UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT CASE NO.: ~)C V I g~.j I’~ ~
TINA MICHELLE BLACK, MAUREEN O. MITCHELL, and BRITTNEY CREECH

Vo

FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY

SERVE:

Hon. Robert Roach Franklin County Judge Executive
313 West Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AND

FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

SERVE:

James Kemper, Jr. (Former Jailer) Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Ted Hammermeister (Current Jailer) Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AND

JAMES KEMPER, JR. And TED HAMMERMEISTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

SERVE:

James Kemper, Jr. Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Page l of 13

Ted Hammermeister Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT
L INTRODUCTION Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell and Brittney Creech, Plaintiffs, file this action complaining of the egregious and unjustifiable conduct of the Defendants named in the caption above. As morespecifically set forth below, Plaintiffs, after arrests for minor offenses, were unlawfully and unjustifiably strip-searched by Defendants. It is the purpose of this action to recover the actual damages Plaintiffs sustained as a result of Defendants’ conduct, as well as any punitive damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled, and to insure that no citizen is ever again victimized by the blatant and malicious violation of constitutional and common law rights that were endured by Plaintiffs.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Plaintiffs seek damages from Defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, for gross and unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages under the pendant jurisdiction of this Court for negligence, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Franklin County, Kentucky, is the location of all
Page 2 of 13

Defendant parties to this action and the location of all acts pertinent to this suit, venue is proper in this Court.
III. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Tina Michelle Black, is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky. She is an unmarried female, age 32 years, at the time of the offense. 4. Plaintiff, Maureen O. Mitchell, is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky, who is an unmarried female, and who was 41 years of age at the time of the offense. 5. Plaintiff Brittney Creech, is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky, and who is an unmarried female, 18 years of age at the time of the offense. 6. Defendant, Franklin County, at all times mentioned herein, employed, was responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of, the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex. 7. Defendant, Franklin County Correctional Complex, at all times mentioned herein, employed, was responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex. 8. Defendant, James Kemper, Jr., was Director of the Franklin County Correctional Complex at the time of the acts complained of, and as such established policies formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of the officers and employees of the Franklin County
Page 3 of 13

Correctional Complex. Ted Hammermeister is the current Director of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
IF. CLASS ACTION 9. This action is brought, pursuant to FRCP 23, and other applicable law, by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated whose joinder in this action is impracticable because the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 10. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, all as set forth hereinbelow. 11. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class 12. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
V. NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT 13. Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with one another, engaged in the conduct described below under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Franklin County. The individual Defendants named above knowingly participated or acquiesced in, contributed to, encouraged, implicitly authorized or approved of the conduct described below individually and in their official capacities with Franklin County and/or the Franklin County Correctional Complex. The offenses described below resulted from the failure of Defendants to employ qualified persons for positions of authority, and/or to properly or conscientiously train and supervise the conduct of such persons after their employment, and/or to promulgate appropriate operating policies and
Page 4 of 13

procedures either formally or by custom to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was intentional or grossly negligent, indicated active malice toward Plaintiffs or a total and reckless disregard for and indifference to each of their constitutional and common law rights, and justifies an award of punitive damages in addition to the actual damages which the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover.
VI. FACTS 14. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. With respect to the facts, on April 21, 2004, Plaintiff, Tina Michelle Black, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, for a minor, non-violent offense (contempt for failure to pay child support). Plaintiff was taken into custody in the Family Court Division of the Franklin Circuit Court. Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex, where she was subjected to a strip-search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff was granted work release on May 11, 2004 and was on work release until June 9, 2004. Plaintiff worked six days per week. Plaintiff was strip-searched each day after returning to the jail from work release. Male inmates who arc on work release are not strip searched upon their return to the jail 15. On March 29, 2004, Plaintiff, Maureen O. Mitchell, was stopped for speeding in Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky. At the time of her aforesaid stop, said Plaintiff’s operator’s license was verified by the Officer and determined to
Page 5 of 13

have been suspended, and said Officer proceeded to place said Plaintiff under arrest on the charge of operating a motor vehicle on a suspended license in violation of K.R.S. 186.620. (The said Plaintiff’s operator’s license should not have been identified as suspended on her driving history record, but improperly did due to a back log of operator’s license entries to be made by the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Transportation Cabinet.)
The Officer then proceeded to conduct a search of said Plaintiff’s automobile and purse. The Officer found prescription medicine of Plaintiff and her Fiancee which had been placed in the ashtray of her car, and in a pill case in her purse. Plaintiff was then charged with speeding, possession of a controlled substance 1st, and possession of a controlled substance 3r~. Said Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex, where she was subjected to a strip-search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished, Plaintiff Mitchell was required to spread her leg~, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
16. On January 15, 2005, Plaintiff, Brittney Creech, age 18 years, was arrested in Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky, for a minor, nonviolent offense of driving under the influence (KRS 189A.010). Plaintiff Creech was taken into custody by Lawrenceburg Police. Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically,
Page 6 of 13

Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove
all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
Plaintiff Creech was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under
the direct visual observation of a jail employee. Plaintiff Creech was released from the
Franklin County Regional Complex, after having never been placed in the general
population of the inmates, and approximately five (5) hours after her initial incarceration.
Plaintiff Creech submitted to a urine test which indicated that she had no drugs in her
system. She was not asked to take an intoxilizer examination.
17. In 1979, the United States Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee has
the fight not to be searched unless the reasonableness of such search is established by
"balancing ...the need for the particular search against the invasion ofpersonaI rights that
the search entails. On April 18, 1989, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 (6t~ Cir 1989), cert.denied, 493 U.S. 977,
110 S.Ct. 503 (1989), in which it held:
It was clearly established on October 21, 1986, that a pretrial detainee has the fight not to be searched unless the reasonableness of such search is established by "a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails." (Citations omitted). It was equally clearly established that a person charged only with a traffic violation or nonviolent minor offense may not be subjected to a strip search unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the particular person might be carrying or concealing weapons or other contraband.
Id. At 1257 (Emphasis in original). Masters specifically involved the strip-search of a
person arrested for a nonviolent minor offense by the Jefferson County Department of
Corrections. In this case, Plaintiffs were arrested for nonviolent minor offenses. Neither their behavior nor their appearance gave Defendants any reasonable grounds for
Page 7 of 13

believing that they might be carrying or concealing weapons