 12/15/76 DENYING Motion of George Feigley to amend proposed Consent Decree, but said maotion shall be treated as an objection to proposed settlement (70-3054); 12/17/76 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Appearance of John T. Snavely, Esq. for Plffs., (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Brief of defts' in response to brief of amicus curiae in support of objections' to proposed settlement (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Brief of class plffs' in response to brief of amicus curiae in support of objections to proposed settlement and further responding to brief of defts' in response to brief of amicus curiae, (70-2445). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that a conference be held in Chambers (17614) on 6/20/77 at 10:00 A.M. with all counsel of record in attendance (70-2545); 5/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Report of status report, Lord J., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Plff's Imprisoned Citizens Union et al objection to consent decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that a conference is scheduled for 9/23/77 at 11:00 A.M. in Chambers 17614, (70-2545); 9/13/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Report of Status Report by Judge Lord. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Entry of Appearance, Alan J. Davis in Amicus Curiae. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that a motion of defts to decertify as class action is DENIED, letter of 2/14/77 from the Comm. of PA seeking leave to withdraw the consent of defts to the proposed consent decree shall be docketed as a motion to withdraw such consent is DENIED. 11/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defts' MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE CONSENT DECREE to the proposed Consent Decree. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that a hearing is set for 2/24/78 at 10:00 a.m. (70-2545); 2/10/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Hearing of 2/24/78 on approval of consent decree, motion of Alan Jay Davis, Francis R. Filipi & Michael H. Garrety are sworn & admitted to the Bar, Anthony Dougalas, et al. sworn, CAV (70-2545); JL. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)

8 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/26/1978
05/30/1978 06/01/1978 06/07/1978 06/07/1978 08/31/1978
09/18/1978
09/25/1978

CONSENT DECREE WITH COURT APPROVAL. 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT CONSENT DECREE BE AMENDED, ETC., (70-3054); 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (JL). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS MUST PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIBRARY RE: LAW MATERIALS, ETC., (JL) 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER THAT COUNSEL REPORT FOR CONF. ON 5/26/78 AT 3:30 P.M. ETC., (70-3054) JL; 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that proposed consent decreee of 4/8/76 is Approved with modifications (70-3054); 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS ARE ENJOINED FROM CONFINING ANY INMATE IN THE "GLASS CAGE" AT HUNTINGDON SCI, PLFFS MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO PREVENT DEFTS FROM CONFINING INMATES IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IS DENIED, MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PREVENTING THE PROHIBITION OF CONJUGAL VISITS IS DENIED, (70-2545); 5/30/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
21 Report Lord, J. of settlement conf. of 5/26/78. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Argue Sur: Hearing of 5/28/87 re: plffs' amended second motion for contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Opinion Lord J., that prohibition as to sexual visitations, etc., is sustained (70-3054); 6/9/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
MOTION OF DEFTS FOR NEW TRIAL OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 59 , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATION. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Reply to plffs' answer to defts' motion for new trial or amendment of judgment under Rule 59 of F.R.C.P. as to the issue of the use of three cells at S.C.I. Huntingdon by defts and certificate of service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER THAT ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION OF DEFTS FOR NEW TRIAL OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 59, ETC. SHALL BE HAD ON 9/22/78 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A, 9/19/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that hearing on the Motion of defts for New Trial or Amendment of Judgment under rule 59, etc. shall be 10/6/78 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 17-A; 9/25/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL/clk. (lm) Modified on 11/25/1996 (Entered: 11/25/1996)

9 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

09/25/1978 10/16/1978 12/11/1978 12/11/1978 01/15/1979 03/01/1979 04/05/1979
04/20/1979 04/23/1979 07/02/1979
09/11/1979 09/19/1979 09/21/1979 12/20/1979 01/08/1980

Hearing re: Argument on the Motion for New Trial etc., further hearing is needed and wil be scheduled. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
ORDER that a hearing on the Motion of defts for New Trial or Amendment of Judgment under rule 59, etc. is scheduled for 10/27/78 at 10:00 a.m. in Ctrm, 17-A. 10/17/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES , NOTICE, MEMORADUM OF LAW & AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF, (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Deft's memorandum in opposition to plff's former counsel's motion for an award of attorney's fees & costs, (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Petitioner's copy of complaint filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, U.S. District Court, (C.A. 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES , AFFIDAVIT OF PETER HEARN, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS MOTION OFR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES SHALL BE HEARD ON 4/20/79 AT 2:00 P.M. COURTROOM 17-A, (70-3054); 4/5/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Plff's proposed findings of fact & conclusions of law; (71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Argued sur: plff's motion for summary judgment as to Attorney's fees, C.A.V. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT THERE APPEARING TO BE NOT FURTHER REASON AT THIS TIME TO MAINTAIN THE FILE OF THIS CASE OR OF ANY OF THE CASES CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH AS OPEN ONES FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED TO SUMBIT A JS-6 FORM TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ETC. (70-3054); 7/3/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 12/04/1996)
Petition of Andrew J. Smyser, Esq. for leave to withdraw appearance & of appearance of Francis F. Filipi, Esq. for defts. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER GRANTING J. ANDREW SMYSER TO WITHDRAW HIS APPEARANCE, (70-3054); 9/21/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION CONCERNING SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT, AFFIDAVIT, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSENT DECREE REGARDING CRITERIA FOR DISAPPROVING A PUBLICATION ETC. (70-3054); (JL); 1/9/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)

10 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/24/1980 02/14/1980 02/22/1980
02/22/1980 02/25/1980 04/08/1980 06/20/1980 07/14/1980 07/15/1980
07/16/1980 07/22/1980 07/24/1980 09/11/1980 09/12/1980 09/12/1980

JACK J. LEVINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES , NOTICE, (70-3054) (JL) (lm) Modified on 11/26/1996 (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Affidavit of Susan Arnhold re: she served copies of plffs' Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment upon counsel. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT COUNSEL PETITIONER IS AWARDED SUPPLEMENTAL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1250.00 PLUS $300 FEES & COSTS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1550.00, (70-3054); 2/25/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Plffs' notice of motion, motion, affidavits & exhibits, memorandum in support of motion & proposed show cause order for contempt proceeding for violation of consent decree., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Defts' brief in opposition to plffs' motion for issuance of order to show casue why defts should not be adjudged in contempt of the consent decree of this court dated 5/22/78, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Class Plffs' supplemental memorandum in response to defts' brief in opposition to plffs' motion for issuance of order to show cause why defts should not be adjudged in contempt., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Plffs' supplementary affidavits and exhibits in support of Motion & Proposed show cause order for contempt of consent decree, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Defts' Demand for a Jury Trial on Plffs' moiton for issuance or order to show cause and for contempt Judgment, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE IN THIS MATTER IS DET OF 7/28/80 AT 10:00 A.M IN COURTROOM 17-Am (70-3054) 7/15/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Appearance of Sherree L. Strugis Esq. for defts', (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Plff's brief in opposition to defts' Demand for a Jury Trial on Plff's Motion for issuance of order to show cause & for contempt Judgment. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
DEFTS' MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF HEARING , NOTICE; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Appearance of Jose Hernandez-Cuebas for deft. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS DENIED, (70-3054); 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS ARE ORDERED TO ANSWER & SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SDHOLD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT FOR HAVING VIOLATED & DISREGARED

11 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/28/1980
11/13/1980 12/03/1980 12/03/1980 12/03/1980 03/31/1981 11/09/1981 01/08/1982 01/11/1982 01/22/1982
01/25/1982

THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THIS COURT OF 5/22/80, ETC., (70-3054); 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
ORDER THAT THESE CASES ARE SPECIALLY LISTED FOR HEARING ON 12/3/80 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A, DEFTS SHALL SHOW CAUSE AT THE HEARING WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT FOR HAVING VIOLATED & DISREGARDED THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THS COURT OF 5/22/78, ETC. 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
Appearance of A. Charles Peruto Esq. for William B. Robinson, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PETITION OF FRANCIS R. FILIPI, ESQ FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE FOR WILLIAM B. ROBINSON, CERT. OF SERVICE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PETITION OF SHERREE L. STURGIS ESQ. FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE FOR WILLIAM B. ROBINSON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PETITION OF JOSE HERNANDEZ-CUEBAS FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE FOR WILLIAM B. ROBINSON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THESE CASES ARE REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE WILLIAM F. HALL, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) & LOCAL RULE 7(f) TO DETERMINE ISSUES, ETC., (70-2545) (JL); 3/31/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT COUNSEL ARE TO APPEAR FOR A CONFERENCE ON 11/12/81 AT 10:00 A.M. ETC., (70-3054) (WFH); 11/10/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 12/02/1996 (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT WARDEN OF S.C.I. AT GRATERFORD SHALL PRODUCE BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., ET AL TO APPEAR ON 1/19/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN CTRM. 5-A TO GIVE TESTIMONY, ETC., (70-3054) (WFH) 1/11/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF S.C.I. AT GRATERFORD SHALL PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., ET AL. TO APPEAR ON 1/19/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5-A, ETC., (70-3054), (WFH) 1/12/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF S.C.I. GRATERFORD SHALL PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., BRUCE MARTIN AND WILLIAM HALLOWELL TO APPEAR 1/26/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN CTRM 5-A FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY, ETC, WFH (70-3054) 1/25/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Hiriam R. Johnston, Jr., re: objections to arbitrary strip searching, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

12 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/26/1982 01/27/1982 02/08/1982 02/08/1982 04/20/1982 05/25/1982
06/08/1982
07/20/1982 07/29/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982 11/05/1982 11/12/1982

Letter to Chief Judge Lord from James H. Turner re: questions to Consent Decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Frank St. Clair re: questions on violations of rights (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT WARDEN S.C.I. GRATERFORD PRODUCE WILLIAM HALLOWELL TO APPEAR 1/27/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5-A TO GIVE TESTIMONY, ETC, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter to the Honorable William F. Hall, Jr. from John J. Murphy, Esq. re: Violation of Mr. Owen's Due Process Rights, (81-1722). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter dated 2/4/82 to Mag. Hall from Sanford Bernstein re: request that something be done to allow medically ill inmates in Pa. Penal Colonies to receive their civil and constitutional rights, (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Leo Walloe re: violations of the consent decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter re: "Rights to Assigned Counsel", (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S PETITION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR ORDER DIRECTING TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARINGS TO BE PREPARED AT UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EXPENSE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND PREPAYMENT OF ALL FEES AND COSTS, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPT COSTS, IS AUTHORIZED AT GOVT EXPENSE (70-3054), (JL); 6/8/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of testimony of January 26, 1982, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of Testimony of 1/19 & 1/27/82, (2 vol); (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 12/02/1996 (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Agreement between counsel on the definition of the term, cer search etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Amendment to Stipulation for Dismissal of outstanding Allegations of Contempt, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT WITH COURT APPROVAL, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
MOTION OF WILMER B. GAY FOR CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, ETC. , AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

13 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/24/1982 12/02/1982 12/06/1982 12/13/1982 03/10/1983 05/04/1983
05/13/1983 05/13/1983
04/10/1985 04/29/1985 05/20/1985 08/07/1985

CARL LEE JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO., AFFIDAVIT, VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff's Objections and Terms of Proposed Settlement (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Purcell Bronson's Objections to Proposed Settlement, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
CARL LEE JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO. OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
REPORT HALL, JR. MAG. AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE DEFTS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF CONTEMPT BE GRANTED, AND THAT THE COMPROMISE OF THE PLTFS' ACTION FOR CONTEMPT BE APPROVED, AND THE ACTION BE DISMISSED, (70-3054); 5/5/83 entered and copies mailed. ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
MEMORANDUM DATED 5/11/83 RE: SETTLEMENT FAIR AND REASONABLE SHALLADOPT THE REPORT-RECOMMENDATION OF MAG. HALL, (70-3054); 5/16/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER DATED 5/11/83 THAT REPORT-RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED, COURT FINDS SETTLEMENT IMPOSED IS REASONABLE, COMPROMISE OF PLFF'S ACTION FOR CONTEMPT IS APPROVED, ACTION IS DISMISSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STIPULATION FILED 12/29/81, ETC., 5/16/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
CLASS MOTION TO APPOINT ADDITONAL CLASS COUNSEL , CERTIFICATE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts' response to plffs' motion to appoint additional class counsel, certificate. (70-3054) (lm) Modified on 12/02/1996 (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT MR. STEFAN PRESSER BE APPOINTED ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS IN THIS ACTION; 5/21/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT QUESTIONS ARE REFERRED TO THE HON. WILLIAM F. HALL, JR., U.S. MAGISTRATE FOR CONSULTATION, CONSIDERATION, ETC., THE MAGISTRATE SHALL MAKE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF HIS DELIBERATIONS; (70-2545); 8/7/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

14 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

09/27/1985 03/21/1986 04/16/1986 05/28/1986
06/20/1986 07/15/1986 07/15/1986 07/16/1986 09/12/1986
09/12/1986 09/12/1986
09/19/1986 09/23/1986

MOTION OF JOHN (JANOS) M. TOTH, III FOR CONTEMPT FOR DEFTS' IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATIONS OF A CONTRACT CERTIFICATE; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , MEMO, AFFIDAVIT, CERT. OF SERVICE. (85-3054) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Argued Sur: Hearing of 4/15/86 re: Motion for Contempt (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS' "SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT" SHALL BE DUE BY 6/13/86 IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 20; 5/29/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts' Memo. in opposition to Plffs' second Motion for Contempt, Cert. of Service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THESE DEFTS. SHOULDN'T BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT OF ICU V. SHAPP, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (70-3045). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , MEMO, CERT. OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ETC., THE MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED, (70-3054); 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF PURCELL BRONSON (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 360) IS DENIED. 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ANDRE WRIGHT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO MOVANT'S RIGHT TO FILE AN INDIVIDUAL CIVIL ACTION TO SEEK REDRESS FOR AN VIOLATIONS OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS, (70-3054); 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Conference of 9/19/86 re: Plffs' Second Motion for Contempt and Plffs' Motion to Compel both held in ABEYANCE, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFF. SHALL FILE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT EXPRESSLY SETTING FORTH THE ALLEGATION GOURNDS CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND ITS ADDENDUMS, DEFTS. WILL RESPOND TO AMENDED MOTION AS WELL AS TO PLFFS' OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS; (70-3054); 9/24/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm)

15 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

09/30/1986
12/16/1986 02/02/1987
02/06/1987 02/13/1987 02/20/1987 02/20/1987
03/04/1987 03/04/1987
03/18/1987 03/23/1987 04/06/1987 04/06/1987 04/09/1987

Modified on 12/02/1996 (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO AS BETWEEN PLFF MOVANT & DEFTS. IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, FILED BY THOMAS MARTIN, IS DENIED. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED. (70-3054); 10/1/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERT. OF SERV. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS' "SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (AMENDED)" SHALL BE DUE BY 2/6/87 IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 20 OF THIS COURT, (70-3054); 2/3/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts' Memo. in opposition of Plffs' Amended Second Motion for Contempt., Cert. of Service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts' memo in opposition to plffs' amended second motion for contempt, cert. of service. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Conference of 2/18/87 in front of Magistrate Hall re: Plffs' amended second motion for contempt, C.A.V.; Plffs' Motion to compel--GRANTED; Hearing re: Motion for Contempt set for 5/26/87 at 10 am. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS. WILL PRODUCE AT THE OFFICE OF ACLU ON 2/23/87, THE PERSONNEL FILES OF ANY HEARING EXAMINER WHO HAS BEEN SUBJECT OF ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING VIOLAITONS OF THE DECREE AND BIAS, 2/24/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING REGARDING PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT WILL BE HELD ON 5/26/87; 3/5/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE REGARDING SCHEDULING APPEARANCES OF INMATES FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON 5/26/87 WILL BE HLED ON 4/24/87, (70-3054); 3/5/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION FOR CHANGE VENUE AND/OR APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT UNDER THE FRCP 60(B), (5 AND 6) , MEMO. OF LAW, DECLARATION OF POVERTY; CERT. OF SERV. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff's Affidavit and Statement of Facts, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT MOTION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES OF ADRES VALDEZ IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054); 4/8/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION OF WILLIAM C. MUELLER AND JOSEPH C. WALKER FOR CHANGE OF VENUE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

16 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/22/1987 04/23/1987 04/27/1987 04/30/1987 04/30/1987
05/21/1987 05/27/1987 05/28/1987 05/28/1987 06/01/1987 06/01/1987

TO (i) MOVANTS' RIGHT TO RAISE THEIR CLAIMS AND/OR FILE SAID MOTION IN AN INDIVIDUAL CIVIL ACTION SEEKING REDRESS FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF THEIR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS AND (ii) THE RIGHT OF PLFF. CLASS IN ICU TO INCLUDE MOVANTS' CLAIMS, IF APPROPRIATE, IN ANY ICU CONSENT DECREES, (70-3054); 4/10/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Petition of Harold Smith for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum; Declaration of Harold Smith; Cert. of Serv. (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
MOTION OF JANOS M. TOTH, III FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVITS; CERT. OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Conference in Chambers re: scheduling of inmate witnesses for appearance at evidentiary hearing for 5/26/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT, FILED PRO SE BY JANOS M. TOTH,III IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054); 5/4/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM, FILED PRO SE BY HAROLD SMITH IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054); 5/4/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION TO VACATE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUMS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Argued Sur: Hearing of 5/26/87 re: Plff's Amended Second Motion for Contempt; David B. Farney, Esq. admitted Pro Hac Vice, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD R. CANADY IS DENIED; (70-3054) 6/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Argued Sur: Hearing on 5/27/87 re: plff.'s amended second motion for contempt; plff.'s oral motion for reconsideration of evidentiary ruling etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Argued sur: hearing of 5/29/87 re: plff's amended second motion for contempt, deft's motion to dismiss-C.A.V. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ORDER DATED 5/13/87 DIRECTING THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INST., MUNCY, TO PRODUCE TONI ANDERSON ON 5/28/87 IS VACATED: & ORDER DATED 5/13/87 DIRECTING THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INST. GRATERFORD IS VACATED AS TO ROBERT E. DEVANY, ONLY THE REST SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE & EFFECT, (70-3054) 6/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

17 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/02/1987 06/03/1987
06/09/1987 06/09/1987 06/11/1987
06/11/1987
06/13/1987 06/13/1987 06/13/1987 06/13/1987 06/13/1987 06/19/1987
06/19/1987 06/23/1987
07/13/1987 08/04/1987 11/25/1987 11/25/1987

Argued Sur: hearing of 6/1/87 re: plff's amended second motion for contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Argued Sur: hearing of 6/2/87 re: plffs' amended second motion for contempt, plffs' to file post hearing brief & defts. to file responsive brief, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE , CERT. OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plffs' Post-hearing brief, cert. of service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF NO LATER THAN 14 DAYS AFTER ALL TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING ON PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ARE FILED & PLFF'S MAY FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR BRIEF WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER ALL TRANSCRIPTS ARE FILED & ANY PARTY MAY FILE A RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS IN PARA 1 & 2 OF THIS ORDER WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER SAID SUBMISSION IS FILED., ETC., (70-3054). 6/12/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE IS DENIED AS MOOT, (71-1006). 6/12/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of 5/27/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of 5/28/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of 5/29/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of 6/1/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of 6/2/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff's Declaration in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT & FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BY PRO SE BY WALTER M. GUYER ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054); 6/24/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Transcript of 5/26/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Deft's Reply Brief (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
OPINION, LORD, S.J. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS DAVID OWENS IS ADJUDGED TO BE IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF DECREE DATED 5/22/78, AND SHALL BEGINNING 30 DAYS COMMENCE PAYING TO THE CLERK A DAILY FINE OF $500.00, UNLESS WITHIN 30 DAYS HE

18 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

12/03/1987 12/15/1987 12/17/1987 12/18/1987 12/23/1987 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/14/1988
01/27/1988
02/08/1988 02/16/1988

CERTIFIES THAT HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT, ETC., (70-3054). 11/25/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND DISTRICT COURTS ORDER OF 11/25/87 , MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE FOR ATTORNEYS FEES , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
DEFTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS SHALL FILE THEIR ATTYS FEES REQUEST BY 1/14/88, (70-3054). 12/21/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Letter from David S. Owens, Commissioner, Dept. Corrections to Judge Lord re: response to order of 11/25/87. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
APPLICATION for Attorneys fees for ACLU counsel (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Affidavit of Stefan Pressler, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Itemization of services and expenses of Stefan Pressler, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Affidavit of Lorray Brwon, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Itemization of services of Lorray Brown, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plffs memorandum in support of ACLU counsels application for attorneys fees, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ORDER OF 11/25/87 AS AMENDED, IS FURTHER AMENDED AS TO JOHN T. SNAVELY, ESQ. SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS FROM 1/14/88 WITHIN WHICH TO FILE HIS FEE APPLICATION; (70-3054). 1/15/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IS GRANTED & DEFTS ARE PETMITTED TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY THE CACLU ON OR BEFORE 2/8/88, (70-3054); 1/28/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts Memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, Certificate of Service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Memorandum in support of plffs. counsel's application for attorney's fees. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

19 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

02/23/1988 03/07/1988 03/08/1988 03/08/1988
03/30/1988 05/12/1988
05/18/1988 05/19/1988 05/24/1988
06/08/1988 06/08/1988
03/19/1991

Plffs response to Defts opposition for ACLU's attorneys' fee application, Certificate of Service. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Certificate of Service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Telephone conference call-argued-Plffs motion to alter or amend judgment granted in part/denied in part, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER OF 11/25/87 IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT DEFT OWENS SHALL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER CAUSE TO EXPUNGED FROM ALL RECORDS UNDER HIS CONTROL AND UNDER CONTROL OF HIS SUBORDINATES FOR ALL INMATES WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, ALL CHARGES AND ALL CONVICTIONS IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED, (70-3054); 3/9/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plffs reply memorandum to defts memorandum in opposition to application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Esq. Cert. of Service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT A HEARING REGARDING JOHN T. SNAVELYS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND ACLU COUNSELS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 5/18/88 2 P.M., CTROOM 17A, PHILA. (70-3054); 5/12/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plffs revised application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, certificate of service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Hearing argued sur: application of John T. Snavely, Esq. for attorney's fees C.A.V., on 5/18/88, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS DAVID S. OWENS, JR., COMMR OF PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, SHALL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER PAY THE SUM OF $30,000 TO STEFAN PRESSER AND LORRAY BROWN, JOINTLY, AS ATTORNEYS FEES (70-3054); 5/25/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS DIRECTED TO PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY ATTORNEYS FEES, ETC., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF PLFFS COUNSEL JOHN T. SNAVELY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: DEFENDANTS SHALL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY THE SUM OF $30,832.25, (70-3054). 6/8/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AND FOURTEEN OTHER INMATES AT SCI HUNTINGDON, IT IS ORDERED THAT MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF

20 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

09/13/1991 01/06/1992
03/16/1992 07/08/1992 09/21/1992 10/05/1992 11/16/1992
04/14/1993 06/11/1993 06/16/1993 07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/14/1993 07/14/1993

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS TO RENEW SUCH PETITION SHOULD COUNSEL CONSIDER RENEWAL APPROPRIATE, (70-3054); 3/20/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
(WILLIAM SEYMOUR JONES) MOTION FOR THIS COURT TO HOLD THE DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THE ABOVE SETTLED CASE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CASES ARE REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE LORD, III, DECEASED, TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE STEWARD DALZELL, (70-3054) 1/7/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plffs "memorandum of law brief, requesting modification of consent decree, affidavit, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFFS (PURCELL BRONSON) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFFS (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S (PAUL BALLOD) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
(PLFF'S) MOTION TO ENFORCE , PROOF OF SERVICE (70-3054) (DERRICK FONTROY). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S (MARTIN HARRIS; JAMES JONES; JEFFREY COMMODORE) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT , BRIEF IN SUPPORT, VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATION, DECLARATION(S) IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plaintiff's (Paul Ballod's) certificate of service, order to show cause (re: motion for contempt), (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S (JOHN FIYOGGA) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
PLFF'S (JOSEPH J. TAYLOR) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT , NOTICE, DECLARATION (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 12/02/1996 (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff's (Joseph S. Taylor) pages 6 through 9 and cover letter dated 6/28/93 of his motion for judgment of contempt, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff's (Joseph S. Taylor) pages 10 through 14 of his motion for contempt of judgment (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plaintiff's (Joseph S.Taylor) Notice of appeal. Copies to: Stefan Presser, Esq., Theodore G. Otto, III, Esq. John T.Snavely, II, Esq., Francis R. Filip, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)

21 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

08/05/1993 08/17/1993 11/17/1993
01/06/1995 01/20/1995 02/08/1995 02/21/1995 02/23/1995 07/24/1995 07/28/1995
08/07/1995 08/14/1995 08/21/1995 08/21/1995 08/24/1995

Notice of change of address of Jeffrey Commodore, plaintiff. (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
(PLAINTIFF'S PURCELL BRONSON) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , UNSWORN AFFIDAVITS, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff's (Joseph D'Amato) letter to the Court, dated 11/3/93, re: an on-going violation of the ICU Consent Decree v. Shapp, here at the institution (Huntingdon)(1100 Pike St., Huntingdon, PA. 16652) regarding the extension of punishments beyound the sanctions imposed by misconduct hearing examiners, etc., (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Class counsel's response to motion to enforce, certificate of service, (filed by Stephen Presser, Esq., Amr. Civil Liberties Union) (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defendnats' response to the motion to enforce, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Plff Class Counsel's Response to Traverse (By Stefan Presser, Esq.), certificate of service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defts' response to the letter of Brian F. Ross, AM-7035, certificate of service. (see paper 504 in 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
Defendant's response to the traverse, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-0513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF'S (EDWARD GOVEN) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF EDWARD GOVAN FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, (DOC. 508 FILED 7/24/95) ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON EDWARD GOVAN, ETC., (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545, 71-1006). 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Plff's (Edward Goven's ) Certificate of service, (with exhibits), (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Plff class counsel's response to motions filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Class counsel's (Stefan Presser, ACLU) response to motion for contempt filed by Edward Govan, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545), (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendant's response to the motion to vacate judgment and motions to enforce, certificate of service. (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendnats' response to motion for contempt of court proceedings, certificate of service (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)

22 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

08/30/1995 09/12/1995 09/15/1995 10/11/1995 10/17/1995 11/09/1995 01/18/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/26/1996 02/28/1996 02/28/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996

Plaintiff Govan's response to both defendants and Mr. Presser's responses, certificate of service (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Plff class counsel's further response to motions filed filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, certificate of service, (71-513, 70-2545, 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defts' supp response to the motion to vacate judgment and motins to enforce filed by Balckiston, Brightwell, Jacobs, Nigro and Fontroy, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Plff class counsel's response to supp pleading to motions to enforce filed by Balckiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for an evidentiary hearing, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' supplemental response to the motion to enforce, certificate of servcie, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF'S (SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. AND JAMES HARDWICK) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF'S (CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR.) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ,(70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , DECLARATION, CERTIFICATION, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , MEMO, AFFIDAVIT, PROOF OF SERVICE. (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Plff's (Zehring) Notice of change of financial status, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' response to petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Bobby E. Brightwell, cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for contempt filed by Spencer R. Dobson, Jr., and James Hardwick, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendnats' memorandum concerning the motion for appointment of counsel by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., certificate of service (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' Memorandum in opposition to the motion for a rule to show casue and for temporary restraining order filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)

23 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/13/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 06/13/1996
06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/24/1996 09/03/1996
09/27/1996 11/01/1996 11/04/1996 03/19/1997 03/26/1997

Defendants' response to the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF ( FRANK ST. CLAIR, JOHN BOSKIE, ANTHONY ALLEN) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE AND TEMPORARY RELIEF, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545) . (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF (JOHN BOSKIE) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , (71-513, 70-2545, 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF (FRANK ST. CLAIR) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REVERSE THE COURT'S ORDER OF JANUARY 18, 1995 EXCLUDING INDIVIDUALS INCARCERATED AT SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE CLASS COVERED BY THIS LITIGATION , MEMO OF LAW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' response to Raymond J. Stanton's motions for contempt to proceed in forma pauperis, for witnesses and opposing defendants' May 23, 1996, letter, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for sanctions injunctive and temporary relief field by Frank St. Clair, John Boskie and Anthony Allen, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545).. (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defts' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plffs' Motion to reconsider the Court's 1/18/95, Order, certificate of service. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defts' memorandum in opposition to the letter submitted by Charles D. Zehring, Jr. concerning his motion for a rule to show cause and for temporary restraining order, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Defts' response to the document submitted by Raymond J. Stanton entitled "motion trivets to the return", cert of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF (GERALD MAYO) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , AFFIDAVIT(S), PROOF OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
PLFF (GERALD MAYO) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , AFFIDAVIT(S), PROOF OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-513, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Withdrawal of appearance (of Theodore G. Otto, III, for DEFENDANT (Cmw of Pa), cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 03/20/1997 (Entered: 03/20/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT LEROY J. LEVETT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054). (fb) (Entered: 03/26/1997)

24 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/28/1997 04/03/1997 04/04/1997 04/07/1997 04/11/1997 04/14/1997
04/21/1997 04/21/1997
05/08/1997
06/03/1997 06/09/1997 06/10/1997

MOTION BY MOVANT SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., MOVANT SHELDON MILLER, MOVANT ROBERT ANDERSON, MOVANT ANGEL RODRIGUES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS . (SEE PAPER #683 IN 70-3054)(lvj) Modified on 03/28/1997 (Entered: 03/28/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS FOR SANCTIONS/CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE PAPER #689 IN 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
Response by class counsel to MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT filed by Leroy J. Levett, BI-0317, Spencer Dobson, AS-2871,Sheldon Miller, AS2857,Robert Anderson,AF-4845, Angel Rodrigues, BJ8105, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
Request for assistance by MOVANT ALLEN J. BROWN. (See paper #691 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF KENNETH W. OWENS JR. TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE , MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE PAPER #696 IN 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
Response by DEFENDANT CUSTODIAL EMPLOYEES, DEFENDANT JOHN DOE MURDOCK, DEFENDANT JOHN DOE BELLOFF, DEFENDANT ERSKIND DEHAMUS to Leroy J. Levett's MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, certificate of service. (see paper #697 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
PLAINTIFF KENNETH W. OWENS JR. objection to court order, certificate of service. (see paper #701 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
Response by DEFENDANT CUSTODIAL EMPLOYEES, DEFENDANT JOHN DOE MURDOCK, DEFENDANT JOHN DOE BELLOFF, DEFENDANT ERSKIND DEHAMUS to MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, certificate of service. (see paper #702 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
24 ORDER THAT DEFTS' LETTER REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNTIL 5/13/97 TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF LAW ADDRESSING PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, THE REQUEST IS HEREBY GRANTED. DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE ANY SUCH MEMORANDUM BY 5/13/97. TWO COPIES WILL BE MAILED DIRECTLY TO CHAMBERS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 5/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lvj) (Entered: 05/09/1997)
Response by class counsel to Jerome Silo's motion to intervene, certificate of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
Response by Class Counsel to pro se motion for contempt filed by class members Smith,Yount,Boone,Romberger,Kopac and Teater, cert of service. (See 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF AN ADJUDICATORY FACT, TO WIT: THAT STEFAN PRESSER HAS UNDISPUTABLY (AS YET) NOT ADDRESSED, IN

25 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/16/1997 08/13/1997 08/28/1997 09/03/1997
09/09/1997 09/23/1997 09/24/1997 09/30/1997 10/07/1997 10/07/1997 10/09/1997

PARTICULARITY, ANY OF THE IMPORTANT FEDERAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/11/1997)
Response by defendants to Jerome Silo's motion to intervene, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
Petition of NOTICE ONLY WADE D. LEE for contempt proceedings of the I.C.U. consent decree, certificate of service. (See paper #759 in 70-CV-3054). (fb) Modified on 08/14/1997 (Entered: 08/14/1997)
Response by class counsel DEFENDANT to pro se plaintiff, Wade D. Lee, petition for contempt, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
JOINDER MOTION BY MOVANT WILLIAM L. MARSHALL TO MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY LEROY J. LEVETT, SPENCER DOBSON, SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , PROOF OF SERVICE. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
Response by DEFENDANTS to Wade D. Lee, Secty, Imprisoned Citizens Union of the SCI at Pittsburgh, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
Appearance by SARAH B. VANDENBRAAK for DEFENDANTS. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
Response (motion) in opposition to defts' motion to TERMINATE preliminary relief and in the alternative to declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act unconstitutional, etc., cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF KENNETH W. OWENS JR. TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
Brief by DEFENDANTS in support of constitutionality of Sec 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
25 ORDER SET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 11:00 10/20/97 , PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A SUPP MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE 10/14/97 , ON OR BEFORE 10/17/97 DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ETC., ON OR BEFORE 10/23/97 THE U.S. GOVT SHALL ADVISE THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO ITS POSITION ON INTERVENTION, ETC. . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/10/97

26 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/10/1997 10/16/1997 10/20/1997 10/21/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997
10/28/1997

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/9/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
Memorandum of DEFENDANTS in further explication of the relationship between plffs' motion for contempt and defts' motion to terminate prospective relief, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
Response (memorandum of law in opposition) by DEFENDANTS in opposition to plff's motion to have defts and their agents held in civil contempt, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
Reply Memorandum of PLAINTIFF KENNETH W. OWENS JR., cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
Response (corrected memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS in opposition to plffs' MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Memorandum of DEFENDANT relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT U.S.A. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC 2403 , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Memorandum of law by MOVANT U.S.A. concerning the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Response by PLAINTIFF to defts' memorandum relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE DEFTS TO TREAT ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE AS BINDING -- INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CONSENT DECREE AND ALL ITS STIPULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS, ETC., THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE 30 DAY AUTOMTIC STAY PROVISION OF THE PRISON LIT REFORM ACT, AND THE CHALLENGES TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY ASSERTED BY PLFFS, ARE NOT AT ISSUE IN THE CASE AT THIS TIME. THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF DEFTS TO PROVIDE THIS COURT AND PLFFS WITH 20 DAYS NOTICE OF A DECISION TO WITHDRAW THEIR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/23/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE, ETC., THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC 2403 IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE

27 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/28/1997
10/28/1997 10/31/1997 11/04/1997 11/06/1997
11/06/1997

70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A STATUS REPORT BY TELEPHONE WITH THE PARTIES, ETC. ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON OCTOBER 29, 1997, COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON 10/29/97 COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL SUBMIT TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS, ETC. A FURTHER TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 9:30 11/7/97 ETC.; , ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF, ETC., IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M. IN CTROOM 12B, US CTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TWO COPIES OF PLFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND THE AGREED UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS ROOM 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/27/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/29/1997)
26 ORDER THAT SUPPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 27, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 6, 1997. RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 11/6/97 , ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/3/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) Modified on 11/03/1997 (Entered: 11/03/1997)
(EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE) MOTION TO COMPEL CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFTS' COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEFS, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED PRO SE BY WAYNE O. AULTMAN, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ENTITLED PLFF CLASS MEMBER AULTMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO ANY AND ALL STIPULATIONS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFF CLASS MEMBER AULTMAN'S OBJECTIONS, ETC., ARE OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT (ETC) SHALL BE DOCKETED AND COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/7/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
Memorandum of law in support of defts' response to plffs' amended motion for contempt, Certificate of Service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)

28 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/06/1997 11/10/1997
11/10/1997 11/12/1997
11/13/1997 11/13/1997 11/14/1997 11/18/1997 11/18/1997 11/19/1997

MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: A HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLFFS' MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CONTEMPT, PLFFS' MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ETC., IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 19, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M., IN CTROOM 12B U S CTHOUSE, ETC., , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 19, 1997 THE PARTIES SHALL FILE AND SERVE A STIPULATION OF FACTS FOR PRESENTATION TO THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ALL PENDING MOTIONS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TWO COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS 12613) WHEN UNDER THIS ORDER COPIES MUST BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL AND THE COURT . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/12/97 ENTERED. COPIES FAXED 11/10/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
Stipulation of Uncontested Facts (by counsel Presser, Esq., Vandenbraak, Esq., and Filipi, Esq.), cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, (ETC) IS IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
Declaration by JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D. (See paper #812 in case 70-CV-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
Declaration by LINDA C. BARRETT, ESQ. (See paper #813 in case 70-CV-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
Petition for writ of mandamus of MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, memorandum of law , Certificate of Service. (see paper 814 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1997)
Notice of Entry of Appearance of JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ for MOVANT U.S.A., Certificate of Service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
Notice of recent decision by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS, ETC., (#814 FILED NOV 14, 1997), ETC., THE PRO SE PET FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED

29 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/21/1997 11/25/1997 11/26/1997
11/28/1997 12/03/1997
12/04/1997 12/08/1997 12/10/1997 12/16/1997

BY ALAN B DAVIS IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL BY THE CLERK; COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL AND PRO SE PLFF, ALAN B. DAVIS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/20/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
Transcript for Oral Argument dated 11/19/97. (See paper #819 in 71-cv-1006). (fb) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
ORDER THAT HAVING CONSIDERED PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A POST-HEARING BRIEF AND FINDING IT REASONABLE IN ALL RESPECTS THE COURT NOW HEREBY GRANTS PLFF LEAVE TO FILE THE BRIEF ANNEXED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THAT MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR RECONSIDERATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOV 12, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOV 12, 1997, DENYING THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, SCI-GREENE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/4/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/04/1997)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANT in response to plffs' memorandum of law concerning FRCP 65(d), Certificate of Service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
27 ORDER, BY AGREEMENT, THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE IS DENIED AS MOOT. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 12/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
Notice of Amendments by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
Objections by MOVANT JON E. YOUNT, MOVANT DAVID B. KOPAC, MOVANT DEREK S. SMITH, GUY BICKING, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, KENNETH W. TEATER to portions of "Stipulation of

30 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

12/18/1997
12/19/1997 12/26/1997 01/30/1998 02/06/1998 04/27/1998
04/27/1998

Uncontested Facts", affidavit(s). (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF PRO SE PLFFS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSES TO THE OBJS ON OR BEFORE DEC 26, 1997. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES SHALL BE SERVED ON CHAMBERS, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON BICKING,KOPAC,ROMBERGER,SMITH,TEATER AND YOUNT. RESET RESPONSE DUE 12/26/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/19/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
Response by Class Counsel (PLAINTIFF) to plffs' objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
Response to plaintiff's objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts" by DEFENDANTS, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
Notice of recent decisions by DEFENDANTS, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
MOTION by PLAINTIFFS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (see 70-3054 paper # 834, 71-513, 70-2545) (cb) Modified on 02/06/1998 (Entered: 02/06/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS", ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: PLFFS' PRIOR WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PART OF THEIR CONTEMPT MOTIONS, ETC., IS VACATED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TO THE EXTENT PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS", ETC., THE OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON GUY BICKLING, DAVID B. KOPAC, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, DEREK S. SMITH, KENNETH W. TEATER AND JON E. YOUNG, SCI HUNTINGDON, PA. 16654-1112. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RECORD IS SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THE AFFIDAVITS OF RICHARD ROGERS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) 04/28/98 ENTERED. 4/27/98 COPIES MAILED VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)

31 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/27/1998
04/27/1998 05/04/1998
05/05/1998 05/06/1998

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, ETC., ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. BECAUSE THE COURT HAS FOUND THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, ETC., TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, ETC., DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IS GRANTED AND THE CONSENT DECREE, AS AMENDED, IS TERMINATED. PLFF'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE PRELIMINARY RELIEF, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE TRANSFER OF THIS ACTION'S CONSENT DECREE, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONGEMPT AND AMENDED MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT ARE DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1998, ETC., SUBMITTED BY PRO SE BY CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ARE OVERRULED AND HIS REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., BOX 244, GRATERFORD, PA., 19426-0244. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 4/27/98. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED APRIL 27, 1998, IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. PAGE 28, LINE 2 - THE WORD "INMATE" IS AMENDED TO READ "INMATES"; 2. PAGE 30, FOOTNOTE 18 - THE CITATION FOR INMATES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL, WHICH READS "1997 WL 685532 AT 12" IS DELETED AND "129 F.3D AT 661" IS SUBSTITUTED; (ETC. 3,4,5) 6. PAGE 46, LINE 14 - THE WORDS "ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND" SHOULD BE INSERTED BETWEEN THE WORD "THEREFORE" AND THE WORD "FOUND." THAT LINE, AS AMENDED, NOW READS: "...THEREFORE ADDRESSED THAT CLAIM CONTEMPT AND FOUND THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CLOTHING REGULATIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE ...." ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) 05/04/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
Objections by class member ALAN B. DAVIS to court order for imposition of contempt and sanction upon class counsel, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 05/07/1998)

32 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/19/1998 05/19/1998 05/19/1998

MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF 4-27-98 MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL MOTION TO ASK I.C.U. CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARANCE IN PLRA CASE OF C.A. NO. 98-1321, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gm) Modified on 05/08/1998 (Entered: 05/08/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF THIS COURT'S 4-27-98 MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL MOTION TO ASK I.C.U. CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARANCE IN PLRA CASE C.A. NO. 98-1321, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE PART OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO WHICH SEEKS TO STAY EXECUTION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF THIS COURT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO PROCEED WITH THE PENDING MOTION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, ETC. THE REMAINDER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PRO SE MOTION - A REQUEST TO CLASS COUNSEL - REQUIRES NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITIN TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA. 15233. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/08/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
Response (memorandum of law) by MOVANT U.S.A. opposing plaintiffs' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM JEROME SILO, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY JEROME SILO IN HIS MAY 7, 1998 LETTER IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F-3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-PITTSBURGH P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA. 15233. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM (ETC) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST (ETC) IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E.

33 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/19/1998
05/22/1998 05/29/1998
05/29/1998 06/19/1998 06/19/1998 06/24/1998

DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
ORDER THAT (ETC) THE OBJECTION OF CLASS MEMBER, ALAN B. DAVIS, TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF APRIL 27, 1998, AND FOR IMPOSITION OF CONTEMPT AND SACNTION UPON CLASS COUNSEL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED TGHAT THE DENIAL OF THE OBJECTION (ETC) IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON ALAN B. DAVIS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS opposing plaintiffs' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, DATED MAY 23, 1998, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF MAY 18, 1998, IS DENIED; AND THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., THAT THE LETTER DATED MAY 23, 1998, BE TREATED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, COPIES OF THE LETTER OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING,JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, AND THIS ORDER, SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL. A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL ALSO BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-GRATERFORD, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/1/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (#840 DATED MAY 5, 1998) TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, ETC. IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT IS DENIED, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/1/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 06/23/1998)
28 Notice of appeal by PLAINTIFF KENNETH W. OWENS JR. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545). Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ, MARY E. KOSTEL, SARAH B. VANDENBRAAK, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, JOHN T. SNAVELY II. (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
29 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [28-1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 98-1536. 6/24/98. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1998)

34 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

07/06/1998 08/25/1998 10/30/1998 11/06/1998
03/23/1999 01/14/2000

Certified copy of order from USCA that having considered appellants' unopposed motion for substitution of parties, and finding it reasonable in all respects, the motion is how hereby GRANTED, etc. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 07/06/1998 (Entered: 07/06/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that the unopposed motion by appelants to dismiss Commonwealth Attorney General J. Shane Creamer as a party to this appeal (98-1536) is granted. (also see 70-3054,71-513,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 08/26/1998)
ORDER THAT (ETC) THE COURT'S MEMO DATED APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED AT PAGE 2 SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "SIX" FOR "SEVEN" IN STATING THE NUMBER OF PA STATE CORRL INSTS IN OPERATION IN 1970-71 AND TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM FOOTNOTE 2, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054, 70-2545, 71-513) 11/2/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
ORDER THAT THE COURT HAVING BEEN PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE HISTORY OF ONE OF THE STATE CORRL INSTS (ETC) IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCT 30, 1998 AMENDING THIS COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS VACATED; THE COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCT 30, 1998 AMENDING THIS COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS VACATED; THE COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 2, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH UNDER THE HEADING "HISTORY OF THE CASE" IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS (ETC); FOOTNOTE 2 APPEARING ON PAGE 2 OF THE MEMORANDUM IS AMENDED TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE LIST OF INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN THE FOUR RELATED CASES, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/6/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that the judgment of the said distrit court entered May 29, 1998, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this court. (see paper #870 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
Letter from U S DEPT OF JUSTICE, dated 1-6-2000, to remove the nasmes of MARY E. KOSTEL AND JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ, ESQ., from the service list. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

35 of 36

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
02/27/2006 17:20:31

hs0328

Client Code:

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 20

Search Criteria:
Cost:

2:71-cv-01006-JD 1.60

36 of 36

2/27/2006 4:20 PM

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:71-cv-00513-TON

APPEAL

RAY, et al v. RUNDLE Assigned to: HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 03/03/1971 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff ROBERT . RAY

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II P.O. BOX 216 LANSDOWNE, PA 19050 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GEORGE SPEARS

STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA 7803 ST. MARTIN'S LANE PHILADELPHIA, 19 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MURRY DICTERSON

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Plaintiff CLARENCE REYNOLDS
Plaintiff GEORGE RIVERS
Plaintiff ALBERT JOHNSON
Plaintiff JAMES . GOLDSBOROUGH
Plaintiff JOSEPH LIGON

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Plaintiff RICHARD BELLAMY
Plaintiff EMANUEL JOHNSON
Plaintiff GENE FULLER
Plaintiff JAMES C. WILSON
3 of 39

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Plaintiff CARLOS RODRIGUEZ
Plaintiff WILLIE BROOKER
Plaintiff FRANK HALL
V. Defendant SUPERINTENDENT ALFRED T. RUNDLE State Correctional Institution at Graterford

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 15TH FLOOR, STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717-787-3874 Fax: 717-772-4526 Email: ffilipi@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

4 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

V. Intervenor Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. Movant LEROY J. LEVETT
Movant SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. AS2871

JUSTICE 810 SEVENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20531 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THEODORE G. OTTO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS P.O. BOX 598 CAMP HILL, PA 17011-0598 TERMINATED: 03/19/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 901 E STREET, N.W. ROOM 1040 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARY E. KOSTEL U.S. GOVERNMENT 901 E. STREET, N.W. FED. PROGRAMS BRANCH, ROOM 912 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by LEROY J. LEVETT BI-0317 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. BLOCK B, AS-2871 SCI-DALLAS

5 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Movant ALAN B. DAVIS #AF1282
Movant ALLEN J. BROWN
Movant WILLIAM L. MARSHALL
Movant GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP4884
Movant AC8297 JON E. YOUNT

DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by ALAN B. DAVIS AF1282 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612-0286 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ALLEN J. BROWN AP-2532 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BOX A BELLEFONTE, PA 16823 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AP4826 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION RD #2 BOX 10 GREENSBURG, PA 15601 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP-4884 1040 E. ROY FURMAN HIGHWAY WAYNESBURG, PA 15370-8090 PRO SE
represented by JON E. YOUNT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE

6 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Movant DAVID B. KOPAC
Movant DEREK S. SMITH
Movant GUY BICKLING
Movant JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER
Movant KENNETH W. TEATER

represented by DAVID B. KOPAC AP4900 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DEREK S. SMITH AY2053 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by GUY BICKLING AS1243 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER AY0262 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by KENNETH W. TEATER AF9460 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

7 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/03/1971 03/03/1971 07/14/1971 11/16/1971
11/16/1971 11/16/1971 11/16/1971 01/05/1972 02/18/1972 02/29/1972 04/10/1972 04/12/1972
04/18/1972 04/28/1972 07/20/1972 08/03/1972 09/06/1972 09/06/1972 08/21/1973
09/18/1973

1 Plffs' application to porceed in Forma Pauperis (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL . (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
2 MOTION OF ROBERT RAY, et al. FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND AFFIDAVITS THEREOF. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
3 ORDER THAT PLFS' MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED. 11/16/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
1 A. Complaint. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Summons(es) exit. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
4 Amended complaint. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
5 Defts. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , MEMORANDUM, & affidavit. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
6 Plffs' interrogatories. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
7 STIPULATION & ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFS. TO ANSWER TO 20 DAYS. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
8 Summons retruned "on 11/23/71 served on Rundle and Asst. Atty. Gen." (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
9 STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFS. SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 14 DAYS FROM 4/6/72 TO ANSWER PLFS; INTERROGATORIES. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
10 Def's Answer to Interrogatories filed. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
11 Defs' Interrogatories to Plfs. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
12 MOTION AND STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE C.A. 71-513 AND C.A. 70-3054 . (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
12 A. ORDER CONSOLIDATING C.A. 71-513 AND C.A. 70-3054. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
13 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS WITHDRAWN. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
14 STIPULATION & ORDER WITHDRAWING CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS IN PLFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
15 ORDER THAT C.A. 70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006, 72-2060, 70-2545 CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS ARE LISTED FOR TRIAL WITHOUT JURY BEFORE CHIEF JUDGE LORD ON 10/9/73 AT 10 A.M. IN COURTROOM NO. 5, 8/22/73 ENTERED AND COPIES ALL USDC JUDGES, COUNSEL, ETC. BY CHAMBERS. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
16 Report of status report of 9/17/73. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)

8 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/02/1973
01/04/1974 01/14/1974
01/15/1974
01/17/1974 01/18/1974
01/22/1974
04/05/1974 04/22/1974
05/24/1974 07/08/1974 07/09/1974 07/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/20/1974 11/01/1974
11/04/1974 12/13/1974 02/21/1975
04/09/1975
04/29/1975

17 ORDER THAT TRIAL IS RESCHEDULED WITHOUT JURY ON 1/2/74 AT 10 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5. 10/2/73 copies fwd. Ct. Rm. Dep. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
18 Pretrial Report: Trial set for 1/14/74, Lord, Ch.J. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Non-Jury trial, trial, witnesses sworn (70-3054), (71-1006), (72-2060), (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Non jury trial resumes (70-3054), (71-1006), (72-2060), (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Witnesses sworn. (70-3054). (71-1006), (72-2060), (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Case adjorned sine die, (70-3054), (71-1006), (72-2060), (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Transcript of trial first through sixth days (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
19 Withdrawal of appearance of Bruce E. Endy and appearance of David L. Hill for plffs. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
20 Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch.J. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Transcript of testimony of 7/8/74. (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Transcript of testimony 7/9/74. (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Transcript of testimony of 7/10/74. (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER that final argument be held on 10/11/74. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Defts' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Hearing: C.A.V. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Transcript of final hearing of 11/4/74. (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER THAT ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD ATTEND A CONFERENCE ON 2/27/75; 2/24/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
21 ORDER THAT CONFERENCE BE HELD ON 4/16/75 IN CHAMBERS. 4/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Transcript of hearing re: objections to the proposed consent decree. (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)

9 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/30/1975 08/05/1975 09/09/1975 09/19/1975 12/11/1975 01/08/1976 04/06/1976 04/07/1976 04/27/1976 12/16/1976 12/16/1976
01/27/1977 02/28/1977 04/19/1977
05/20/1977
06/21/1977 07/26/1977 09/12/1977
10/11/1977 10/13/1977

22 Report of status report held 4/29/75 by Ch. Judge Joseph S. Lord. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
23 ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 8/13/75; 8/5/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
24 ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 9/18/75; 9/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
24 Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch.J. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
25 Report of status report . (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
26 Report of status report. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
27 MOTION OF GEORGE FEIGLEY TO AMEND SETTLEMENT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Proposed consent decree, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch.J. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
MEMORANDUM, LORD, J. CH. J. (70-3054). 12/17/76 entered and copies mailed. (lm) Modified on 11/20/1996 (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER DATED 12/15/76 THAT THE MOTION OF GEORGE FEIGLEY TO AMEND THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE IS DENIED, BUT THE SAID MOTION SHALL BE TREATED AS AN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, (70-2545); 12/17/76 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Appearance of John T.Snavely, Esq. for plff., (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Defts' brief in response to brief of amicus curiae in support of objections to proposed settlement (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Brief of Class plffs. in response to brief of amicus curiae in support of objections to proposed settlement and further response to brief of amicus curiae, (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 6/20/77 WITH ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD IN ATTENDANCE, (70-3054). 5/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch.Jr. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Imprisoned Citizens Union's objection to consent decree, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 9/23/77 AT 11:00 A.M. IN CHAMBERS 17614. 9/13/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Report of Status Report, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Appearance of Alan Davis, Amicus Curiae. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)

10 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/22/1977
11/22/1977 02/09/1978 02/27/1978 05/22/1978
05/22/1978
05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978

ORDER DATED 11/21/77 THAT THE MOTION OF DEFTS' TO DECERTIFY THIS AS A CLASS ACTION IS DENIED, THE LETTER DATED 2/14/77 FROM THE COMMONWEALTH DEFTS' SEEKING TO WITHDRAW THE CONSENT OF THE DEFTS' TO THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE SHALL BE DOCKETED AS A MOTION TO WITHDRAW SUCH CONSENT, MOTION IS DENIED, (70-3054) (JL); 11/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord dated 2/14/77 of the Commonwealth defts' motion to withdraw consent, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER FIXING HEARING FOR 2/24/78 AT 10:00 A.M.; 2/10/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Hearing re: Approval of Consent Decree-witnesses sworn-C.A.V. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT IN SECTION VI, A (re: MAIL) OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AT PP. 4-5 THE AMENDMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE 803 AS STATED THEREIN WILL BE REVISED TO STRIKE THE WORDS "libelous or" FROM LINE 3 AND TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE LAST SENTENCE; THAT SECTION VII, D(1)(d) (re: PUBLICATIONS) OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREEE AT P. 8 WILL BE STRICKEN; APPENDIX D OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE, PAGE 1, WILL BE AMENDED AT SECTION A, LAST SENTENCE; PARAGRAPH III OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE, PAGE 4 WILL BE STRICKEN, ETC., (70-3054) (JL) 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS. PROVIDE LAW LIBRARY IN PENNA. STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AT GRATERFORD, DALLAS, HUNTINGDON, MUNCH, ROCKVIEW & PITTSBURGH WHICH MUST INCLUDE THE MATERIAL SPECIFIED IN STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PARTIES AND APPROVED BY COURT ON 12/20/77, DOCUMENT #238, (70-3054); 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER THAT COUNSEL REPORT TO CHAMBERS ON 5/26/78 TO DISCUSS STATUS OF THE CASES AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CONSENT DECREE TO THE PLTF. CLASS (70-3054) (JL); 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
ORDER THAT PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE FIELD 4/8/78 IS APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS, IN THAT AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE CONTAINED IN STIPULATION OF PARTIES ENTERED INTO ON 5/15/78 & SECTION VIIC(1) IS STRICKEN AND REPLACED WITH NEW PROVISION, (70-3054) (JL); 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
CONSENT DECREE OF 4/8/76 IS APPROVED AS MODIFIED BY ORDER OF 5/22/78, (70-3054) (JL); 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)

11 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/30/1978
05/30/1978 05/30/1978 06/07/1978
06/07/1978 08/07/1978 08/31/1978 09/19/1978
09/22/1978 09/22/1978 10/16/1978 10/27/1978

ORDER THAT DEFTS. ARE ENJOINED FROM CONFINING ANY INMATE IN THE "GLASS CAGE" AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGDON; INSOFAR AS PLTFS. SEEK TO ENJOIN DEFTS. FROM CONFINING INMATES IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AT THE STATE CORRECTOINAL INSTITUTIONS AT GRATERFORD, DALLAS & MUNCY, THE INJUNCTION IS DENIED; INSOFAR AS PLTFS. SEEK TO ENJOIN DEFTS FROM ENFORCING PROHIBITION AGAINST CONJUGAL VISITS, INJUNCTION IS DENIED, ETC., (70-3054) (JL) 5/30/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD 5/26/78, LORD, CH.J. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
28 Report of settlement conference of 5/26/78, Lord, Ch.J. that all cases except 73-1227 & 78-524 are settled and finally resolved once opinion is filed, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
MOTION OF DEFTS. FOR NEW TRIAL OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 59 OF FRCP AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE USE BY DEFTS. OF THREE CELLS AT S.C.I. HUNTINGDON, NOTICE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
OPINION, LORD, CH. J. (70-3054); 6/9/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER DATED 8/2/78 THAT THE CONSENT DECREE IS AMENDED, ETC., (JL) 8/7/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
Defts' reply to pltfs' answer to defts' motion for new trial or amendment of judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the issue of the use by defts of three cells at S.C.I. Huntingdon, certificate of service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER DATED 9/18/78 THAT ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION OF DEFTS FOR NEW TRIAL OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 59 IS SCHEDULED FOR 9/22/78 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A (70-3054); 9/19/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (Clk.JL) (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ARGUMENT on the motion for new trial - further hearing is needed and will be scheduled (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER dated 9/22/78 that hearing on the motion of defts for new trial or amendment of judgment under Rule 59 shall be had on 10/6/78 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 17-A; 9/25/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (Clk.JL) (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT A HEARING ON THE MOTION OF DEFTS' FOR NEW TRIAL OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER Rule 59, etc., is scheduled for 10/27/78 at 10 am (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Hearing re: Deft's motion for new trial, etc., witnesses sworn, both sides rest & arge to the Court, C.A.V. (70-3054) (JL). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

12 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

12/11/1978 12/11/1978 01/15/1979 03/01/1979 04/05/1979
04/20/1979 04/23/1979 07/02/1979
09/11/1979 09/19/1979 12/17/1979 12/19/1979 01/08/1980 01/24/1980 02/01/1980

PLFFS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES , MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT & NOTICE. (70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
DEFTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' FORMER COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS & CERTIFICATION (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Petitioner's copy of complaint filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, U.S. District Court (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND AFFIDAVIT THEREOF. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER DATED 4/4/79 THAT THE PLFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEY FEES SHALL BE HEARD ON 4/20/79 AT 2 P.M. (70-3054); 4/5/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (JL) (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Jack J. Levine's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Argued sur: Plff's motion for summary judgment as to Attorney's fees, C.A.V. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT THIS CASE AND ALL CASES CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH HAVING BEEN PENDING FOR OVER THREE YEARS, ETC., THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED TO SUMIT A JS-6 FORM TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ETC., (70-3054) (JL); 7/3/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 12/04/1996)
Petition of J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Att'y Gen'l to withdraw appearance in behalf of defts' and appearance of Francis R. Filipi, Esq. on behalf of same; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Defts' memorandum in opposition to Mr. Levine's motion concerning supplemental counsel fees pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the F.R.CIV.P., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION CONCERNING SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT, AFFIDAVIT OF JACK J. LEVINE, ESQ. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER AMENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSENT DECREE, (70-3054); 1/9/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
JACK J. LEVINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES, NOTICE & AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS' SHALL BE PERMITTED TO FILE THEIR RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR CONTEMPT JUDGMENT ON 2/25/80. 2/1/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

13 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

02/14/1980 02/22/1980
02/22/1980 03/02/1980 04/08/1980 06/20/1980 07/15/1980 07/15/1980 07/16/1980 07/22/1980 07/23/1980 07/24/1980 09/11/1980 09/11/1980
10/28/1980

Affidavit of Susan Arnhold re: she served copies of plffs' Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment upon counsel. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT JACK LEVINE IS AWARDED SUPPLEMENTAL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1250.00 PLUS $300 FEES AND COSTS, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1550.00 (70-3054); 2/22/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR CONTEMPT JUDGMENT NOTICE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW, & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Deft's brief in opposition to motion for issuance of order to show cause why defts should not be adjudged in contempt of the consent decree of this Court dated 5/22/78 (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Plffs supplemental memorandum in response to defts brief in opposition to motion for issuance of order to show cause why defts should not be adjudged in contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Plffs' supplementary affidavits and exhibits in support of motion and proposed show cause order for contempt of consent decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Defts. demand for jury trial or pltfs motion to show cause for contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER FIXING 7/28/80 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Appearance of Sherree L. Sturgis, Esq. for the defts. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Plff's brief in opposition to demand for a jury trial on plff's motion for issuance of order to show cause and for contempt judgment, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Deft's memo in support of demand for jury trial (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
DEFT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING , NOTICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS DENIED, (70-3054); 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS ARE ORDERED TO ANSWER AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CIVIL AND CRIM CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT FOR HAVING VIOLATED AND DISREGARDED THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THIS COURT OF 5/22/78, ETC. (70-3054); 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT THIS ACTION IS SPECIALLY LISTED FOR A HEARING ON 12/3/80 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A, U.S. COURTHOUSE,

14 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/13/1980 12/03/1980 12/03/1980 12/03/1980 03/31/1981 11/09/1981 01/08/1982
01/11/1982
01/22/1982

PHILA., PA BEFORE THE HON. JOSEPH S. LORD, III, CHIEF JUDGE. DEFTS SHALL SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR HAVING VIOLATED AND DISREGARDED THE TERMS OF THE DECREE OF THIS COURT OF 5/22/80. (70-3054) 10/28/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Appearance of A. Charles Peruto, Esq. for William B. Robinson, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Francis R. Filipi, Deputy Attorney General's petition for leave to withdraw appearance for Wiliam B. Robinson, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Sherree L. Sturgis, Deputy Attorney General's petition for leave to withdraw appearance for William B. Robinson, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Jose Hernandez-Cuebas, Deputy Attorney General's petition for leave to withdraw appearance for William B. Robinson, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO THE HON. WILLIAM F. HALL, JR., U.S. MAGISTRATE, ETC., (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER DATED 11/6/81 THAT COUNSEL ARE TO APPEAR FOR A CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT ON 11/12/81 AT 10:00 A.M., RM. 5918 (70-3054); 11/9/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD SHALL PRODUCE BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., ET AL. TO APPEAR ON 1/19/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM TO GIVE TESTIMONY, ETC., (70-3054). 1/11/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PRODUCE INMANTES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., ET AL. TO APPEAR ON 1/19/82 AT 10:00 A.M. COURTROOM 5-A, U.S. COURTHOUSE, PHILA., PA. FOR PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY, UPON TERMINATION OF ABOVE PROCEEDING THEY SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BE DELIVERED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE WARDEN OF THE S.C.I., GRATERFORD, PA (70-3054); 1/12/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., ET AL TO APPEAR ON 1/26/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 6-A, U.S. COURTHOUSE, PHILA., PA TO GIVE TESTIMONY, ETC., UPON TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE INMATES SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE DELIVERED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PA (70-3054); 1/25/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

15 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/26/1982
01/27/1982 02/08/1982 02/08/1982 04/20/1982 05/25/1982 06/08/1982
07/02/1982 07/29/1982 07/29/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982

Letter to Judge Lord from Hiram R. Johnston, Jr., re: objections to arbitras strip searching, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter to Chief Judge Lord from James H. Turner re: questions to Consent Decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Frank St. Clair re: questions on violation of rights, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GRATERFORD, PA PRODUCE INMATE WILLIAM HALLOWELL TO APPEAR 1/27/82 AT 10:00 A.M. IN CTRM 5-A, TO GIVE TESTIMONY. UPON TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING MR. HALLOWELL SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE DELIVERED INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE WARDEN OF THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PA (70-3454). MAG. HALL, JR. 1/26/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter to the Honorable William F. Hall, Jr. from John J. Murphy, III, Esq. re: Violation of Mr. Owens' Due Process Rights (81-1722). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter to Mag. Hall from Sanford Bernstein re: Requesting that something be done to allow medically ill inmates in PA Penal Colonies to receive their Civil and Constitutional Rights (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter to to Judge Lord from Leo Wallace re: violations of the Consent Decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter re: Rights to assigned counsel (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
PLFF'S PETITION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLFFS IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR ORDER DIRECTING TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING TO BE PREPARED AT U.S. GOVT. EXPENSE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER DATED 6/7/82 THAT PLFTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND PREPAYMENT OF ALL FEES AND COSTS, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPT COSTS, IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE (70-3054); 6/8/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Transcript of testimony 1/26/82; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Transcript of testimony 1/19/82; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Transcript of testimony 1/27/82; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Agreement between counsel as to cell inspection, search, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Amended Stipulation for dismissal of outstanding allegatons of contempt, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

16 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/05/1982 11/12/1982 11/24/1982 12/02/1982 12/06/1982 12/13/1982 03/10/1983 03/10/1983
05/04/1983
05/13/1983 05/13/1983
04/10/1985

WILBUR B. GAY'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
WILBUR B. GAY'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
PLTF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Pltfs' objections to terms of proposed settlement, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
Letter from Purcell Bronson to Clerk re: objection to propose settlement, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
CARL LEE JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, BRIEF IN SUPPORT AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
29 DEFTS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/21/1996)
REPORT HALL, JR., MAG. & RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DEFTS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF CONTEMPT BE GRANTED, AND THAT THE COMPROMISE OF THE PLTFS' ACTION FOR CONTEMPT BE APPROVED AND THE ACTION BE DISMISSED, ETC., (70-3054). 5/5/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
MEMORANDUM LORD, S.J., THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE HALL WILL BE ADOPTED (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER DATED 5/11/83 THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE COURT FINDS THAT THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSED ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPROMISE OF THE PLTFS' ACTION FOR CONTEMPT IS APPROVED AND THE ACTION IS DISMISSED, ETC., 5/16/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
CLASS PLTFS' MOTION TO APPOINT ADDITIONAL CLASS COUNSEL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)

17 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/16/1985 04/29/1985 05/20/1985 07/24/1985 08/06/1985
03/21/1986 05/16/1986 06/17/1986
06/20/1986 07/03/1986 07/15/1986 07/15/1986 07/16/1986 07/30/1986 08/04/1986

Hearing 4/15/86 re: Pltfs seek guidance as to question of which, if any, of claims raised in Middle Dsitrict of PA. C.A. 83-1024, could be heard by this court as a part of the I.C.U. litigation, (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defts' response to pltfs' motion to appoint additional class counsel, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ORDER THAT STEFAN PRESSER IS APPOINTED ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS IN THIS ACTION, (70-3054). 8/7/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
PLFF'S (EDWARD GOVEN) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BE REFFERRED TO MAG. HALL, JR. FOR CONSOLIDATION ETC., (a) THE APPOINTMENT OF HEARING EXAMINERS HAVING PREVIOUS CONNECTIONS THE PRISON SYSTEM ETC. AND THE MAG. SHALL MAKE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COURT, (70-3054).8/7/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/21/1996)
ANDRE WRIGHT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFT'S RESPONSE TO PLFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 6/20/86, DEFT WILL RESPOND TO DISCOVERY PROPOUNDED BY DEFTS ON OR BEFORE 6/30/86; 6/18/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Deft's memo in opposition to plff's second motion for contempt, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , CERT OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFTS SHOULDN'T BE HELD IN CONTEMPT. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL . (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
30 Defts' brief in opposition to plffs' motion to compel discovery, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff's response to defts' brief in opposition, cert. of service. (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

18 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

09/12/1986
09/15/1986 09/15/1986 09/19/1986 09/23/1986 09/30/1986
12/17/1986 02/02/1987
02/06/1987 02/13/1987 02/20/1987 02/20/1987
03/04/1987 03/04/1987

ORDER THAT MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED, (70-3054). 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION OF ANDRE WRIGHT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF PURCELL BRONSON IS DENIED, 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Conference of 9/19/86, re: plff's second motion for contempt, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFF SHALL FILED AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ETC., 9/24/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO IS DENIED, MOTION OF THOMAS MARTIN FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED, ETC., 10/1/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFTS RESPONSE TO PLFFS SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (AMENDED) SHALL BE DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 2/6/87; 2/3/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs amended second motion for contempt, cert. of service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plff's amended second motion for contempt, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Conference in chambers of 1/18/87 re: plffs' amended second motion for contempt C.A.V., plffs' motion to compel granted, motion for contempt set for 5/26/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS WILL PRODUCE THE PERSONNEL FILES OF ANY HEARING EXAMINER WHO HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF THE DECREE AND BIAS, (70-2545). 2/21/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE REGARDING SCHEDULING APPEARANCE OF INMATES FOR THE EVIDENTARY HEARING ON 5/26/87 WILL BE HELD ON 5/26/87, ETC. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING REGARDING PLFFS AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT IN THE ABOVE

19 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/18/1987 03/23/1987 04/06/1987 04/08/1987 04/22/1987 04/23/1987 04/27/1987 04/30/1987
04/30/1987
05/22/1987 05/27/1987 05/29/1987

MATTERS WILL BE HELD ON 5/26/87, ETC., 3/5/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
MOTION FOR VENUE CHANGE AND/OR APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES RULE 60 (b), (5 and 6), CERT. OF SERVICE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Affidavit of Statement and Fact of Harvey K. Grant P4809, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT MOTION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES OF ANDRES VALDEZ IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054); 4/8/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM, DECLARATION, CERT. OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVITS, CERT OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Conference in chambers of 4/24/87 re: scheduling of inmate witnesses for appearnce at evidentiary hearing of 5/26/87, parties will submit proposed orders for writs of habeas corpus. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM IS DENIED WITHUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS TO RENEW SUCH PETITION SHOULD COUNSEL CONSIDER RENEWAL APPROPRIATE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT, FILED PRO SE BY JANOS M. TOTH, III, IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO MOVANT'S RIGHT TO FILE AN INDIVIDUAL CIVIL ACTION TO SEEK REDRESS FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHT OF PLFF CLASS IN ICU TO INCLUDE MOVANT'S CLAIMS, IF APPROPRIATE, IN ANY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED INSTITUTION OR SYSTEM WIDE VIOLATIONS OF THE ICU CONSENT DECREES, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFFS MOTION TO VACATE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUMS, CERT. OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Evidentiary Hearing of 5/26/87 argued sur: Plffs' amended second motion for contempt, nature of relief to be granted if plffs prevail, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD R. CANADY IS DENIED, (70-3054). 6/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

20 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/29/1987 05/29/1987 05/29/1987 05/29/1987
06/02/1987 06/04/1987 06/09/1987 06/09/1987 06/10/1987
06/11/1987 06/19/1987 06/19/1987 06/23/1987
07/13/1987

Evidentiary hearing re: plffs' amended second motion for contempt. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Evidentiary hearing of 5/29/87 argued sur: plff's amended second motion for contempt, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Evidentiary hearing of 5/28/87 argued sur: plff's amended second motion for contempt, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT ORDER DATED 5/13/87 IS VACATED, ORDER DATED 5/13/87 IS VACATED AS TO ROBERT E. DEVANY ONLY ALL OTHER RESPECTS OF THE ORDER REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Evidentiary hearing of 6/1/87 argued sur: plffs' amended second motion of r contempt, (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Evidentiary hearing of 6/2/87 (final day) argued sur: plffs' amended second motion for contempt, both sides rest, (70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE , (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plffs' post-hearng brief. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE THEIR POST HEARING BRIEF NO LATER THAN 14 DAYS AFTER ALL TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARING ON PLFFS' AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ARE FILED OF RECORD, ETC., (70-3054); 7/11/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE IS DENIED AS MOOT, 6/12/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT & MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & BRIEF CERT OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff's Declaration in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, FILED BY PRO SE BY WALTER M. GUYER ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (i) MOVANT'S RIGHT TO FILE AN INDIVIDUAL CIVIL ACTION IN A COURT OF PROPER VENUE TO SEEK REDRESS FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS AND (ii) THE RIGHT OF PLFF CLASS IN ICU TO INCLUDE MOVANT'S CLAIMS, IF APPROPRIATE, IN ANY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR ALLEGED INSTITUTION OR SYSTEM WIDE VIOLATIONS OF THE ICU CONSENT DECREE, (70-3054); 6/24/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Transcript of 5/26/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

21 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 08/04/1987 11/04/1987 11/25/1987 11/25/1987
12/03/1987
12/15/1987
12/17/1987
12/18/1987
12/23/1987 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988

Transcript of 5/27/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Transcript of 5/28/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Transcript of 5/29/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Transcript of 6/1/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Transcript of 6/2/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Deft's Reply Brief. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plffs counsel notice of change of address. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
OPINION LORD, S.J. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS DAVID OWENS IS ADJUDGED TO BE IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF DECREE DATED 5/22/78, AND SHALL BEGINNING 30 COMMENCE PAYING TO THE CLERK A DAILY FINE OF $500., UNLESS WITHIN 30 DAYS HE CERTIFIES THAT HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT, ETC., (70-3054); 11/25/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND DISTRICT COURT ORDER DATED 11/25/87 , MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFFS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
DEFTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS SHALL FILE THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES REQUEST BY 1/14/88; (70-3054) 12/21/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Letter from David S. Owens, Commissioner, Dept. Corrections to Judge Lord re: response to Order of 11/25/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Application for Attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Affidavit of Stefan Pressler, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Itemization of services and expenses of Stefan Pressler, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Affidavit of Lorray Brown, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Itemization of Services of Lorray Brown, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plffs memorandum in support of ACLU counsels application for attorneys fees, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

22 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/14/1988
01/27/1988
02/08/1988 02/16/1988 02/23/1988 03/07/1988 03/08/1988 03/08/1988
03/30/1988 05/12/1988
05/18/1988 05/19/1988 05/24/1988

ORDER THAT THE ORDER OF 11/25/87 AS AMENDED, IS FURTHER AMENDED AS TO JOHN T. SNAVELY, ESQ., SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS FROM 1/14/88 WITHIN WHICH TO FILE HIS FEE APPLICATION, (70-3054). 1/15/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IS GRANTED & DEFTS ARE PERMITTED TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FILED BY THE ACLU ON OR BEFORE 2/8/88, (70-3054); 1/28/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, Certificate of Service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Memorandum in support of plffs. counsel's application for attorney's fees. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plffs response to Defts opposition for ACLU'S attorneys' fee application, Certificate of Service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Certificate of Service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Telephone Conference Call-Argued-Plffs motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Granted in part/denied in part (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER OF 11/25/87 IS GRANATED TO THE EXTENT THAT DEFT OWENS SHALL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER CAUSE TO BE EXPUNGED FROM ALL RECORDS UNDER HIS CONTROL AND UNDER CONTROL OF HIS SUBORDINATES FOR ALL INMATES WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, ALL CHARGES AND ALL CONVICTIONS IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED, (70-3054); 3/9/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plffs reply memorandum to defts memorandum in opposition to application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Esq., Certificate of Service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT A HEARING REGARDING JOHN T. SNAVELYS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND ACLU COUNSELS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 5/18/88 2 P.M., CTROOM 17A, PHILA. (70-3054); 5/12/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plffs revised application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, certificate of service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Hearing argued sur: application of John T. Snavely, Esq., for attorney's fees, c.a.v. on 5/18/88, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS DAVID S. OWENS, JR., COMMR OF PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, SHALL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS

23 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/08/1988 06/08/1988
03/19/1991
09/13/1991 01/06/1992 03/16/1992 07/08/1992 09/21/1992 10/05/1992 11/16/1992
04/14/1993 06/11/1993

ORDER PAY THE SUM OF $30,000 TO STEFAN AND LORRAY BROWN, JOINTLY, AS ATTORNEYS FEES, (70-3054) 5/25/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS DIRECTED TO PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY ATTORNEYS FEES, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF PLFFS COUNSEL JOHN T. SNAVELY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: DEFENDANTS SHALL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY THE SUM OF $30,832.25 (70-3054); 6/8/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AND FOURTEEN OTHER INMATES AT SCI HUNTINGDON. IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS TO RENEW SUCH PETITION SHOULD COUNSEL CONSIDER RENEWAL APPROPRIATE, (70-3054) 3/20/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
(WILLIAM SEYMOUR JONES') MOTION FOR THIS COURT TO HOLD THE DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THE ABOVE SETTLED CASE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CASES ARE REASSIGNED FROM JUDGE LORD, III, DECEASED, TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE STEWART DALZELL, (70-3054); 1/7/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Memorandum of law brief requesting modification of consent decree, affidavit, (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
MOTION TO ENFORCE (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS HARRIS, JONES & COMMODORE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT , BRIEF IN SUPPORT, VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATION, DECLARATION(S) IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (70-3054). (lm) Modified on 11/22/1996 (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plaintiff (Paul Ballod's ) certificate of service, order to show cause (re: motion for contempt), (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

24 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/16/1993 07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/14/1993 07/14/1993 08/05/1993 08/17/1993 11/17/1993
01/06/1995 01/20/1995 02/08/1995 02/21/1995 02/23/1995 07/28/1995
08/07/1995 08/14/1995

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT NOTICE OF MOTION, DECLARATION, BY JOSEPH J. TAYLOR, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plaintiff (Joseph Taylor's) pages 6 through 9 and cover letter dated 6/28/93 of his motion for judgment of contempt, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plaintiff (Joseph Taylor's) pages 10 through 14 of his motion for contempt of judgment, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
31 Plaintiff (Joseph Taylor's) Notice of appeal. 7/14/93 copies to: D. Hill, J. Snavely, M. Luber, T. Jennings, s. Presser, L. Brown. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
32 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Notice of change of address of Plaintiff, Jeffrey Commodore. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
(PLAINTIFF'S PURCELL BRONSON) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , UNSWORN AFFIDAVITS (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff's (Joseph D'Amato) letter to the Court, dated 11/3/93, re: an on-going violation of the ICU Consent Decree v. Shapp, here at the institution (Huntingdon) (1100 Pike St., Huntingdon, PA 16652) regarding the extension of punishments beyond the sanctions imposed by misconduct hearing examiners, etc., (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Class counsel's response to motion to enforce, certificate of service. (filed by Stephen Presser, Esq. Amr. Civil Liberties Union) (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion to enforce, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff Class Counsel's Response to Traverse (By Stefan Presser, Esq.). certificate of service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defts' response to the letter of Brian F. Ross, AM-7035, certificate of service. (see 70-3054 paper #504.) (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' response to the traverse, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF EDWARD GOVEN FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS (DOC. 508 FILED 7/24/95), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON EDWARD GOVAN, AY-9511, AT: SCI DALLAS, DRAWER K, DALLAS PA. (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff's (Edward Goven's) certificate of service, (with exhibits), (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff class counsel's response to motions filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)

25 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

08/21/1995 08/21/1995 08/24/1995 08/30/1995 09/12/1995 09/15/1995 10/11/1995 10/17/1995 11/09/1995 01/18/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/26/1996 02/28/1996 02/28/1996

Class counsel's (Stefan Presser, ACLU) response to motion for contempt filed by Edward Govan, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion to vacate judgment and motions to enforce, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' response to motion for contempt of court proceedings, certificate of servcie, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plaintiff Govan's response to both defendants and Mr. Presser's responses, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plaintiff class counsel's further response to motions filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' supplemental response to the motion to vacate judgment and motion to enforce filed by Balckiston, Brightwell, Jacobs, Nigro and Fontroy, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Plff class counsel's response to supp pleading to motions to enforce by Balckiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for an evidentiary hearing, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
Defendants' supplemental response to the motion to enforce, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
PLFF'S (SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. AND JAMES HARDWICK MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF'S (CHARLES D. ZEHRING) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (71-1006, 70-2545, 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DECLARATION, CERTIFICATION, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , MEMO, AFFIDAVIT, PROOF OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Plff's (Zehring) notice of change of financial status, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendants' response to petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Bobby E. Brightwell, certificate of servce. (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for contempt filed by Spencer R. Dobson, Jr. and James Hardwick, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)

26 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/13/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 06/13/1996
06/19/1996 06/19/1996 06/24/1996 09/03/1996 09/27/1996 11/04/1996

Defendants' memorandum concerning the motion for appointment of counsel by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service, (70-3054, 70-2545, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendants' memorandum in opposition to the motion for a rule to show cause and temporary restraining order field by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service, (71-513, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF (FRANK ST. CLAIR, JOHN BOSKIE, ANTHONY ALLEN) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, INJUNCTIVE AND TEMPORARY RELIEF (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF (JOHN BOSKIE) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (71-1006, 70-2545, 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF (JOHN BOSKIE) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF (FRANK ST. CLAIR) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REVERSE THE COURT'S ORDER OF JANUARY 18, 1995 EXCLUDING INDIVIDUALS INCARCERATED AT SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE CLASS COVERED BY THIS LITIGATION, MEMO. OF LAW, CERT. OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendants' response to Raymond J. Stanton's motions for contempt, to proceed in forma pauperis, for witnesses and opposing defendants' May 23, 1996, letter, certificate of service. (70-2545, 71-1006, 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for sanctions injunctive and temporary relief filed by Frank St. Clair, John Boskie, and Anthony Allen, certificate of service, (70-3054, 70-2545, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defendant's Memoarandum of law in Opposition to Plffs' Motion to Reconsider the Court's 1/18/95, Order, certificate of service. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defts' memorandum in opposition to the letter submitted by Charles D. Zehring, Jr. concerning his motion for a rule to show cause and for a temporary restraining order, cert. of service, (70-3054, 70-2545, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
Defts' response to the document submitted by Raymond J. Stanton entitled "motion trivets to the return", cert. of service., (70-2545, 70-3054, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
PLFF (GERALD MAYO) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , AFFIDAVIT(S), PROOF OF SERVICE, (70-3054, 71-1006, 70-2545). (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1996)

27 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/19/1997 03/26/1997 03/28/1997 04/03/1997 04/04/1997 04/07/1997 04/11/1997 04/14/1997 04/21/1997 05/08/1997 05/08/1997
06/03/1997 06/09/1997

Withdrawal of appearance by THEODORE G. OTTO for DEFENDANT (Cmw), cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 03/20/1997 (Entered: 03/20/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT LEROY J. LEVETT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054). (fb) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, ANGEL RODRIGUES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDING , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS FOR SANCTIONS/CONTEMPT . (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
Class counsel's response to MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT filed by Leroy J. Levett, BI0317,Spencer Dobson AS2871, Sheldon Miller AS2857, Robert Anderson AF4845, Angel Rodrigues BJ8105, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
Request for assistance by MOVANT ALLEN J. BROWN. (See paper #691 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF (ACLU) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
Response by DEFENDANTS to Leroy J. Levett's MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, certificate of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
Objection by MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS to court order. (See 70-3054,71-2006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 04/21/1997)
Letter from Office of Atty General, dated 5/6/97, re: requesting an enlargement of time until Tuesday May 13, 1997, to file a memorandum of law addressing plff's motion to compel discovery. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
33 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFTS' LETTER REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNTIL TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1997, TO FILE A MEMO OF LAW ADDRESSING PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, THE REQUEST IS HEREBY GRANTED. DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE ANY SUCH MEMO BY TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1997 . TWO COPIES WILL BE MAILED DIRECTLY TO CHAMBERS. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/08/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
Response by class counsel to Jerome Silo's motion to intervene, certificate of service. (SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545). (gm) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
Response by Class Counsel to pro se motion for contempt filed by Class Members Smith, Yount, Boone, Romberger, Kopac and Teater, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/10/1997)

28 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/10/1997
06/16/1997 08/13/1997 08/28/1997 09/03/1997
09/09/1997 09/23/1997 09/23/1997 09/30/1997 10/07/1997 10/07/1997 10/09/1997

MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF AN ADJUDICATORY FACT, TO WIT: THAT STEFAN PRESSER HAS UNDISPUTABLY (AS YET) NOT ADDRESSED, IN PARTICULARITY, ANY OF THE IMPORTANT FEDERAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006, 70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/11/1997)
Response by defendants to Jerome Silo's motion to intervene, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
Petition of NOTICE ONLY WADE D. LEE for contempt proceedings of the I.C.U. consent decree, certificate of service. (See paper #759 in 70-CV-3054). (fb) Modified on 08/14/1997 (Entered: 08/14/1997)
Response by class counsel DEFENDANT to pro se plaintiff, Wade D. Lee, petition for contempt, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
JOINDER MOTION BY MOVANT WILLIAM L. MARSHALL TO MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY LEROY J. LEVETT, SPENCER DOBSON, SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES, AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
Response by DEFENDANTS to Wade D. Lee, Secty, Imprisoned Citizens Union of the SCI Pittsburgh, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
Appearance by Sarah B. Vandenbraak, Esq., for DEFENDANT ALFRED T. RUNDLE (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSEPCTIVE RELIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
Response (motion) in opposition to deft's MOTION TO TERMINATE preliminary relief and in the alternative to declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act unconstitutional, etc., cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
Brief by DEFENDANT in support of constitutinality of Section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
34 ORDER RESET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 11:00 10/20/97 , ON OR BEFORE 10/14/97 PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A SUPP MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS HELD IN CONTEMPT, ETC. , ON OR BEFORE 10/17/97 DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AS AMENDED, ETC. , ON OR BEFORE 10/23/97 THE U.S.GOVT SHALL

29 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/10/1997 10/16/1997 10/20/1997
10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997

ADVISE THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO ITS POSITION ON INTERVENTION, ETC. . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/10/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/9/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) Modified on 10/10/1997 (Entered: 10/10/1997)
Memorandum of DEFENDANT in further explication of the relationship between plffs' motion for contempt and defts' motion to terminate prospective relief, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS in opposition to plff's MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
Memorandum of PLAINTIFF ROBERT . RAY, PLAINTIFF GEORGE SPEARS, PLAINTIFF MURRY DICTERSON, PLAINTIFF CLARENCE REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFF GEORGE RIVERS, PLAINTIFF ALBERT JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF JAMES . GOLDSBOROUGH, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH LIGON, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BELLAMY, PLAINTIFF EMANUEL JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF GENE FULLER, PLAINTIFF JAMES C. WILSON, PLAINTIFF CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFF WILLIE BROOKER, PLAINTIFF FRANK HALL (gm) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
Response (corrected memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS in opposition to plff's MOTION TO HAVE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Memorandum of DEFENDANT relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT U.S.A. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC S2403 , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Memorandum of law by MOVANT U.S.A. concerning the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Response by PLAINTIFF to defts memorandum relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE DEFTS TO TREAT ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE AS BINDING -- INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CONSENT DECREE AND ALL ITS STIPULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS, AS APPROVED BY THE COURT AND DEFTS' FURTHER AGREEMENT TO WAIVE ANY ARGUMENT, ETC., THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE 30 DAY AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISON OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, ETC., AND THE CHALLENGES TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY ASSERTED BY PLFFS, ARE NOT AT ISSUE IN THE CASE AT THIS TIME. THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUICE TO THE RIGHT OF DEFTS TO PROVIDE THIS COURT AND PLFFS WITHIN 20 DAYS NOTICE OF A DECISION TO WITHDRAW THEIR AGREEMENT TO

30 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/28/1997 10/28/1997
10/28/1997 10/31/1997 11/04/1997 11/06/1997

BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CONSENT DECREE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/23/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE, ETC., THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC S2403 IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A STATUS REPORT BY TELEPHONE WITH THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON 10/29/97 COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT; , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON OCTOBER 29, 1997, COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL SUBMIT TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS, ETC.; A FURTHER TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 11/7/97 AT 9:30 A.M, ETC. , ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFTS MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS, ETC., IS SCHEDULED FOR 11/19/97 AT 11:00 A.M., IN CTROOM 12B, US CTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT 2 COPIES OF PLFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND THE AGREED UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS, ROOM 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/27/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
MOTION by PLAINTIFFS FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 10/29/1997)
35 ORDER THAT SUPPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCT 27, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 6, 1997. RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 11/6/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/3/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/03/1997)
(EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE) MOTION TO COMPEL CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFTS' COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEFS, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED PRO SE BY WAYNE O. AULTMAN, JR., ETC., IT IS ORDERED: A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED PLFF CLASS MEMBER AULTMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO ANY AND ALL STIPULATIONS, ETC., SHALL BE DOCKETED AND COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS )

31 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/10/1997
11/10/1997 11/12/1997
11/13/1997 11/13/1997 11/14/1997 11/18/1997

11/7/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
Memorandum of law in support of defts' response to plffs' amended motion for contempt by DEFENDANT, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE, ETC.: A HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLFFS' MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CONTEMPT, PLFFS' MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF, IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M., IN CTROOM 12B, U S CTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA.; , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 19, 1997, THE PARTIES SHALL FILE AND SERVE A STIPULATION OF FACTS FOR P0RESENTATION TO THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ALL PENDING MOTIONS , ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TWO COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS ROOM 12613) WHEN, UNDER THIS ORDER, COPIES MUST BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL AND THE COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/12/97 ENTERED. COPIES FAXED 11/10/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
Stipulation of Uncontested Facts (by counsel Presser, Vandenbraak, Filipi, Esq.), cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY PLFF IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
Declaration by JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D. (See paper #812 in case 70-CV-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
Declaration by LINDA C. BARRETT, ESQ. (See paper #813 in case 70-CV-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
Petition for writ of mandamus of MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, Memorandum of law, Certificate of Service.(see paper 814 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1997)
Notice of Entry of Appearance of JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ for MOVANT U.S.A., Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)

32 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/18/1997 11/19/1997
11/21/1997 11/25/1997 11/26/1997 11/28/1997 12/03/1997
12/04/1997 12/08/1997

Notice of recent decision by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE PET FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE PET FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL BY THE CLERK; COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL AND PRO SE PLFF ALAN B. DAVIS, #AF1282, SCI-DALLAS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/20/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
Transcript for Oral Argument dated 11/19/97. (See paper #819 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
ORDER THAT HAVING CONSIDERED PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A POST-HEARING BRIEF AND FINDING IT REASONABLE IN ALL RESPECTS THE COURT NOW HEREBY GRANTS PLFF LEAVE TO FILE THE BRIEF ANNEXED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THAT MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR RECONSIDERATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOV 12, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOV 12, 1997, DENYING THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, AP-4884, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI GREEN, WAYNESBURG, PA. 15370-8090. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/4/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/04/1997)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANT ALFRED T. RUNDLE to plffs' memorandum of law concerning FRCP 65(d), Certificate of Service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
36 ORDER, BY AGREEMENT, THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE IS DENIED AS MOOT. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E.

33 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

12/10/1997 12/15/1997 12/18/1997
12/19/1997 12/26/1997 01/30/1998 02/06/1998 04/27/1998

DUBOIS) 12/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
Notice of Amendments by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 12/10/1997 (Entered: 12/10/1997)
Objections by MOVANT JON E. YOUNT, MOVANT DAVID B. KOPAC, MOVANT DEREK S. SMITH, MOVANT GUY BICKLING, MOVANT JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, MOVANT KENNETH W. TEATER to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", Affidavit(s). (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS OF PRO SE PLFFS, BICKING, KOPAC, ROMBERGER, SMITH, TEATER AND YOUNT, TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS" (#828), IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE DEC 26, 1997, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON BICKING,KOPAC,ROMBERGER,SMITH,TEATER AND YOUNT. RESET RESPONSE DUE 12/26/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/19/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
Request by Class Counsel (PLAINTIFFS) to plaintiff's objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
Response to plaintiff's objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts" by DEFENDANTS, cert of service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
Notice of recent decisions by DEFENDANTS, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
MOTION by PLAINTIFFS, TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (See 70-3054, paper # 834 & 71-1006, 70-2545) (cb) Modified on 02/06/1998 (Entered: 02/06/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS", ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: PLFFS' PRIOR WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PART OF THEIR CONTEMPT MOTIONS THAT SOUGHT SANCTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DAILY SICK CALL IS VACATED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TO THE EXT PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS" CONFLICTS, ETC., THE OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON GUY BICKLING, DAVID B. KOPAC, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, DEREK S. SMITH, KENNETH W. TEATER, JON E. YOUNT, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98

34 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/27/1998 04/27/1998
04/27/1998 05/04/1998

ENTERED. 4/27/98 COPIES MAILED FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, FILED FEB 6, 1998 (#834) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RECORD IS SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THE AFFIDAVITS OF RICHARD ROGERS, ERIC P. MASON, MALCOLM MASSEY, SR., DATED JAN 24, 1998. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED. COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF, ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, ETC., ARE CONSITUTIONAL. BECAUSE THE COURT HAS FOUND THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS, ETC., TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, ETC., DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IS GRANTED AND THE CONSENT DECREE AS AMENDED IS TERMINATED. PLFF'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE TRANSFER, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ARE DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1998, ETC., SUBMITTED PRO SE BY CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ARE OVERRULED AND HIS REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567, BOX 244, GRATERFORD, PA., 19426-0244. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) 4/28/98 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED APRIL 27, 1998, IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. PAGE 28, LINE 2 - THE WORD "INMATE" IS AMENDED TO READ "INMATES"; 2. PAGE 30, FOOTNOTE 18 - THE CITATION FOR INMATES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL WHICH READS "1997 WL 685532 AT 12" IS DELETED AND "129 F.3D AT 661" IS SUBSTITUTED; (ETC 3,4,5) 6. PAGE 46, LINE 14 - THE WORDS "ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND" SHOULD BE INSERTED BETWEEN THE WORD "THEREFORE" AND THE WORD "FOUND." THAT LINE, AS AMENDED, NOW READS: "...THEREFORE ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND FOUND THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CLOTHNG REGULATIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE ...." ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) 5/5/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm)

35 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/05/1998 05/06/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998
05/19/1998 05/19/1998 05/19/1998

(Entered: 05/05/1998)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
Objection by class member ALAN B. DAVIS to court order for imposition of contempt and sanction upon class counsel, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF 4-27-98 MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL MOTION TO ASK I.C.U. CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARANCE IN PLRA CASE OF C.A. NO. 98-1321, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054) (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF THIS COURT'S 4-27-98 MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL MOTION TO ASK I.C.U. CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARANCE IN PLRA CASE OF C.A. NO. 98-1321, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE PART OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO WHICH SEEKS TO STAY EXECUTION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF THIS COURT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO PROCEED WITH THE PENDING MOTION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLFF CLASS, ETC. THE REMAINDER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PRO SE MOTION - A REQUEST TO CLASS COUNSEL - REQUIRES NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/08/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
Response (memorandum of law) by MOVANT U.S.A. opposing PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
ORDER THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY JEROME SILO IN HIS MAY 7, 1998 LETTER IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
ORDER THAT (ETC) THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM, ETC., IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE

36 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/19/1998 05/22/1998 05/29/1998
05/29/1998

REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC., IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES ZEHRING, JR., AK6567, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTION OF CLASS MEMBER, ALAN B. DAVIS, TO MEMO AND ORDER OF APRIL 27, 1998, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTION (ETC) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE OBJECTION (ETC) IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON ALAN B. DAVIS AF1282 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI DALLAS, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA., 18612-0286. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS opposing plaintiffs' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) Modified on 05/22/1998 (Entered: 05/22/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF MAY 18, 1998, IS DENIED AND THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., THAT THE LETTER DATED MAY 23, 1998, BE TREATED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE LETTER OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, AND THIS ORDER, SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL. A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL ALSO BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK6567 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-GRATERFORD, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/1/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT IS DENIED, ETC. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT WILL NOT ALTER OR AMEND ITS JUDGMENT OF APRIL 27, 1998, TERMINATING THE CONSENT DECREE AND HOLDING THE PLRA'S TERMINATION PROVISIONS TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/01/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)

37 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/29/1998
06/19/1998 06/19/1998 06/24/1998 07/06/1998 08/25/1998 10/30/1998
11/06/1998

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (#840, DATED MAY 5, 1998), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, IS DENIED, ETC. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT WILL NOT ALTER OR AMEND ITS JUDGMENT OF APRIL 27, 1998, TERMINATING THE CONSENT DECREE AND HOLDING THE PLRA'S TERMINATION PROVISIONS TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/01/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
37 Notice of appeal by PLAINTIFF IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ, MARY E. KOSTEL, SARAH B. VANDENBRAAK, THEODORE G. OTTO, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, JOHN T. SNAVELY II. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
38 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: appeal USCA NUMBER: 98-1536. 6/25/98. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that having considered appellants' unopposed motion for substitution of parties, and finding it reasonable in all respects, the motion is now hereby GRANTED, etc. (70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that the unopposed motion by appellants to dismiss Commonwealth Attorney General J. Shane Creamer as a party to this appeal (USCA #98-1536) is granted. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,70-2545) (gm) (Entered: 08/26/1998)
ORDER THAT (ETC) THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED AT PAGE 2 SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "SIX" FOR "SEVEN" IN STATING THE NUMBER OF PA STATE CORRL INSTS IN OPERATION IN 1970-71 AND TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM FOOTNOTE 2, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054, 70-2545, 71-2006) 11/2/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) Modified on 11/02/1998 (Entered: 11/02/1998)
ORDER THAT THE COURT HAVING BEEN PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE HISTORY OF ONE OF THE STATE CORRL INSTS IDENTIFIED IN ITS ORDER OF OCT 30, 1998 (ETC) IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCT 30, 1998 AMENDING THIS COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS VACATED; THE COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 2, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH UNDER THE HEADING "HISTORY OF THE CASE" IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS (ETC); FOOTNOTE 2 APPEARING ON PAGE 2 OF THE MEMORANDUM IS AMENDED TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE LIST OF INSTITUTIONS, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/6/98

38 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

03/23/1999 01/14/2000

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that the judgment of the said district court entered May 29, 1998, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this court. (lvj) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
Letter from U S DEPART OF JUSTICE to remove the names of Mary E. Kostel and Jeffrey S. Markowitz, Esq., from the service list. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,70-2545,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

02/27/2006 17:22:08

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 21

Cost:

2:71-cv-00513-TON 1.68

39 of 39

2/27/2006 4:22 PM

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:70-cv-02545-JD

APPEAL

BRACEY, et al v. PRASSE, et al Assigned to: HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 05/01/1972 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
WILLIAM BRACEY (G-8571), an inmate

represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II P.O. BOX 216 LANSDOWNE, PA 19050 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JAMES PICKETT (H-2720), an inmate

STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA 7803 ST. MARTIN'S LANE PHILADELPHIA, 19 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CLARENCE SAMUELS (E-4517), an inmate on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOHN T. SNAVELY, II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

V. Defendant ARTHUR T. PRASSE Commissioner, Bureau of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendant ALFRED T. RUNDLE Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford
Defendant CLARENCE R. WOLFE Deputy Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford
Defendant CHARLES S. FRISBEE School Director State Correctional Institution at Graterford
2 of 39

represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 15TH FLOOR, STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717-787-3874 Fax: 717-772-4526 Email: ffilipi@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 810 SEVENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20531 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH V. HART (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

V. Intervenor Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. Movant LEROY J. LEVETT
Movant SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR.
Movant SHELDON MILLER
3 of 39

represented by JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 901 E STREET, N.W. ROOM 1040 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARY E. KOSTEL U.S. GOVERNMENT 901 E. STREET, N.W. FED. PROGRAMS BRANCH, ROOM 912 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 01/14/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by LEROY J. LEVETT BI-0317 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. BLOCK B, AS-2871 SCI-DALLAS DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 PRO SE
represented by SHELDON MILLER STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #AS2857 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A.
2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Movant ROBERT ANDERSON
Movant ANGEL RODRIGUES
Movant ALAN B. DAVIS
Movant ALLEN J. BROWN
Movant WILLIAM L. MARSHALL

PRO SE
represented by ROBERT ANDERSON AF4845 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #AF4845 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ANGEL RODRIGUES BJ8105 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION #BJ8105 DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ALAN B. DAVIS AF1282 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612-0286 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by ALLEN J. BROWN AP-2532 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BOX A BELLEFONTE, PA 16823 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AP4826 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

4 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

Movant GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP4884
Movant AC8297 JON E. YOUNT
Movant DAVID B. KOPAC
Movant DEREK S. SMITH
Movant GUY BICKING
Movant

RD #2 BOX 10 GREENSBURG, PA 15601 U.S.A. PRO SE
represented by GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP-4884 1040 E. ROY FURMAN HIGHWAY WAYNESBURG, PA 15370-8090 PRO SE
represented by JON E. YOUNT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DAVID B. KOPAC AP4900 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by DEREK S. SMITH AY2053 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by GUY BICKING AS1243 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE

5 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER
Movant KENNETH W. TEATER

represented by JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER AY0262 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE
represented by KENNETH W. TEATER AF9460 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1100 PIKE STREET HUNTINGDON, PA 16654-1112 PRO SE

Date Filed
09/15/1970 09/15/1970 09/15/1970
09/15/1970
09/15/1970 09/22/1970
09/22/1970 09/24/1970
10/07/1970 11/12/1970
11/12/1970
12/16/1970
01/11/1971

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Summons(es) exit. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
2 PLFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PERSON TO SERVE PROCESS. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
3 Plff's notice of taking deposition of Arthur T. Prasse et al. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
4 ORDER that Barnett Satinsky be and hereby is appointed to serve summons on the defts. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
5 Summons returned "on 9/17/70 all defts served". (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
6 Petition in affidavit form in proceed in forma pauperis. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
7 Answer of A. Rundle. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
8 Letter to Hon. A. Leon Higginbotham, from Sheldon S. Toll, Esq. re: Cancellation of deposition of defts. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
9 Copy of letter to Sheldon S. Toll, Esq. re: No objections to cancellation of depositions. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
10 Plff's. MOTION to declare case a class action and notice thereof. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
11 Plff's interrogatories to Alfred T. Rundle. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)

6 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/11/1971 02/08/1971
11/01/1971 11/05/1971
11/05/1971 11/10/1971 01/04/1972 01/04/1972 01/04/1972
01/04/1972 01/04/1972 01/04/1972 01/04/1972 01/04/1972 02/01/1972
03/24/1972 04/21/1972 04/21/1972 05/01/1972 05/01/1972

12 Plff's request to deft. Alfred T. Rundle for production of documents and things and land for inspection and other purposes. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER dtd. 2/4/72 extending time for (60) days for defts' Sielaff, Johnson and Rundle to answer interrogatories served upon them on 1/4/72. (SIGNED BY JUDGE J. W. DITTER JR. ) 2/9/72 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
13 Plff's Motion for leave to Amend Complaint , Memorandum in Support and Notice thereof. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
13 A. ORDER dtd 11/3/71 GRANTING Plff's [13-1] MOTION for leave to Amend Complaint (SIGNED BY JUDGE J. W. DITTER JR. ) 11/8/71 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Amended complaint. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Summons(es) issued on amended complaint. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
14 ANSWER. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
CASE LISTED FOR TRIAL. (lm) Modified on 11/06/1996 (Entered: 11/06/1996)
15 Stipulation and Order dtd. 1/3/72 that all named defts' are permitted to file an amended Answer and that defts' are extended an additional 20 days from this date to file a responsive pleading. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE J. W. DITTER JR. ) (lm) Modified on 11/06/1996 (Entered: 11/06/1996)
16 Plffs' Request to deft. Johnson for Production of Documents & things & entry upon land for Inspection and other purposes. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
17 Plff's notice of taking deposition of defts' Prasse, Rundle, Wolfe, Frisbee, Sielaff and Johnson. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
18 Plffs' interrogatories to deft Sielaff. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
19 Plffs' Interrogatories to deft. Johnson. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
20 Plffs' interrogatories to deft. Rundle. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
21 Defts' Motion FOR EXTENSION OF TIME in which to file objectoins or to answer interrogatories, Affidavit of Thomas W. Jennings and Notice thereof. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
22 Summons on amended complaint returned 11/23/71 served Robert L. Johnson and Allyn R. Sielaff. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
23 Withdrawal of appearance of Sheldon s. Toll, Esq. for plffs'. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
23 A. Appearance of T. Michael Mather, Esq. for plffs'. (lm) Modified on 11/06/1996 (Entered: 11/06/1996)
24 Defts' Interrogatories to Plff Clarence Samuels. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
25 Defts' Interrogatories to Plff James Pickett. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)

7 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/01/1972 05/01/1972
05/01/1972
05/01/1972
07/07/1972 06/29/1973
07/17/1973
08/21/1973
09/18/1973 10/02/1973
11/29/1973
11/29/1973 01/04/1974
01/14/1974 01/14/1974 01/15/1974 01/16/1974 01/17/1974 01/22/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974 04/05/1974

26 Defts' Interrogatories to Plff William Bracey. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
27 Deft Allyn r. Sielaff's Answers to Plff's Interrogatories filed. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
28 Deft Robert L. Johnson's Answers to Plffs' Interrogatories filed. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
29 Deft Alfred T. Rundle's Answers to Plffs' Interrogatories filed. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
30 Plff's Answers to defts' Interrogatories filed. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
31 Plffs' MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION and Notice thereof. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
31 A. ORDER that this action is consolidated with Civil Action 70-3054. 7/18/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/06/1996 (Entered: 11/06/1996)
32 Copy of Order specially listing action for trial without jury before Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord, III on 10/9/73 at 10:00 a.m., etc. 8/22/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
33 Report of Status Report dtd. 9/17/73. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
34 Copy of Order rescheduling trial from 10/9/73 to 1/2/74 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #5 without jury. 10/3/73 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
35 Withdrawal of appearance of T. Michael Mather, Esq. for Plffs'. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
35 A. Appearance of Carolyn E. Temin, Esq. for Plffs'. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
36 Copy of Report of Pre-Trial Conference Lord, Ch. J.,--Trial set for 1/14/74. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Non-Jury Trial. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Trial; Witnesses sworn. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Trial Resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Trial resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Trial Resumes. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
CASE ADJOURNED SINE DIE. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
37 Transcript of Testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
38 Transcript of testimony. (lm) Modified on 11/06/1996 (Entered: 11/06/1996)
39 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
40 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
41 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)

8 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/05/1974 05/24/1974 07/08/1974 07/09/1974 07/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/10/1974 09/20/1974
11/01/1974
11/04/1974 12/13/1974 02/21/1975
04/09/1975
04/29/1975
04/30/1975 08/05/1975
08/13/1975 08/13/1975
09/09/1975
09/19/1975 12/11/1975 01/08/1976 04/06/1976
04/08/1976 04/27/1976

42 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 43 Report of Status Report Lord. Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
TRIAL RESUMES. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) TRIAL RESUMES. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) TRIAL RESUMES. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 44 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 45 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 46 Transcript of testimony. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) ORDER, that Final Argument be hled 10/11/74, (70-3054). 9/23/74 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
47 Defts' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
FINAL ARGUMENT. CAV. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 48 Transcript of 11/4/74. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 49 ORDER, that all counsel of record attend a conference in chambers on 2/27/75;
2/21/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
50 ORDER, that a conference be held on 4/16/75 in chambers. 4/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
51 Transcript of hearing, 2/27/75, re: objections to the proposed consent decree. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
52 Report of status report. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 53 ORDER, that a conference be held on 8/13/75. 8/5/75 ENTERED AND COPIES
MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
PRETRIAL CONFEERENCE, Lord, C.J. (cancelled) (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 54 Report of pretrial conference, Lord, J. (lm) Modified on 11/06/1996 (Entered:
11/06/1996)
55 ORDER, that a conference be held 9/18/75. 9/10/75 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
56 Report of status report, Lord, Jr. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 57 Copy of Report of Status Report Lord, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 58 Status Report Lord, Ch., J. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
MOTION of George Feigley TO AMEND SETTLEMENT and memorandum of law, etc. (C.A. 70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Proposed Consent Decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch. J. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)

9 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/16/1976 12/16/1976
01/27/1977 02/28/1977 04/19/1977 05/20/1977 06/21/1977 07/26/1977 09/12/1977 10/11/1977 10/13/1977 11/22/1977
11/22/1977 02/09/1978 02/27/1978 05/22/1978

59 Memorandum, Lord, Ch. Jr., re: impossible for the Court to amend the Consent Decree, etc., 12/17/76 entered and copies mailed. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
60 ORDER dated 12/15/76 that the motion of George Feigley to amend the proposed Consent Decree is DENIED, but the motion to be treated as an objection to the proposed settlement, 12/17/76 entered and copies mailed. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
61 Entry of Appearance of John T. Snavely, Esq. for the plffs'. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
62 Brief of defts' in response to brief of amicus curiae in support of objections to proposed settlement. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
63 Brief of class plffs' in response to brief of amicus curiae in support of objections to proposed settlement and further responding to brief of defts' in response to brief of amicus curiae. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
64 ORDER that a conference to be held in Chambers, Rm. 17614 on 6/20/77 at 10:00 a.m. with all counsel of record in attendance. 5/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Report of status report held on 6/20/77 (C.A. 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Plffs' Imprisoned Citizens Union's Objection to consent decree (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
65 ORDER that a conference in the actions are scheduled for 9/23/77 at 11:00 a.m. in chambers 17614. 9/13/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Report of Status Report, Lord, Ch. J. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Entry of appearance of Alan J. Davis, Esq. as Amicus Curiae, etc., (CA 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER dated 11/21/77 that the motion of defts' to decertify this as a class action is DENIED, the lettter dated 2/14/77 from the Commonwealth defts' seeking leave to withdraw the consent of the defts' to the proposed Consent Decree shall be docketed as a motion to withdraw such consent, motion is DENIED, (CA 70-3054). 11/23/77 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Letter dated 2/14/77 from the Commonwealth defts' motion to withdraw consent, (CA 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER fixing hearing for 2/24/78 at 10:00 a.m.; 2/10/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Hearing on approval of consent decree 2/24/78, on motion of Alan Davis, Francis R. Filipi & Michael H. Garrety are sworn & admit to the Bar of this court, witnesses sworn, CAV (CA 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Stipulation & Order that Sections VI & VII of proposed Consent Decree at pp the amendment of Administrative Directive 803 wil be revised to strike word

10 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/22/1978 05/29/1978
05/30/1978 06/07/1978 06/07/1978
08/07/1978 08/31/1978 09/18/1978 09/22/1978 09/22/1978

"libelous or" etc., 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER that deft's must provide an adequate law library at Graterford et al; 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER that counsel report to chambers on 5/26/78 at 3:30 p.m. to discuss status of case & distribution of consent decree; 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER that proposed Consent Decree filed 4/8/76 is APPROVED with certain modifications, 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
CONSENT DECREE of 4/8/76 is APPROVED as modified by Order of 5/22/78; 5/22/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
66 ORDER that deft's are enjoined from confining any inmate in the " Glass Cage" State Correctional Institutions at Huntingdon, & Insofar as plff's seek to enforce deft's from confining inmates in solitary confinement at the State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, et al., injunction is DENIED, & plff's seek to enforce deft's from enforcing the prohibition against conjugal visits, the injunction is DENIED. 5/30/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
67 Report of Settlement Conference, Lord, Chief J. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
OPINION LORD, CHIEF J. (CA 70-2545). 6/8/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
MOTION of Deft's FOR NEW TRIAL or Amendment of Judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the issue of the Use by Deft's of Three Cells at S.C.K. Huntingdon, notice, memorandum of law, & cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
68 Stipulation & Order that the Consent Decree shall be amended at Section I. (Code of Conduct), A., Page 2, second Sentence, etc. 8/7/78 entered & copies mailed. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Reply to plff's Answer to deft's motion for new trial or amendment of judgment under Rule 59 of F.R.C.P. as to the Issue of the use by deft's of Three Cells S.C.I. Huntingdon, (C.A. 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER that argument on the motion for new trial or amendment of judgment 59, etc. shall be held on 9/27/78 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-A. 9/19/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Argued sur: Motion for new trial, etc., (CA# 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
ORDER that Hearing on the motion of deft's for new trial or amendment of judgment under rule 59, etc. shall be had on 10/6/78 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 17-A, (CA# 70-3054). 9/25/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. JL/CLK (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)

11 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/16/1978
10/27/1978 12/11/1978 12/11/1978 01/15/1979 03/01/1979 04/05/1979
04/20/1979 04/23/1979 07/02/1979
09/19/1979 09/21/1979 09/21/1979 12/17/1979 12/19/1979

ORDER that a Hearing on the motion of deft's for new trial or Amendment of judgment under Rule 59, etc., is scheduled for 10/27/78 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-A, (CA# 70-3054). 10/17/78 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Hearing re: Deft's moton for new trial, etc., witnesses sworn; CAV (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
69 PLFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW & AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
70 Deft's Memorandum in opposition to plff's former counsel's [69-1] MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES & costs. (lm) (Entered: 11/06/1996)
Petitioners copy of a complaint filed in the Western District of Penna., U.S. District Court (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES & AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF. (CA 70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ATTORNEYS FEES SHALL BE HEARD APRIL 20, 1979 AT 2:00 P.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A. (CA# 70-3054). 4/5/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Proposed findings of fact & conslusions of law (CA 70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Argued Sur: Plff's motion for summary judgment as to attorney's fees, CAV. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THERE APPEARING TO BE NO FURTHER REASON AT THIS TIME TO MAINTAIN THE FILE OF THIS CASE OR OF ANY OF THE CASES CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH AS OPEN ONES FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED TO SUBMIT A JS-6 FORM TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ETC., (CA 70-3054). 7/3/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Attorney General petition for leave to withdraw appearances for deft. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER GRANTING J. ANDREW SYMSER TO WITHDRAW HIS APPEARANCE (70-3054). 9/21/79 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Appearance of Francis R. Filipi, Asst. Attorney General for deft., (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Memorandum of deft's in opposition to Mr. Levines' motion concerning supplemental counsel fees pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the F.R.C.P. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION CONCERNING SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES , NOTICE, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT AND AFFIDAVIT, (70-3054). (kv)

12 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/08/1980
01/24/1980 02/01/1980
02/14/1980 02/22/1980
02/22/1980 02/25/1980 04/08/1980 06/20/1980 07/14/1980 07/15/1980
07/16/1980 07/22/1980

Modified on 11/12/1996 (Entered: 11/12/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSENT DECREE REGARDING CRITERIA FOR DISAPPROVING A PUBLICATION, ETC., (70-3054) JL 1/9/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
JACK J. LEVINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO SUPPLEMENTAL COUNSEL FEES , NOTICE, & AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT'S SHALL BE PERMITTED TO FILE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFF'S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE & FOR CONTEMPT JUDGMENT BY FEBRUARY 25, 1980 (70-3054) JL. 2/4/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Affidavit of Susan Arnhold re: served copy of plff's notice of motion for summary judgment on counsel on 1/16/80, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT JACK J. LEVINE, ESQ. IS AWARDED SUPPLEMENTAL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1250.00 PLUS $300 FEES & COSTS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1550.00, (70-3054) JL 2/25/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
CLASS PLFF'S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR CONTEMPT JUDGMENT NOTICE, MEMORANDUM OF LAW & AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Deft's brief in opposition to plff's motion for issuance of order to show why deft's should not be adjudged in contempt of the consent decree of this dated May 22, 1978, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Class plff's supplemental memorandum in response to deft's brief in opposition to plff's motion issuance of order to show casue why deft's should not be adjudged in contempt, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Plff's supplementary affidavits & exhibits in support of motion & Proposed show cause order for contempt of consent decree (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Deft's demand for jury trial on plff's motion for issuance of Order to show cause and for contempt judgment (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF THE CONSENT DECREE IS SET FOR JULY 28, 1980 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A (70-3054) JL, 7/15/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Appearance of Sherree L. Sturgis, Deputy Attorney General for deft's. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Plff's brief in opposition to deft's demand for a jury trial on plff's motion for issuance of order to show cause and for contempt judgment. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)

13 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

07/23/1980 07/25/1980 09/11/1980 09/11/1980 09/11/1980
10/28/1980
12/03/1980 12/03/1980 12/03/1980 12/13/1980 03/31/1981
11/09/1981 01/08/1982

Deft's memorandum of law in support of their demand for a jury trial. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
DEFT'S MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF HEARING , NOTICE, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Appearance of Jose Hernandez-Cuebas, Deputy Attorney General for deft. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT'S MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY DENIED, (70-3054). 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT'S ARE ORDERED TO ANSWER AND TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT ADJUDGED IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT FOR HAVING VIOLATED & DISREGARDED THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THIS COURT DATED MAY 22, 1978, (70-3054) JL. 9/12/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THIS ACTION IS SPECIALLY LISTED FOR A HEARING ON DECEMBER 3, 1980 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A, DEFT'S SHALL SHOW CAUSE AT THE HEARING WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR HAVING VIOLATED & DISREGARDED THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE OF THIS COURT OF MAY 22, 1978, (70-3054) JL. 10/28/80 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PETITION OF FRANCIS R. FILIPI, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PETITION OF SHERREE L. STURGIS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PETITION OF JOSE HERNANDEZ-CUEBAS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Appearance of A. Charles Peruto, Esq. for deft. William B. Robinson. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE WILLIAM F. HALL, JR., U.S. MAGISTRATE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT DECREE ARE OCCURRING, ETC, (70-3054) JL. 3/31/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER DATED 11/6/81 THAT COUNSEL ARE TO APPEAR FOR A CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT ON NOVEMBER 12, 1981 AT 10:00 A.M. IN ROOM 5918. (70-3054) (WFH). 11/9/81 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) Modified on 11/12/1996 (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PA, AND THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, SHALL

14 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/11/1982
01/22/1982
01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/25/1982 01/26/1982
01/27/1982 02/08/1982 02/08/1982 04/20/1982 05/25/1982

PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR, BRUCE MARTIN AND RAYNOR L. COLONNA TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 19, 1982 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY, ETC., (70-3054) WFH; 1/8/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PENNA., SHALL PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR., BRUCE MATRIN AND RAYNOR J. COLONNA, TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 19, 1992 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5A, ETC., (70-3054) WFH; 1/12/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PENNA. SHALL PRODUCE INMATES BEBLEY C. WELLS, JR. BRUCE MARTIN AND WILLIAM HALLOWELL TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 26, 1982 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5A FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY, ETC., WFH (70-3054); 1/25/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Hiram R. Johnston, Jr., re: objections to abritrary strip searching (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter to Chief Judge Lord from James H. Turner re: questions to consent decree (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Frank St. Clair re: questions on violation of rights (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, PENNSYLVANIA SHALL PRODUCE INMATE WILLIAM HALLOWELL TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 27, 1992 AT 10:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 5A FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY. WFH (70-30-54). 1/26/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter to the Honorable William F. Hall, Jr. from John J. Murphy, III, Esq. re: Violation of Mr. Owens' Due Process Rights, (C.A. 81-1722). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter dated 2/4/82 to Mag. Hall from Sanford Bernstein re: request that sometime be done to allow medically ill inmates in Penna. Penal Colonies to receive the civil and and constitutional rights, (70-3054) (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter to Judge Lord from Leo Walloe re: violations of the Consent Decree, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Letter re: Rights to Assigned counsel (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF'S PETITION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR ORDER DIRECTING TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARINGS TO BE PREPARED AT UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)

15 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/08/1982
07/20/1982 07/29/1982 07/29/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982 07/30/1982 11/05/1982 11/12/1982 11/24/1982 12/02/1982 12/06/1982 12/13/1982 03/10/1983
05/04/1983
05/13/1983

ORDER DATED 6/7/82 THAT PLFF'S ARE HEREBY GRANTED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND PREPAYMENT OF ALL FEES AND COSTS INCLUDING TRANSCRIPT COSTS IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AT GOVT. EXPENSE. 7/8/82 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Transcript of Testimony January 26, 1982 (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Transcript of Testimony January 19, 1982 (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Transcript of testimony of January 27, 1982 (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Agreement of counsel that the definition of the term. cell search, which is used in the Consent Decree, shall not include the procedure commonly referred as a cell check, etc., (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Amendment to stipulation for dismissal of outstanding allegation of contempt (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Stipulation for dismissal of outstanding allegations of contempt with Court approval thereof, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF. WILMER B. GAY'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT, (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF'S WILMER B. GAY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, CERT. OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF. CARL LEE JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Plff's objections to terms of Proposed Settlement (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Purcell Bronson's objections to proposed settlement (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
PLFF CARL LEE JOHNSON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO. OF LAW, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE (70-3054). (kv) Modified on 11/12/1996 (Entered: 11/12/1996)
71 DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISS OF OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS OF CONTEMPT AND FOR DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, BRIEF IN SUPPORT AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Hall that defts' motion for approval of stipulation for dismissal of outstanding allegations of contempt and for dismissal of motion of motion for contempt be granted, etc., (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
MEMORANDUM, LORD, J. THAT THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND COURT WILL ADOPT THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE HALL (70-3054) JL; 5/16/83

16 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/13/1983
04/10/1985 04/29/1985 05/20/1985 08/06/1985
09/30/1985 02/06/1986 03/21/1986 04/16/1986 05/13/1986 05/28/1986
06/17/1986
06/20/1986

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
ORDER DATED 5/11/83 THAT THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. COURT FINDS THAT THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSED ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPROMISE OF PLFF'S ACTION FOR CONTEMPT IS HEREBY APPROVED AND ACTION IS DISMISSED, ETC. 5/16/83 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (70-3054) JL. (kv) Modified on 11/18/1996 (Entered: 11/12/1996)
CLASS MOTION TO APPOINT ADDITIONAL CLASS COUNSEL CERTIFICATE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Defts.' Response to Plffs.' MOTION TO APPOINT ADDITIONAL CLASS COUNSEL, Cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT MR. STEFAN PRESSER BE APPOINTED ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS IN THIS ACTION; 5/21/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BE REFERRED TO HON. WILLIAM F. HALL FOR CONSULTATION ETC., MAG. HALL SHALL MAKE A REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AT THE CONCLUSION OF HIS DELIBERATIONS, (70-3054). 8/7/85 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR DEFTS' IMPARING THE OBLIGATIONS OF A CONTRACT, & CERT. OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Deft's memo in opposition to Plffs amended second motion for contempt, cert. of service. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , MEMO, AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
72 Conference in Chambers with Judge Loge and Mag. Hall on 4/15/86, Plffs. will consider filing motions for contempt in the litigation. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
73 PLFFS.' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
74 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS.' RESPONSE TO PLFFS.' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SHALL BE DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 6/13/86, ETC., 5/29/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
75 STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS' SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SHALL BE DUE TO FILED ON OR BEFORE 6/20/86. DEFTS. WILL RESPOND TO DISCOVERY PROPOUNDED BY PLFFS. ON OR BEFORE 6/30/86; 6/18/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Defts.' Memo in Opposition to Plffs.' Second Motion for Contempt, Cert. of Service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

17 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

07/03/1986 07/15/1986 07/15/1986 07/16/1986 07/30/1986 08/05/1986 09/12/1986
09/12/1986 09/12/1986 09/19/1986 09/23/1986
09/30/1986
12/16/1986 02/02/1987 02/13/1987

PLFF. P. BRONSON'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFF WILLIAM S. JONES MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFF WILLIAM S. JONES' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITH DECLARATION TO SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFFS. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , MEMO IN SUPPORT, CERT. OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
76 Deft's Brief in Opposition to Plff's Motion to Compel Discovery, Cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Plffs' Response to Defts' brief in opposition, cert. of service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFT. NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC.; MOTION OF WILLIAM S. JONES FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED, (70-3054). 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF PURCELL BRONSON IS DENIED, 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ANDRE WRIGHT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., 9/15/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Conference 9/19/86 in Mag. Hall Chambers re: Plffs second Motion ofr Contempt and Plffs motion to compel- motions held in abeyance, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFF SHALL FILE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ETC.,; DEFT WILL RESPOND TO THE AMENDED MOTION AND OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS, ETC., 9/24/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION FILED BY THOMAS MARTIN - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, IS DENIED AND MOTION OF THOMAS MARTIN FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED. 10/1/86 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFFS AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, CERT. OF SERVICE, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
STIPULATION & ORDER THAT DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE SHALL BE DUE ON 2/6/87, (70-3054). 2/2/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Defts memo in opposiition to Plffs amended second motion for contempt, cert. of service. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

18 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

02/20/1987 02/20/1987
03/04/1987
03/04/1987 03/18/1987 03/23/1987 04/06/1987 04/06/1987 04/09/1987
04/22/1987 04/24/1987 04/27/1987 04/30/1987 04/30/1987
05/13/1987

Conference 2/18/87; plffs amended second motion for contempt - C.A.V., plffs' motion to compel- GRANTED, hearing ofr contempt set for 5/26/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS WILL PRODUCE AT THE OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES BY MONDAY, 2/23/87 THE PERSONNEL FILES OF ANY HEARING EXAMINER, ETC. 2/24/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (70-3054).3/4/87 (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE REGARDING SCHEDULING APPEARINACES OF INMATES FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON 5/26/87 WILL BE HELD ON 4/24/87, ETC., (70-3054) 3/4/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT HEARING ON PLFFS AMENDED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT WILL BE HELD 5/26/87, (70-3054). 3/4/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/18/1996 (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFFS MOTION FOR VENUE CHANGE AND/OR APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF NECESSATIES (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , MEMO, DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Plffs Affidavit of Statement and fact, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT MOTION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES OF ANDRES VALDEZ IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054). 4/7/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT WILLIAM C. MUELLER AND JOSEPH C. WALKER'S MOTION FOR VENUE CHANGE/OR FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054). 4/10/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Plffs Petition for writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum, Declaration of Harold Smith, Cert. of Service. (70-3054) (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
PRO SE MOTION OF JANOS M. TOTH, III, FOR CONTEMPT , AFFIDAVITS OF JANOS M. TOTH, III AND CERT. OF SERVICE. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
Hearing on 4/24/87 re: scheduling inmate witnesses for evidentiary hearing (70-3054). (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTION FOR CIV. CONTEMPT FILED PROS E BY JAMOS M. TOTH, III, IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054). 5/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM FILED PRO SE BY HOWARD SMITH IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054) 5/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, DALLAS, PA. PRODUCE GERALD MAYO, ANTHONY PORTER, JAMES

19 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987
05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987 05/13/1987

DEITER, MELVIN BROCK, DAVID JULIUS PRICE SR. ON 5/26/87 AT 10:00 AT AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DALLAS, PA PRODUCE JOHN H. BARTEE, PAUL J. BURCH, GREGORY P. POWELL, KENNETH PATE, ON 5/26/87 AT 2:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. AND FAXED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGDON, PRODUCE RICHARD R. CANADY ON 5/26/87 AT 2;00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GRATERFORD, PA. PRODUCE C. ALTON WADE, JR., WILLIAM S. JONES, JAMES ANDERSON, JOHN FREDERICK NOLE, WILLIAM KING, ON 5/27/87 AT 10:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GRATERFORD, PA PRODUCE JAMES ARCHER, ROBERT BISHOP, MACK MCKENZIE, WILLIAM BROWN, MICHAEL JOHNSON ON 5/27/87 AT 2:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GRATERFORD, PA. PRODUCE MAURICE TALLEY, THOAMS W. MARTIN, JAMES RILEY, ROBERT E. DEVANEY, ON 5/28/87 AT 10:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC., (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, WAYNESBURG, PA PRODUCE PAULETTA BEEHLER ON 5/28/87 AT 10:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT DALLAS PRODUCE PURCELL BRONSON, ON 5/28/87 AT 10:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL, GRATERFORD PA. PRODUCE ANDRE WRIGHT ON 5/28/87 AT 2:00 AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, MUNCY, PA PRODUCE TONI ANDERSON ON 5/28/87 AT 2:00, AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, (70-3054); 5/14/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kv) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

20 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/18/1987
05/21/1987 05/27/1987 05/28/1987 05/28/1987 05/29/1987 05/29/1987 05/29/1987
06/02/1987 06/03/1987 06/09/1987 06/09/1987 06/11/1987
06/11/1987 06/19/1987

ORDER THAT THE WARDEN OF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, GRATERFORD, PA IS TO PRODUCE JEFFREY ALAN EDE, ON 5/28/87 FOR TESTIMONY AT EVIDENTIARY HEARING, (70-3054); 5/19/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFFS MOTION TO VACATE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUMS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Argue Sur; hearing 5/26/87 re: nature of relief to be granted if plff prevail (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Hearing 5/27/87 re: plffs amended second motion for contempt, witness called sworn, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD R. CANADY IS DENIED; (70-3054). 5/29/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Hearing 5/28/87, re: Plffs amended second motion for contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Heaaring 5/29/87, re: Plffs amended second motion for contempt, Defts motion to dismiss - C.A.V. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ORDER DATED 5/13/87 DIRECTING WARDEN TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF TONY ANDERSON ON 5/28/87 IS VACATED, THE ORDER DATED 5/13/87 DIRECTING THE WARD OF GRATERFORD TO PRODUCE INMATES ON 5/28/87 IS VACATED AS TO ROBERT E. DEVANY, IN OTHER RESPECTS THE ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT; (70-3054). 6/1/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Hearing 6/1/87 resumes, Plffs amended second motion ofr contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Hearing 6/2/87 resumes, re: Plffs amended second motion for contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs posst hearing brief, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFFS MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF NO LATER THATN 14 DAYS AFTER A TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARING ARE FILED OF RECORD, ETC., (70-3054) 6/11/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS MOTION REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULED IS DENIED AS MOOT, (70-3054); 6/11/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT & MOTION OFR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, BRIEF & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054)

21 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/19/1987 06/23/1987
07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 07/13/1987 08/04/1987 11/04/1987 11/25/1987 11/25/1987
12/03/1987
12/15/1987
12/17/1987 12/18/1987
12/23/1987 01/08/1988

(lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff's Declaration in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT MOTIONS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY WALTER M. GUYER ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing on 5/26/87; re: Plffs amended second motion for contempt (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transcript of Hearing resumes 5/27/87, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transcript of Hearing resumes 5/28/87, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transcript of Hearing resumes 5/29/87 (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transcript of hearing resumes 6/1/87, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Transcript of hearing resumes 6/2/87, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Deft's Reply Brief (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs counsel notice of change of address (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
OPINION, LORD, S.J. (70-3054) (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFT COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS DAVID OWENS IS ADJUDGED TO BE IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF DECREE DATED 5/22/78, AND SHALL BEGINNING 30 DAYS COMMENCE PAYING TO THE CLERK A DAILY FINE OF $500., UNLESS WITHIN 30 DAYS HE CERTIFIES THAT HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT, ETC., (70-3054) 11/25/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
MOTION TO AMEND DISTRICT OCURTS ORDER DATED 11/25/87 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFFS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
DEFTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER, CERT. OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS SHALL FILE THEIR ATTYS FEES REQUEST BY 1/14/88, (70-3054); 12/21/87 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Letter from David S. Owens, Commissioner, Dept. Corrections to Judge Lord re: response to order of 11/25/87. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Application for Attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

22 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/08/1988 01/14/1988
01/27/1988
02/08/1988 02/16/1988 02/23/1988 03/07/1988 03/08/1988 03/08/1988
03/30/1988

Affidavit of Stefan Pressler, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Itemization of services and expenses of Stefan Pressler, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Affidavit of Lorray Brown, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Itemization of Services of Lorray Brown, Esq. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs memorandum in support of ACLU counsels application for attorneys fees (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ORDER OF 11/25/87 AS AMENDED, IS FURTHER AMENDED AS TO JOHN T. SNAVELY, ESQ. SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS FROM 1/14/88 WITHIN WHICH TO FILE HIS FEE APPLICATION (70-3054). 1/15/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IS GRANTED AND DEFTS ARE PERMITTED TO FILE THEIR BRIEF IN OPPOSIITON TO THE MOTION OF ATTORNEYS FEES FIELD BY THE ACLU ON OR BEFORE 2/8/88, (70-3054); 1/28/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs application for attorneys fees for ACLU counsel, Cert. of Service. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Memorandum in support of plffs. counsel;s application for attorneys' fees application. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs response to Defts opposition for ACLU's attorneys' fee application, Cert. of Service. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defts memorandum in opposition to plffs applcation for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Certificate of Service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Tele-conference Call-Argued-Plffs motion to alter or amend judgment Granted in part/denied in part, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE COURTS ORDER OF 11/25/87 IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT DEFT OWENS SHALL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER CAUSE TO EXPUNGED FROM ALL RECORDS UNDER HIS CONTROL AND UNDER CONTROL OF HIS SUBORDINATION FOR ALL INMATES WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, ALL CHARGES AND ALL CONVICTION IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS PLFFS MOTION TO AMEND IS DENIED, (70-3054); 3/9/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/19/1996 (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs reply memorandum to defts memorandum in opposition to application for attorneys fees for John T. Snavely, Esq., Cert. of Service; (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

23 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/12/1988
05/18/1988 05/19/1988 05/24/1988
06/08/1988 06/08/1988
03/19/1991
09/16/1991 01/06/1992 03/13/1992 07/08/1992 09/21/1992

ORDER THAT A HEARING REGARDING JOHN T. SNAVELYS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND ACLU COUNSELS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 5/18/88, 2:00 P.M., CTROOM 17A, PHILA., (70-3054) 5/12/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs revised application for attorneys fees for ACLU consel, certificate of service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Hearing argued sur: application of John T. Snavely, Esq. for attorney's fees, C.A.V. on 5/18/88 (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT DEFTS DAVID S. OWENS, JR., COMMR OF PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, SHALL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER PAY THE SUM OF $30,000 TO STEFAN PRESSER AND LORRAY BROWN, JOINTLY, AS ATTORNEYS FEES, (70-3054); 5/25/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS DIRECTED TO PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY ATTORNEYS FEES, ETC. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF PLFFS COUNSEL JOHN T. SNAVELY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: DEFENDANTS SHALL, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF DATE OF THIS ORDER, PAY JOHN T. SNAVELY THE SUM OF $30,832.25, (70-3054); 6/8/88 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY WILLIAM L. MARSHALL AND FOURTEEN ORTHER INMATES AT SCI HUNTINGDON, IT IS ORDERED THAT MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS TO RENEW SUCH PETITION SHOULD COUNSEL CONSIDER RENWAL APPROPRIATE (70-3054); 3/20/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) Modified on 11/19/1996 (Entered: 11/19/1996)
(WILLIAM SEYMOUR JONES') MOTION FOR THIS COURT TO HOLD THE DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THE ABOVE SETTLED CASE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CASES ARE REASSIGNED FROM JUDGE LORD, III, DECEASED, TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE STEWART DALZELL, (70-3054) 1/7/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plffs memorandum of law brief, requesting modification of consent decree, affidavit (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFFS (PURCELL BRONSON) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERT. OF SERVICE. (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (PUAL BALLOD) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

24 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/05/1992 11/16/1992
04/14/1993 06/08/1993 06/08/1993 06/11/1993 06/16/1993 07/14/1993 07/14/1993 08/05/1993 08/17/1993 11/17/1993
01/06/1995 01/20/1995 02/08/1995 02/21/1995

(PLFF'S) MOTION TO ENFORCE , PROOF OF SERVICE, (70-3054) (DERRICK FONTROY). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (MARTIN HARRIS; JAMES JONES; JEFFREY COMMODORE) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BRIEF IN SUPPORT, VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATION, DECLARATION(S) IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plaintiff's (Paul Ballod's) certificate of service, order to show cause (re: motion for contempt) (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff's (Joseph S. Taylor) pages 6 through 9 and cover letter dated 6/28/93 of his motion for judgment of contempt, etc., (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff's (Joseph S. Taylor) pages 10 through 14 of his motion for contempt of judgment (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (JOHN FIYOGGA'S) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (JOSEPH J. TAYLOR'S) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT , NOTICE, DECLARATION (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plaintiff's (Joseph S. Taylor) Notice of appeal. (70-3054) 7/14/93 copies to Stefan Presser, Esq., Theodore G. Otto, III, Esq., John T. Snavely, II, Esq., Francis R. Filipi, Esq. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Notice of change of address of plaintiff, Jeffrey Commodore. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
(PLAINTIFF'S PURCELL BRONSON) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , UNSWORN AFFIDAVITS (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff's (Joseph D'Amato) letter to the Court, dated 11/3/93, re: an on-going violation of the ICU Consent Decree v. Shapp, here at the institution (Huntingdon 1100 Pike St., Huntingdon, PA 16652) regarding the extension of punishments beyond the sanctions imposed by misconduct hearing examiners, etc., (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Class counsel's response to motion to enforce, certificate of service. (Filed by Stephen Presser, Esq., Amr. Civil Liberties Union)(70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion to enforce, cert. of service. (71-513; 71-1006; 70-2545; 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff Class Counsel's Response to Traverse (By Stefan Presser, Esq.), certificate of service, (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defts' response to the letter of Brian F. Ross, AM-7035, certificate of service, (see paper 504 in 70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

25 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

02/23/1995 07/24/1995 07/28/1995
08/07/1995 08/14/1995 08/21/1995 08/21/1995 08/24/1995 08/30/1995 09/12/1995 09/15/1995 10/11/1995 10/17/1995 11/09/1995 01/18/1996

Defendants' response to the traverse, certificate of service (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (EDWARD GOVEN) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTIONOF EDWARD GOVAN FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, (DOC. 508 FILED 7/24/95) ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE SERVED ON EDWARD GOVAN, ETC., (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff's (Edward Goven's) certificate of service, (with exhibits) (70-3054; 71-1006; 71-513). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff class counsel's response to motions filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513,71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Class counsel's (Stefan Presser, ACLU) response to motion for contempt filed by Edward Govan, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion to vacate judgment and motions to enforce, certificate of service (70-3054; 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to motion for contempt of court proceedings, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plaintiff Govan's response to both defendants and Mr. Presser's responses, certificate of service (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff class counsel's further response to motions filed by Balckiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defts' supp response to the motion to vacate judgment and motions to enforce filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Jacobs, Nigro and Fontreoy, cert. of service. (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff class counsel's response to supp pleading to motions to enforce filed by Blackiston, Brightwell, Nigro, Jacobs and Fontroy, cert of service. (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for an evidentiary hearing, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' supplemental response to the motion to enforce, certificate of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S ( SPENCER R. DOBSON, JR. AND JAMES HARDWICK) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)

26 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

02/12/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/26/1996 02/28/1996 02/28/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996 03/13/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996 06/13/1996
06/19/1996 06/19/1996

PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , MEMO, AFFIDAVIT, PROOF OF SERVICE, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR.) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL , (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF'S (ZEHRING) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , DECLARATION, CERTIFICATION, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Plff's (Zehring) notice of change of financial status, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Bobby E. Brightwell, certificate of service, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for contempt filed by Spencer R. Dobson, and James Hardwick, certificate of service (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' memorandum concerning the motion for appointment of counsel by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of service, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' memorandum in opposiiton to the motion for a rule to show cause for temporary restraining order filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., cert. of srvice, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles D. Zehring, Jr., certificate of service, (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF (FRANK ST. CLAIR, JOHN BOSKIE, ANTHONY ALLEN) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RELIEF, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF ( JOHN BOSKIE ) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFF (FRANK ST. CLAIR) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) Modified on 11/19/1996 (Entered: 11/19/1996)
PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REVERSE THE COURT'S ORDER OF JANUARY 18th EXCLUDING INDIVIDUALS INCARCERATED AT SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE CLASS COVERED IN THIS LITIGATION, MEMORANDUM OF LAW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (70-3054; 71-513; 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to Raymond J. Stanton's motions for contempt to proceed in forma pauperis, for witnesses and opposing defendants' May 23, 1996 letter, cert. of service. (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defendants' response to the motion for sanctions injunctive and temporary relieve filed by Frank St. Clair, John Boskie and Anthony Allen, Certificate of Service

27 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

06/24/1996 09/03/1996 09/27/1996 03/19/1997 03/26/1997 03/28/1997 04/03/1997 04/04/1997 04/07/1997 04/11/1997
04/14/1997
04/21/1997

(70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Deft's Memorandum of law in opposition to Plffs' Motion to reconsider the Corut's 1/18/95, Order, certificate of service (70-3054). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defts' memorandum in opposition to the letter submitted by Charles D. Zehring concerning his motion for a rule to show cause and for a temporary restraining order, certificate of servcice (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Defts' response to the document submitted by Raymond J. Stanton entitle motion trivets to the return, cert. of service, (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006). (lm) Modified on 11/19/1996 (Entered: 11/19/1996)
Withdrawal of appearance for DEFENDANTS (Theodore C. Otto, III, Esq., for Cmw of Pa), cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT LEROY J. LEVETT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054). (fb) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT SPENCER R. DOBSON JR., MOVANT SHELDON MILLER, MOVANT ROBERT ANDERSON, MOVANT ANGEL RODRIGUES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS . (SEE PAPER #683 IN 70-3054)(lvj) Modified on 03/28/1997 (Entered: 03/28/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS FOR SANCTIONS/CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 04/04/1997)
Response by class counsel to MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT filed by Leroy J.Levett,BI-0317, Spencer Dobson,AS-2871,Sheldon Miller,AS2857,Robert Anderson,AF4845,Angel Rodrigues,BJ8105, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
Request for assistance by MOVANT ALLEN J. BROWN. (See paper #691 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF WILLIAM BRACEY, PLAINTIFF JAMES PICKETT, PLAINTIFF CLARENCE SAMUELS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE , MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE PAPER #696 IN 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
Response by DEFENDANT ARTHUR T. PRASSE, DEFENDANT ALFRED T. RUNDLE, DEFENDANT CLARENCE R. WOLFE, DEFENDANT CHARLES S. FRISBEE to Leroy J. Levett's MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, certificate of service. (see paper #697 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
PLAINTIFF objection to court order, certificate of service.(see paper #701 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/22/1997)

28 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/21/1997 05/08/1997
06/03/1997 06/09/1997 06/10/1997
06/16/1997 08/13/1997 08/28/1997 09/03/1997
09/09/1997 09/23/1997 09/23/1997

DEFENDANTS' response to MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS filed by Spencer R. Dobson, Sheldon Miller, Robert Anderson and Angel Rodrigues, certificate of service. (see paper #702 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
78 ORDER THAT DEFTS' LETTER REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNTIL 5/13/97 TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF LAW ADDRESSING PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, THE REQUEST IS HEREBY GRANTED. DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE ANY SUCH MEMORANDUM BY TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1997. TWO COPIES WILL BE MAILED DIRECTLY TO CHAMBERS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 5/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lvj) (Entered: 05/09/1997)
Response by class counsel to Jerome Silo's motion to intervene, certificate of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
Response by Class Counsel to pro se motion for contempt filed by Class Members Smith,Yount,Boone,Romberger,Kopac and Teater, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 06/10/1997)
MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF AN ADJUDICATORY FACT, TO WIT: THAT STEFAN PRESSER HAS UNDISPUTABLY (AS YET) NOT ADDRESSED, IN PARTICULARITY, ANY OF THE IMPORTANT FEDERAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 06/11/1997)
Response by defendants to Jerome Silo's motion to intervene, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
Petition of NOTICE ONLY WADE D. LEE for contempt proceedings of the I.C.U. consent decree, certificate of service. (See paper #759 in 70-CV-3054). (fb) Modified on 08/14/1997 (Entered: 08/14/1997)
Response by class counsel DEFENDANT to pro se plaintiff, Wade D. Lee, petition for contempt, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
JOINDER MOTION BY MOVANT WILLIAM L. MARSHALL TO MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY LEROY J. LEVETT, SPENCER DOBSON, SHELDON MILLER, ROBERT ANDERSON, AND ANGEL RODRIGUES, AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER , PROOF OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
Response by DEFENDANTS to Wade D. Lee, Secty, Imprisoned Citizens Union of the SCI at Pittsburgh, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
Appearance by Sarah B. Vandenbraak, Esq., for DEFENDANTS. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered:

29 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

09/30/1997 10/07/1997 10/07/1997 10/09/1997
10/10/1997 10/16/1997 10/20/1997 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 10/22/1997

09/24/1997)
Response (motion) in opposition to defts' motion to TERMINATE preliminary relief and in the alternative to declare the Prison Litigation Reform Act unconstitutional, etc., cert of service. (70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/01/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
Brief by DEFENDANTS in support of constitutionality of Section 802 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
79 ORDER THAT ON OR BEFORE 10/14/97 PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A SUPP MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS HELD IN CONTEMPT, ETC. ON OR BEFORE 10/17/97 DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ETC., ON OR BEFORE 10/23/97 THE US GOVT SHALL ADVISE THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO ITS POSITION ON INTERVENTION, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE STATUS/SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON 10/20/97 AT 11:00 A.M., ETC. RESET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 11:00 10/20/97, ETC. , RESET PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A SUPP MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPOR OF THEIR MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS HELD IN CONTEMPT DUE 10/14/97 , RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT RESET TO 10/17/97. ON OR BEFORE 10/23/97 THE US GOVT SHALL ADVISE THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO ITS POSITION ON INTERVENTION, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/10/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
Memorandum of DEFENDANT in further explication of the relationship between plffs' motion for contempt and defts' motion to terminate prospective relief, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
Response (memorandum of law in opposition) by DEFENDANTS to plaintiff's MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (gm) (Entered: 10/17/1997)
Reply Memorandum of PLAINTIFF, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/20/1997)
Response (corrected memorandum of law) by DEFENDANT to plffs' MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Memorandum of DEFENDANT relating to the automatic stay, certificate of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT U.S.A. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TOF 28 USC S2403 , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)

30 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/22/1997 10/22/1997 10/22/1997
10/28/1997 10/28/1997
10/28/1997

Memorandum of law by MOVANT U.S.A. concerning the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
Response by PLAINTIFF to defts memorandum relating to the automatic stay, cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE DEFTS TO TREAT ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE AS BINDING -- INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CONSENT DECREE AND ALL ITS STIPULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS, AS APPROVED BY THE COURT -- AND DEFTS' FURTHER AGREEMENT TO "WAIVE ANY ARGUMENT THAT THE AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISIONS, ETC., PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS", THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE 30 DAY AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISION (ETC) AND THE CHALLENGES TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY ASSERTED BY PLFFS, ARE NOT AT ISSUE IN THE CASE AT THIS TIME. THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF DEFTS TO PROVIDE THIS COURT AND PLFFS WITHIN 20 DAYS NOTICE OF A DECISION TO WITHDRAW THEIR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IN THIS CASE, ETC. (70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/23/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/22/97. (gm) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE, ETC., THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF THE U.S. TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO 28 USC S2403 IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A STATUS REPORT BY TELEPHONE WITH THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON 10/29/97 COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON 10/29/97, COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS SHALL SUBMIT TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS, ETC. A FURTHER TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 9:30 11/7/97 , ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS, ETC., IS SCHEDULED FOR 11:00 11/19/97 IN CTROOM 12B, US CTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA. . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT 2 COPIES OF PLFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND THE AGREED UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS ROOM 12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 10/27/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR CONTEMPT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered:

31 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/31/1997 11/04/1997 11/06/1997
11/06/1997 11/06/1997 11/10/1997
11/10/1997

10/29/1997)
80 ORDER THAT SUPPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 27, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 6, 1997. RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 11/6/97 , ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/3/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) Modified on 11/03/1997 (Entered: 11/03/1997)
(EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES) MOTION TO COMPEL CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFTS COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEFS, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/05/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED PRO SE BY WAYNE O. AULTMAN, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFF CLASS MEMBER AULTMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO ANY AND ALL STIPULATIONS AND/OR AGREEMENTS MADE BY PLFF CLASS COUNSEL ARE OVERRULED, ETC. A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT (ETC) SHALL BE DOCKETED AND COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/7/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
Memorandum of law in support of defts' response to plffs' amended motion for contempt, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR CONTEMPT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
ORDER THAT FOLLOWING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: A HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLFFS' MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION (ETC) IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M., IN CTROOM 12B, ETC. , ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 19, 1997, THE PARTIES SHALL FILE AND SERVE A STIPULATION OF FACTS FOR PRESENTATION TO THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ALL PENDING MOTIONS, (ETC); DEFTS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO PRESENT AFFIDAVITS AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AT THE HEARING/ORAL ARGUMENT ON NOVEMBER 19, 1997, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TWO COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT (CHAMBERS 12613) WHEN, UNDER THIS ORDER, COPIES MUST BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL AND THE COURT . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/12/97 ENTERED. COPIES FAXED 11/10/97. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
Stipulation of Uncontested Facts (filed by Presser, Esq.,Vandenbraak, Esq., Filipi, Esq.), cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered:

32 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/12/1997
11/13/1997 11/13/1997 11/14/1997 11/18/1997 11/18/1997 11/19/1997
11/21/1997 11/25/1997 11/26/1997

11/12/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED BY PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY (ETC) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, ETC., IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, SCI GREEN, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
Declaration by JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D. (See paper #812 in case 70-CV-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
Declaration by LINDA C. BARRETT, ESQ. (See paper #813 in case 70-CV-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
Petition for writ of mandamus of MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, memorandum of law , Certificate of Service. (see paper 814 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1997)
Appearance of JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ for MOVANT U.S.A., Certificate of Service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
Notice of recent decision by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE PET FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS (#814, FILED 11/14/97) ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY ALAN B. DAVIS IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE PRO SE WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL BY THE CLERK; COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL AND PRO SE PLFF, ALAN B. DAVIS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/20/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
Transcript for Oral Argument dated 11/19/97. (See paper #819 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 11/28/1997)
ORDER THAT HAVING CONSIDERED PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A POST-HEARING BRIEF AND FINDING IT REASONABLE IN ALL RESPECTS THE COURT NOW HEREBY GRANTS PLFF LEAVE TO FILE THE BRIEF ANNEXED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THAT MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/28/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 11/28/1997)

33 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

11/28/1997 12/03/1997
12/04/1997 12/08/1997 12/10/1997 12/16/1997 12/18/1997
12/19/1997

MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR RECONSIDERATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOV 12, 1997, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE MOTION OF PLFF, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOV 12, 1997, DENYING THE PRO SE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/4/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/04/1997)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANT in response to plffs' memo of law concerning FRCP 65(D), Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
81 ORDER, BY AGREEMENT, THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFTS' CONSENT DECREE AND COMPLIANCE IS DENIED AS MOOT. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 12/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
Notice of Amendments by MOVANT U.S.A., cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
Objections by MOVANT JON E. YOUNT, MOVANT DAVID B. KOPAC, MOVANT DEREK S. SMITH, MOVANT GUY BICKING, MOVANT JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, MOVANT KENNETH W. TEATER to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", Affidavit(s). (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIFONS OF PRO SE PLFFS, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE DEC 26, 1997. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES SHALL BE SERVED ON CHAMBERS (12613) WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON: BICKING, KOPAC, ROMBERGER, SMITH, TEATER, YOUNT. RESET RESPONSE DUE 12/26/97 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/19/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 12/19/1997)
Response by Class Counsel (PLAINTIFFS) to plffs' objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts", cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/22/1997)

34 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

12/26/1997 01/30/1998 02/06/1998 04/27/1998
04/27/1998 04/27/1998

Response to plaintiff's objections to portions of "Stipulation of Uncontested Facts" by DEFENDANTS, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
Notice of recent decisions by DEFENDANT, cert of service. (Also see 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
MOTION by PLAINTIFFS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (see 70-3054 paper # 834, 71-513, 71-1006) (cb) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS", ETC., IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: PLFFS' PRIOR WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PART OF THEIR CONTEMPT MOTIONS THAT SOUGHT CONTEMPT SANCTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DAILY SICK CALL IS VACATED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT TO THE EXTENT PLFFS' OBJECTIONS TO PORTIONS OF "STIPULATION OF UNCONTESTED FACTS", ETC., THE OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES COPIES OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON GUY BICKLING, DAVID B. KOPAC, JAMES ALAN ROMBERGER, DEREK S. SMITH, KENNETH W. TEATER, JON E. YOUNG, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES MAILED VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, FILED FEB 6, 1998 (#834) IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RECORD IS SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THE AFFIDAVITS OF RICHARD ROGERS, ERIC P. MASON, AND MALCOLM MASSEY, SR., ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ETC) THAT THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, 18 USC S3626(B)(2) ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. BECAUSE THE COURT HAS FOUND THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, ETC., TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL, ETC., DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF IS GRANTED AND THE CONSENT DECREE AS AMENDED IS TERMINATED. PLFF'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE PRELIMINARY RELIEF, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE TRANSFER OF THIS ACTIONS' CONSENT DECREE, ETC., IS DENIED. PLFF'S MOTION TO HAVE DEFTS AND THEIR AGENTS HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ARE DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/27/98 COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)

35 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

04/27/1998
05/04/1998
05/05/1998 05/06/1998 05/07/1998 05/07/1998

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1998 (ETC) SUBMITTED PRO SE BY CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ARE OVERRULED AND HIS REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567, B BLOCK, BOX 244, GRATERFORD, PA. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/28/98 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED. COPIES SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. (gm) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
ORDER THAT THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED APRIL 27, 1998, IS AMENDED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. PAGE 28, LINE 2 - THE WORD "INMATE" IS AMENDED TO READ "INMATES"; 2. PAGE 30, FOOTNOTE 18 - THE CITATION FOR INMATES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL, WHICH READS "1997 WL 685532 AT 12" IS DELETED AND "129 F.3D AT 661" IS SUBSTITUTED; (ETC. 3,4,5) 6. PAGE 46, LINE 14 - THE WORDS "ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND" SHOULD BE INSERTED BETWEEN THE WORD "THEREFORE" AND THE WORD "FOUND." THAT LINE, AS AMENDED, NOW READS: THEREFORE ADDRESSED THAT CLAIMED CONTEMPT AND FOUND THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CLOTHING RGULATIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE ...." (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/05/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
Objection by class member ALAN B. DAVIS to court order for imposition of contempt and sanction upon class counsel, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF 4-27-98 MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL MOTION TO ASK ICU CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARANCE IN PLRA CASE OF C.A.98-1321, ETC. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (SEE 70-3054) (gm) Modified on 05/08/1998 (Entered: 05/08/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO STAY EXECUTION OF 4-27-98 MEMORANDUM IN CONNECTION WITH SPECIAL MOTION TO ASK ICU CLASS COUNSEL TO CONSIDER ENTERING APPEARANCE IN PLRA CASE OF C.A.98-1321, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE PART OF THE PRO SE MOTION OF JEROME SILO WHICH SEEKS TO STAY EXECUTION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF THIS COURT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF CLASS COUNSEL TO PROCEED WITH THE PENDING MOTION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLFF CLASS IN WHICH THE COURT IS ASKED TO RECONSIDER ITS APRIL 27, 1998 RULING, ETC., THE REMAINDER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PRO SE MOTION - A REQUEST TO CLASS COUNSEL -

36 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/19/1998 05/19/1998 05/19/1998
05/19/1998
05/22/1998

REQUIRES NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, F-3298 AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI PITTSBURGH, P O BOX 99901, PITTSBURGH, PA., 15233. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/08/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
Response (memorandum of law) by MOVANT U.S.A. opposing plaintiffs' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM JEROME SILO, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY JEROME SILO IN HIS MAY 7, 1998 LETTER IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AN INMATE AT SCI GRATERFORD, ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BY CLASS COUNSEL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC., IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
ORDER THAT (ETC) THE OBJECTION OF CLASS MEMBER, ALAN B. DAVIS, TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF APRIL 27, 1998, AND FOR IMPOSITION OF CONTEMPT AND SANCTION UPON CLASS COUNSEL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE OBJECTION OF CLASS MEMBER, ALAN B. DAVIS, ETC., IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON ALAN B. DAVIS, AF-1282, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI-DALLAS, DRAWER K, DALLAS, PA., 18612-0286. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/20/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
Response (memorandum of law) by DEFENDANTS opposing plaintiffs' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL, Certificate of Service. (Also see

37 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

05/29/1998
05/29/1998
06/19/1998 06/19/1998 06/24/1998 06/30/1998 07/01/1998 07/06/1998 08/25/1998

70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER FROM CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., (ETC) (A COPY OF THE LETTER SHALL BE DOCKETED.) IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF MAY 18, 1998, IS DENIED AND THE REQUEST OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., THAT THE LETTER DATED MAY 23, 1998, BE TREATED AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, COPIES OF THE LETTER OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., DATED MAY 23, 1998, AND THIS ORDER, SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL. A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL ALSO BE SERVED ON CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., AK-6567, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SCI GRATERFORD, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/01/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (#840), ETC., IT IS ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TREATED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, IS DENIED, ETC. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT WILL NOT ALTER OR AMEND ITS JUDGMENT OF APRIL 27, 1998, TERMINATING THE CONSENT DECREE AND HOLDING THE PLRA'S TERMINATION PROVISIONS TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/1/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
82 Notice of appeal by PLAINTIFF. Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ, MARY E. KOSTEL, SARAH B. VANDENBRAAK, FRANCIS R. FILIPI. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
83 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: appeal. (gm) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: appeal USCA NUMBER: 98-1536. 6/25/98. (gm) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
84 Copy of TPO form ref: [82-1] appeal. (kw) (Entered: 06/30/1998)
RECORD COMPLETE FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. (fdc) (Entered: 07/01/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that having considered appellants' unopposed motion for substitution of parties, and finding it reasonable in all respects, the motion is now hereby GRANTED, etc. (Also see 70-3054, 71-513, 71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that the unopposed motion by appellants to dismiss Commonwealth Attorney General J. Shane Creamer as a party to this appeal (USCA #98-1536) is granted. (Also see 70-3054,71-1006,71-513) (gm) (Entered: 08/26/1998)

38 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?891198627820498-L_9...

10/30/1998 11/06/1998
03/23/1999 01/14/2000

ORDER THAT (ETC) THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED AT PAGE 2 SO AS TO SUBSTITUE "SIX" FOR "SEVEN" IN STATING TGHE NUMBER OF PA STATE CORRL INSTS IN OPERATION IN 1970-71 AND TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM FOOTNOTE 2, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/2/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
ORDER THAT THE COURT HAVING BEEN PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE HISTORY OF ONE OF THE STATE CORRL INSTITUTIONS, ETC.; IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCT 30, 1998 AMENDING THIS COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS VACATED; THE COURT'S MEMO OF APRIL 27, 1998 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ON PAGE 2, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH UNDER THE HEADING "HISTORY OF THE CASE" IS AMENDED, ETC.; FOOTNOTE 2 APPEARING ON PAGE 2 OF THE MEMORANDUM IS AMENDED TO DELETE SCI CAMP HILL FROM THE LIST OF INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN THE FOUR RELATED CASES, ETC. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/6/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gm) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
Certified copy of order from USCA that the judgment of the said district court entered 5/29/98, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against appellants. All of the above in accordance with the copinion of this court. (see paper #870 in 70-3054) (lvj) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
Letter from U S DEPT JUSTICE, dated January 6, 2000, to delete the names of MARY E. KOSTEL AND JEFFREY S. MARKOWITZ from the service list. (ALSO SEE 70-3054,71-513,71-1006) (gm) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

02/27/2006 17:24:35

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 22

Cost:

2:70-cv-02545-JD 1.76

39 of 39

2/27/2006 4:24 PM

 
 169 F.3d 178 (1999)
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION; Herbert Langes; Milton Taylor; Jack Lopinson; Mackey R. 179 Choice; Richard O.J. Mayberry; Frank Patterson; Daniel *179 Delker; Harold A.X. Brooks;
Carline Coefield; Thelma Simon; Audrey Mason; Sharon Wiggins; Dominic Codispoti; Philip Householder; James Harbold; Joseph Oliver; Paul Lyons; Robert Brown; James
Szulczewski; Gerald Mayo; Wesley Harris, v.
Tom RIDGE, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, State Capitol Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Martin F. Horn, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections; Donald Vaughn, Superintendent of Sci-Graterford; David
Larkins, Superintendent of Sci-Dallas; Mary Leftridge-Byrd, Superintendent of Sci-Muncy; Frederick Frank, Superintendent of Sci-Huntingdon; Robert Myers, Acting Superintendent
of Sci-Rockview; and James Price, Superintendent of Sci-Pittsburgh, United States of America, Intervenor in District Court (D.C. No. 70-cv-03054). Robert Ray; George Spears; Murry Dicterson; Clarence Reynolds; George Rivers; Albert Johnson; James Goldsborough; Joseph Ligon; Richard Bellamy; Emanuel Johnson; Gene Fuller; James C. Wilson; Carlos Rodriguez; Willie Brooker; Frank Hall,
v. Donald Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford,
United States of America, Intervenor in D.C. (D.C. No. 71-cv-00513). Kenneth W. Owens, Jr.; Guy J. Bicking; James Alan Romberger; Kenneth W. Teater,
v. Custodial Employees and "Private Citizens", Listed Below; John Doe Murdock, Box 244
Graterford, PA; John Doe Belloff, Box 244 Graterford, PA; Erskind Dehamus, Box 244 Graterford, PA,
United States of America, Intervenor in D.C. (D.C. No. 71-cv-01006). William Bracey, (G-8571), an inmate; James Pickett, (H-2720), an inmate; Clarence Samuels, (E-4517), an inmate on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v.
Arthur T. Prasse, Commissioner, Bureau of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Donald Vaughn, Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford; Clarence R. Wolfe, Deputy Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford; Charles S. Frisbee, School Director State Correctional Institution at
Graterford, United States of America, Intervenor in D.C. (D.C. No. 70-cv-02545). Imprisoned Citizens Union, Jack Lopinson, Daniel Delker, Gerald Mayo and Sharon Wiggins, on their behalf and on behalf of the class of all plaintiffs, Appellants.
No. 98-1536.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued September 17, 1998. Decided February 25, 1999.
180

181 *180 *181 Stefan Presser (argued), American Civil Liberties, Union of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
D. Michael Fisher, Attorney General, John G. Knorr, III, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Paul A. Tufano, General Counsel, Sarah B. Vandenbraak (argued), Chief Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Camp Hill, PA, for Defendants/Appellees.
Michael R. Stiles, United States Attorney, Barbara L. Herwig, Robert M. Loeb (argued), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor/Appellee United States of America.
Before: SLOVITER, SCIRICA, and ALITO, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALITO, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs appeal the District Court's decision to terminate jurisdiction over a consent decree pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We affirm.
I.
A. The Consent Decree
In 1970, inmates at Pennsylvania's seven state prisons ("the Inmates") brought a class action lawsuit against various state officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Inmates alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In 1978, the District Court approved a consent decree settling most of the issues raised in the lawsuit. The District Court retained jurisdiction, and subsequently approved several amendments to the decree.
As amended, the decree governs nearly every aspect of prison management. Among other things, the decree (1) 182 specifies the type *182 of misconduct for which prisoners can be punished; (2) limits the punishment that can be
imposed for specific acts of misconduct; (3) restricts prison officials' handling of prisoner mail; (4) guarantees prisoner access to outside publications; (5) establishes health care and sanitation standards;[1] (6) imposes restrictive standards for prison officials' use of force,[2] restraints, and mace;[3] (7) prescribes detailed procedures for conducting cell searches;[4] (8) gives prisoners the right to possess civilian clothing; and (9) requires the prisons to provide free postage to prisoners. The Defendants contend that the decree has imposed substantial administrative burdens on the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and that as a result of the decree prison officials have faced burdensome legal battles, having to defend many of their day-to-day management decisions in federal court.
B. The Termination Provision
Responding to concerns that similar consent decrees were crippling prison systems throughout the country, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996. One provision of the PLRA authorizes defendants in prison condition lawsuits to obtain
immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2) ("the termination provision"). The supervising court may refuse to terminate jurisdiction only if it makes written findings "that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and

that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation." Id. § 3626(b) (3).
C. The Termination Order
Relying on § 3626(b)(2), Defendants filed a motion to terminate the 1978 consent decree on September 23, 1997. The Inmates argued that the motion was inappropriate and asked the court to hold Defendants in contempt. The Inmates also maintained that the PLRA's termination provision was unconstitutional.
The United States filed a motion to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403, seeking the opportunity to defend the constitutionality of the PLRA's termination provision. The District Court granted that motion.
The District Court subsequently issued an opinion and order granting the Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree, and denying the Inmates' motion that the Defendants be held in contempt. Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 11 F.Supp.2d 586 (E.D.Pa.1998). The Inmates promptly filed a motion for reconsideration. The 183 District *183 Court denied that motion. The Inmates then filed the present appeal.
II.
Appellants raise four issues on appeal: (1) whether the PLRA's termination provision violates the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, as applied to consent decrees entered before the PLRA's enactment; (2) whether the termination provision violates the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) whether the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to stay Defendants' motion to terminate; and (4) whether the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to hold Defendants in contempt of court.[5] We will address each issue in turn.
A. Separation-of-Powers
The Inmates argue that the PLRA's termination provision violates the separation-of-powers doctrine in three respects. First, they argue that the provision requires courts to reopen final judgments in violation of the wellestablished rule that Congress may not interfere with the final judgments of Article III courts. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Second, they claim that the termination provision "mandate[s] the result in a particular case." United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 146-47, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871). Third, they maintain that the provision strips the courts of their inherent power to enforce effective remedies in constitutional cases.
We note at the outset that six other circuits have upheld the PLRA against a separation-of-powers challenge. See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 2368, 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426-27 (11th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (1st Cir.1997); Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162, 173 (2d Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1087 (8th Cir.1997) reh'g granted (Dec. 23, 1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir.1996). Only the Ninth Circuit has concluded otherwise. Taylor v. United States, 143 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir.1998) reh'g granted (Nov. 3, 1998).
1. Reopening a Final Judgment
The Inmates contend that § 3626(b)(2) impermissibly reopens a final judgment. Relying on the Supreme Court's opinion in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995), they argue that the provision violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by allowing Congress to "set aside . . . final judgment[s]." Id. at 240, 115 S.Ct. 1447.
In Plaut, the Court declared unconstitutional a federal statute that required courts to reopen certain securities fraud cases that had been dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds. Plaut, 514 U.S. at 214-15, 115 S.Ct. 1447.

The Court concluded that the statute violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by interfering with the "judicial Power . . . to render dispositive judgments." Id. at 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447. The Court explained that the separationof-powers doctrine generally forbids Congress from reversing final judgments in a suit for money damages. Id. At the same time, however, the Court noted that this rule does not apply to legislation that merely "alter[s] the prospective effect of injunctions entered by Article III courts." Id. at 232, 115 S.Ct. 1447.
This exception for legislation that alters the prospective effects of injunctions is not new: "its roots burrow deep into our constitutional soil." Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656 (1st Cir. 1997). It can be traced to Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1855), where the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to alter prospective judgments in equity.
184 *184 Wheeling Bridge arose out of an earlier case in which the Supreme Court found that a particular bridge unreasonably interfered with navigable waters, and ordered that the bridge be removed or elevated. See 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 626, 14 L.Ed. 249. After the first decision, Congress passed a statute declaring the bridge to be a lawful structure, establishing it as a post road, and requiring vessels using the river to avoid interfering with the bridge. The parties subsequently returned to the Court when the bridge company sought to rebuild the bridge after a storm had destroyed the original structure. Recognizing the impact of the intervening congressional action, the Court dissolved its injunction.
In rejecting the plaintiff's argument that Congress' action was an unconstitutional attempt to override the Court's earlier decision, the Court explained that while Congress cannot alter a judgment at law, it can alter the prospective elements of a judgment in equity by changing the underlying rule of law. Id. at 431-32. The Court reasoned that
if the remedy in this case had been an action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff were for damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the power of congress. It would have depended, not upon the public right of the free navigation of the river, but upon the judgment of the court. The decree before us, so far as it respect[s] the costs adjudged, stands upon the same principles, and is unaffected by the subsequent law. But that part of the decree, directing the abatement of the obstruction, is executory, a continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins defendants against any reconstruction or continuance. Now, whether it is a future existing or continuing obstruction depends upon the question whether or not it interferes with the right of navigation. If, in the mean time, since the decree, this right has been modified by the competent authority, so that the bridge is no longer an unlawful obstruction, it is quite plain the decree of the court cannot be enforced.
Id. at 431-32. Wheeling Bridge therefore stands for the proposition that when Congress changes the law underlying a judgment awarding prospective injunctive relief, the judgment becomes void to the extent that it is inconsistent with the amended law.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the validity of this principle, and has even recognized its application to consent decrees. For example, in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), the Court explained that a consent decree may be modified when "one or more of the obligations placed upon the parties has become impermissible under federal law" or when "the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent." Id. at 388, 112 S.Ct. 748. Similarly, in System Fed'n No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349 (1961), the Court noted that
the District Court's authority to adopt a consent decree comes only from the statute which the decree is intended to enforce. Frequently of course the terms arrived at by the parties are accepted without change by the adopting court. But just as the adopting court is free to reject agreed-upon terms as not in furtherance of statutory objectives, so must it be free to modify the terms of a consent decree when a change in law brings those terms in conflict with statutory objectives. . . . The parties have no power to require of the court continuing enforcement of rights the statute no longer gives.

Id. at 651-52, 81 S.Ct. 368.
Thus, unlike the judgments at issue in Plaut, the consent decree here is not impervious to legislative modification. As a judgment awarding prospective injunctive relief0907much like the judgment at issue in Wheeling Bridge 0907the Inmates' consent decree is necessarily altered every time "a change in law brings [the decree's] terms in conflict with statutory objectives." System Fed'n No. 91, 364 U.S. at 651, 81 S.Ct. 368.
Such a change has occurred here. In enacting the PLRA, Congress exercised its Article I authority to prescribe 185 rules for courts *185 to apply when issuing or perpetuating prospective relief. Those rules do not transgress the
separation-of-powers doctrine. If anything, a judicial determination that Congress lacked authority to limit the prospective application of injunctive orders would present a more serious separation-of-powers problem. As the First Circuit recently stated,
If forward-looking judgments in equity were inviolate, then one of two scenarios would develop: either the legislature would be stripped of the ability to change substantive law once an injunction had been issued pursuant to that law, or an issued injunction would continue to have force after the law that originally gave the injunction legitimacy had been found wanting (and hence, altered). The first of these possible results would work an undue judicial interference with the legislative process, while the second would create an intolerable tangle in which some laws applied to some persons and not to others. Since the separation of powers principle is a two-way street, courts must be careful not to embrace a legal regime that promotes such awkward scenarios.
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (1st Cir.1997).
A determination that Congress is powerless to alter the courts' authority to award prospective injunctive relief would be especially unwarranted here, since the Supreme Court has commented on the importance of getting the courts out of the prison management business:
[C]ourts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison management. . . . [T]he problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree. Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have . . . additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, our decision today is not merely consistent with separation-of-powers principles; it furthers those principles.
Nevertheless, the Inmates maintain that the Wheeling Bridge exception does not apply here because the law underlying the consent decree0907which they claim to be the Eighth Amendment 0907was not amended by the PLRA. In raising this argument, they rely heavily on the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Taylor v. United States, 143 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.1998), reh'g granted (Nov. 3, 1998). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that "[e]ven though the district court here . . . was never called upon to decide the factual and legal issues underlying the [inmates'] constitutional claims, it is clear that such claims were resolved by the consent decree, and the Constitution remains the law underpinning the dispute." Applying this reasoning, the Taylor panel concluded that the PLRA "clearly did not" "change[ ] the substantive law upon which the parties' consent decree . . . was based." Id. at 1183.
We disagree with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, and we reject the Inmates' argument. The law underlying the consent decree is not the Eighth Amendment; it is the courts' statutory authority to issue prospective injunctive relief in the absence of an ongoing violation of a federal right. This authority existed when the consent decree was entered, but was withdrawn with the enactment of the PLRA. Accord, Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 657 (1st Cir.1997) ("The relevant underlying law in this case is not the Eighth Amendment,

as there has been no finding of an ongoing constitutional violation."); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 372 (4th Cir.1996) ("The Inmates fail to understand that the applicable law is not the Eighth Amendment, but rather is the 186 authority of the district court to award *186 relief greater than that required by federal law.").
This would be a very different case if we were convinced as 0907 the Taylor panel obviously was0907that the PLRA categorically terminates all relief available to "prisoners who claim constitutional violations." Taylor, 143 F.3d at 1183. But the PLRA expressly preserves the courts' authority to remedy violations of prisoners' federal rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3); see also infra, Section II.A.3. The Inmates therefore cannot maintain that the PLRA curtailed their Eighth Amendment rights. Accordingly, we reject the argument that the PLRA goes beyond amending the law underlying the consent decree.
The Inmates also contend that the Wheeling Bridge exception applies only in cases involving "public" rights. They claim that because the consent decree was intended to protect the "private" rights of individual prisoners, Congress is powerless to amend it. This argument appears to be based on the following language from Wheeling Bridge:
[I]t is urged, that the act of congress cannot have the effect and operation to annul the judgment of the court already rendered, or the rights determined thereby in favor of the plaintiff. This, as a general proposition, is certainly not to be denied, especially as it respects adjudication upon the private rights of parties. When they have passed into judgment the right becomes absolute, and it is the duty of the court to enforce it.
The case before us, however, is distinguishable from this class of cases, so far as it respects that portion of the decree directing the abatement of the bridge. Its interference with the free navigation of the river constituted an obstruction of a public right secured by acts of congress.
Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. at 431 (emphasis added). At first glance, this reading appears to support the Inmates' argument.
However, a more careful analysis shows that the Court's holding in Wheeling Bridge did not hinge on the distinction between public and private rights. Instead, it focused on the difference between prospective injunctive relief and judgments for damages. As the Wheeling Bridge Court explained,
if the remedy in this case had been an action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the power of congress. It would have depended, not upon the public right of the free navigation of the river, but upon the judgment of the court. The decree before us, so far as it respects the costs adjudged, stands upon the same principles, and is unaffected by the subsequent law. But that part of the decree, directing the abatement of the obstruction, is executory, a continuing decree, which requires not only the removal of the bridge, but enjoins the defendants against any reconstruction or continuance.
Wheeling Bridge, 59 U.S. at 431. Thus, the Wheeling Bridge Court's decision ultimately turned on the nature of the relief, not the source of the right. As the District Court concluded, it is this distinction that "ultimately determines the right of Congress to change the law in such a way that relief must be altered or modified." Imprisoned Citizens, 11 F.Supp.2d at 598. Cf. Plaut, 514 U.S. at 232, 115 S.Ct. 1447 (noting that the statute at issue in Wheeling Bridge "altered the prospective effect of injunctions entered by Article III courts" and that "nothing in our holding today calls [Wheeling Bridge] . . . into question."); Polites v. United States, 364 U.S. 426, 438, 81 S.Ct. 202, 5 L.Ed.2d 173 (1960)(Brennan, J., dissenting) (citing Wheeling Bridge for the proposition that "it was the law long before the promulgation of Rule 60(b) that a change in the law after the rendition of a decree was grounds for modification or dissolution of that decree insofar as it might affect future conduct."). We therefore reject the Inmates' "public rights" argument. Accord, Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1088 (8th Cir.1997) ("The character of the right involved has nothing to do with the separation-of-powers issue that we have in this case.").

Our holding today would be no different if we were to decide that the Wheeling Bridge exception only applies 187 where public rights are at stake. To whatever extent the *187 consent decree embodies private rights, those
rights are unaffected by the PLRA.[6] As the Second Circuit recently explained,
[E]ven assuming that we were to adopt the requirement that 0907under separation of powers principles0907executory judgments must concern a public right in order to be susceptible to legislative revision, that would still not render the termination provision unconstitutional. . . . This is because the . . . right in question in this case relates not to the private rights of the detainees . . . but to the right to have non-federal claims vindicated in a federal forum. . . . Thus, even if we accept the plaintiffs' graft of a "public right" requirement as limiting the circumstances in which an executory judgment can be legislatively altered, the termination provision survives.
Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162, 172 (2d Cir.1997), reh'g granted Dec. 23, 1997. Therefore, even if the Inmates' "public rights" reading of Wheeling Bridge had some validity, it would not affect our decision.
Accordingly, we conclude that the PLRA does not impermissibly mandate the reopening of final judgments.
2. Prescribing a Rule of Decision
Relying on United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871), the Inmates also contend that the termination provision violates the separation-of-powers doctrine by prescribing the rule of decision in a pending case. In Klein, the Court held unconstitutional a federal statute enacted after the Civil War that was designed to prevent pardoned ex-Confederates from reclaiming seized property. The act proclaimed that a presidential pardon constituted conclusive evidence that the pardoned individual had been disloyal to the United States. Id. at 143-44. It also provided that a pardon could not be used as evidence of loyalty in a suit to recover confiscated property from the United States, and directed the Court to dismiss all recovery cases pending on appeal in which a pardoned individual had prevailed. Id. The Court found that in enacting the statute, Congress was attempting to prescribe the rule of decision for pending cases in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Id. at 147.
While the Supreme Court has never determined "the precise scope of Klein," Plaut, 514 U.S. at 218, 115 S.Ct. 1447, "later decisions have made clear that its prohibition does not take hold when" Congress merely "amend[s] applicable law." Id. (quoting Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 441, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992)). Thus, if a statute "compel[s] changes in the law, not findings or results under old law," it merely amends the underlying law, and is therefore not subject to a Klein challenge. Robertson, 503 U.S. at 438, 112 S.Ct. 1407.
Relying heavily on the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Taylor, the Inmates argue that the PLRA "direct[s] the outcome of this case and similarly situated pre-PLRA consent decrees." Taylor, 143 F.3d at 1184. We disagree.
While § 3626(b)(2) requires a district court to terminate prospective relief approved in the absence of a finding that the relief is no greater than necessary to correct ongoing violations of federal rights, it does not "direct the outcome of this case and similarly situated pre-PLRA consent decrees." Taylor, 143 F.3d at 1184. Section 3626 (b)(2) provides only the standard the district courts must apply, not a rule of decision. It can therefore be said that the PLRA "has left the judicial functions of interpreting the law and applying the law to the facts entirely in the hands of the courts." Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081, 1089 (8th Cir.1997). Accord Hadix, 133 F.3d at 943 ("The interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all 188 times with the judiciary."); Inmates of Suffolk County, 129 F.3d at 657-58; *188 ("[T]he relevant underlying law for present purposes is not the Eighth Amendment, but the power of the federal courts to grant prospective relief absent a violation of a federal right. Thus, the PLRA does not run afoul of Klein because it does not tamper with courts' decisional rules0907that is, courts remain free to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they discern them."); Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 174 ("[U]nlike the Klein statute, the termination provision does not prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction over those cases that involve violations of . . . federal rights."); Plyler, 100 F.3d at 372 ("In short, § 3626(b)(2) provides only the standard to which district courts must adhere, not the result they must reach.").

We conclude that because § 3626(b)(2) "compel[s] changes in the law, not findings or results under old law," it is not subject to a Klein challenge. Robertson, 503 U.S. at 438, 112 S.Ct. 1407.
3. Authority to Enforce Effective Remedies
The Inmates also argue that the termination provision strips the courts of their inherent power to enforce effective remedies in constitutional cases. We reject this argument. Under the PLRA, courts retain their authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges and grant equitable relief to remedy constitutional violations. The PLRA simply requires that such relief be "narrowly drawn," extend "no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right," and be "the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(1)(A), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
These standards are consistent with well-established limitations on the courts' authority to issue prospective injunctive relief to remedy constitutional violations. In constitutional cases, "the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg B'd of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 16, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). Likewise, the remedy imposed must be tailored0907temporally as well as substantively to 0907 redress the constitutional wrong at issue. See e.g., Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) ("The remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury-in-fact that the plaintiff has established."); Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991) ("[N]ecessary concern for the important values of local control . . . dictates that a federal court's regulatory control . . . not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past [constitutional violations]."). In this sense, the PLRA amounts to little more than a codification of alreadyexisting rules governing judicial interference with prisons.
We disagree with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the PLRA "leaves no room for judicial decision-making." Taylor, 143 F.3d at 1184. The statute expressly authorizes the courts to "continue to define the scope of prisoners' constitutional rights, review the factual record, apply the judicially determined constitutional standards to the facts as they are found in the record and determine what relief is necessary to remedy the constitutional violations." Tyler v. Murphy, 135 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir.1998). As a result, the courts will still be capable of "remedy[ing] violations of prisoners' constitutional rights as they have traditionally done in litigated cases." Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir.1997) reh'g granted (Dec. 23, 1997). Accordingly, we conclude that the PLRA's effect on the courts' authority to remedy constitutional violations does not violate the separationof-powers doctrine.
B. Equal Protection
The Inmates also argue that § 3626(b)(2) deprives them of their right to equal protection of the laws. They contend that, as a whole, the PLRA burdens their fundamental right of access to the courts, and therefore must be analyzed under strict scrutiny.
1. Strict Scrutiny
The termination provision does not deny prisoners "a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed 189 violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, *189 116 S.Ct.
2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) ). Rather, it merely restricts the relief that prisoners may obtain from the courts. See Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 373 (4th Cir.1996). The provision therefore does not infringe any identified fundamental right, and is subject to only rational basis review. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-32, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996).

2. Rational Basis Scrutiny
The Inmates argue that even if § 3626(b)(2) is not subject to strict scrutiny, it still fails under rational basis review. Specifically, they claim that the provision discriminates against prisoners, and is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. We are not persuaded.
While § 3626(b)(2) admittedly singles out certain prisoner rights cases for special treatment, it does so only to advance unquestionably legitimate purposes to 0907 minimize prison micro-management by federal courts and to conserve judicial resources. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349, 116 S.Ct. 2174 ("[I]t is not the role of courts, but that of the political branches, to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution."); see also City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440-41, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (explaining that a statute subject to rational basis review will survive an equal protection challenge "if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."). The termination provision therefore satisfies the demands of equal protection.
C. The District Court's Denial of the Inmates' Motion to Stay
The Inmates also argue that the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to stay the termination order until such time as "the courts of Pennsylvania agree to enforce the [consent decree]." Brief for Appellants at 46. In making this argument, the Inmates rely heavily on the Second Circuit's novel theory that (a) consent decrees embody "contracts arising under state law" and (b) federal courts therefore cannot terminate a consent decree under § 3626(b)(2) without first securing parties' contractual rights under that decree. See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 124 F.3d 162, 178-79 (2d Cir.1997), reh'g granted (Dec. 23, 1997).
1. Clear Statutory Mandate
We cannot accept this argument without ignoring the plain language of the PLRA. The statute entitles defendants to "immediate termination of any prospective relief" absent a finding of a current and ongoing violation of federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), (b)(3). It also broadly defines "prospective relief" as including "all relief other than compensatory monetary damages," 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(7).[7] Because the 1978 consent decree unquestionably fits within that definition, and because the district court made no findings of a current and ongoing violation of federal law, the law demands nothing less than the immediate termination of the consent decree. The Inmates cite no principle of law that allows us to disregard this unambiguous statutory mandate in order to preserve the consent decree. In effect, the Inmates have asked us to turn the termination provision on its head, and replace § 3626(b) with language prohibiting termination of consent decrees unless or until a state court "agrees to enforce" them. We decline their invitation to do so.
2. No Current Unconstitutional Impairment
We also reject the Inmates' claim that since they "might" have contractual rights in the consent decrees under Pennsylvania law, and Defendants "might" refuse to enforce such rights, the District Court must maintain 190 jurisdiction over the decrees in order to prevent Defendants from unconstitutionally *190 impairing their own contractual obligations. Brief for Appellants at 45 (quoting Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 179). Mere speculation that Defendants might refuse to honor alleged contractual obligations is insufficient to support a finding of "current and ongoing violations of [a] Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). The District Court therefore had no statutory basis for maintaining jurisdiction over the consent decrees.
If the Inmates have valid contractual claims that survive termination, such claims are "based solely upon . . . [Pennsylvania] law," and are not affected by the PLRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(d) ("The limitations on remedies in this section shall not apply to relief entered by a State court based solely upon claims arising under State law."). The Inmates are therefore free to pursue relief in the Pennsylvania courts. It is not our province to speak to the validity

of any "claims arising under [Pennsylvania] law," or to award relief therefor. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(d). It is our province, however, to decide whether there is any basis for the Inmates' argument that the District Court should have stayed its termination order until such time as "the courts of Pennsylvania agree to enforce the [consent decree]." Brief for Appellants at 46. There is not. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's denial of the Inmates motion to stay did not amount to an abuse of discretion.
D. Defendants' Past Non-Compliance
Finally, the Inmates argue that the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to hold Defendants in contempt for failing to comply with portions of the consent decree in the past. More to the point, they claim that the District Court should have denied Defendants' motion to terminate as a remedy for contempt.
Again, we cannot accept this argument without ignoring the express language of the PLRA. Congress could have authorized the courts to maintain jurisdiction over a consent decree where the defendants have failed to comply with the decree. However, it did not. Instead, Congress chose to allow the courts to maintain jurisdiction only where defendants are guilty of "current and ongoing" violations of a federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).
Moreover, denying Defendants' motion to terminate would have been an inappropriate remedy for civil contempt because it would have "had no coercive effect." Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1328 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding that denying a motion to terminate under the PLRA was not a proper remedy for civil contempt related to the city's past non-compliance with a consent decree). We therefore conclude that the District Court's refusal to cite Defendants with contempt did not amount to an abuse of discretion.
III.
The Inmates have not established that the PLRA is unconstitutional, nor have they established that the District Court abused its discretion in any way. Accordingly, we affirm.
[1] One provision provides that "[a]t each institution a physician will conduct a monthly inspection of all food preparation and food storage space, the institution hospital and infirmary, and all other facilities connected with health care and health care delivery." Joint App. at 253. That physician must "submit a report of his inspection to his superintendent immediately after his inspection, and these reports shall be maintained at each institution." Id.
[2] The provisions governing the use of force authorize force only where necessary to prevent harm to person or property or to thwart an escape attempt. Joint App. at 256. In contrast, Pennsylvania law provides that prison officials may use physical force to compel compliance with prison rules. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 509(5).
[3] Prison officials must consult medical personnel before using mace on any prisoner "to determine whether that resident has any disease or condition that would make the use of Mace particularly dangerous." Joint App. at 261. Once authorized to do so, prison officials may only use mace "in a short burst of approximately two (2) seconds in duration," and are required to wait fifteen seconds before firing a second burst.
[4] Prison officials must give inmates notice before conducting cell searches, and allow them to be present during any such searches. Inmates subjected to cell searches must "be asked to sign a record to show that he was present during the search or . . . that he [chose] not to be present." Joint App. at 285.
[5] At oral argument, the Inmates also argued that the PLRA is unconstitutional because it provides plaintiffs a mere 30 days in which to gather evidence necessary to oppose termination under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). See Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir.1998). However, because the Inmates neither raised this argument before the District Court nor discussed it in their briefs on appeal, we do not address it.
[6] We express no opinion as to whether the Inmates have private rights in the consent decree. See infra, Section II.C.2. We simply note that if they do, those rights exist under state law and are not affected by the PLRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(d) ("The limitations on remedies in this section shall not apply to relief entered by a State court based solely upon claims arising under State law.").

[7] The PLRA defines "relief" as "all relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees, but does not include private settlement agreements." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(9). It further defines "consent decree" as "any relief entered by the court that is based in whole or in part upon the consent or acquiescence of the parties, but does not include private settlements." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(1).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

1992 WL 55746 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
IMPRISONED CITIZENS UNION, et al. v.
Milton SHAPP, et al.
Civ. A. No. 91–3991. | March 13, 1992.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
DALZELL, District Judge.
*1 This suit was filed by William Stahl and Willard England, two inmates at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding a consent decree entered in Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, Civil Action Nos. 70–3054, 70–2545, 71–513, and 71–1006 (the “related cases”).
With their complaint, Stahl and England (“petitioners”) filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As it appears they are unable to pay the cost of commencing this action, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Because the petitioners are not authorized to act on behalf of the named plaintiff, however, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
In light of the many years that have passed since former Chief Judge Joseph S. Lord approved the entry of the consent decree in the related cases, it may be helpful here to summarize the history and effect of that decree. The related cases, filed in 1970–71, were consolidated into one class action challenging the constitutionality of conditions and policies at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institutions at Graterford, Dallas, Huntingdon, Muncy, Rockview and Pittsburgh. Those cases were settled by a consent decree approved by Chief Judge Lord on May 22, 1978, and this Court retained

jurisdiction to ensure compliance with that decree.
The consent decree set forth many substantive and procedural rights to be afforded the plaintiff class. In the event of institution-wide or state-wide violations of the consent decree, the plaintiff class (represented by Stefan Presser of the American Civil Liberties Foundation) is authorized to bring a contempt proceeding on behalf of the plaintiff class. The consent decree does not, however, create any individual cause of action for violation of the rights established by the decree.
A prisoner who believes his or her rights have been violated therefore has two options. For system-wide violations of the consent decree, a prisoner can seek to have class counsel file a contempt proceeding on behalf of the plaintiff class should counsel find the claims meritorious. Alternatively, if an individual’s federal constitutional or statutory rights have been violated, that prisoner can seek redress for such individual violations by filing a separate action in federal court in the appropriate district. Again, however, the consent decree does not create any individual, as opposed to class, cause of action for the violation of rights the consent decree established.
Petitioners in this action have failed to proceed through either of these two options. Their individual action alleging violations of the consent decree will therefore be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 1992, in accordance with the Memorandum filed this date, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and
*2 2. This complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
	  

1

 
 In re Imprisoned Citizens’ Union, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1991)

1991 WL 16720 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
In re IMPRISONED CITIZENS’ UNION, et al. Donald S. JONES, K–3100 v.
Milton SHAPP, Governor, et al.
Civ. A. No. 91–0217. | Feb. 5, 1991.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Donald S. Jones, pro se.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
FULLAM, Senior District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against numerous prison and state officials. Plaintiff is attempting to bring this action as a contempt proceeding pursuant to the consent decree issued in Imprisoned Citizens’ Union v. Shapp, (C.A. No. 70–3054). Plaintiff alleges he has suffered constitutional violations both at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon and the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh.
With his complaint, plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As it appears he is unable to pay the cost of commencing this action, leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff’s complaint concerns particular incidents which happened to him. Plaintiff does not allege that these incidents are pursuant to an ongoing policy or custom at either institution, which was the subject of the class action suit in Imprisoned Citizens’ Union. Rather it appears the alleged constitutional violations are isolated events and as such they cannot be addressed by a contempt proceeding pursuant to a consent decree issued in Imprisoned Citizens’ Union. Plaintiff may, however, bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Since plaintiff cannot bring this action as a contempt proceeding, but must proceed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under

that statute, this action “... may be brought only in the judicial district where all defendants reside or in which the claim arose ...”
The allegations of the complaint relate to occurrences which took place at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, which is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and at Pittsburgh, which is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The defendants are employed at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon and Pittsburgh or at the State Capitol in Harrisburg, including Governor Casey and Attorney General Preate. Since the allegations of the complaint relate to occurrences which took place in both State Correctional Institutions, Huntingdon and Pittsburgh, and it does not appear that any of the defendants reside in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, venue is improper in this court. Venue may be proper, however, in either the Western District or the Middle District of Pennsylvania as provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1392(a).
The text of 28 U.S.C. § 1392(a) provides:
“Any civil action, not a of a local nature, against defendants residing in different districts in the same state, may be brought in any of such districts.”
Under the facts set forth in the complaint, the case could have been brought in either the Middle District or the Western District of Pennsylvania.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of venue, without prejudice, to allow the plaintiff to file this complaint in either the Middle District or the Western District of Pennsylvania.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 1991, in accordance with the Memorandum filed this date, it is
ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of venue, without prejudice, to allow the plaintiff to file this complaint in either the Middle District of Pennsylvania or the Western District of Pennsylvania.
	  

1

In re Imprisoned Citizens’ Union, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1991) 2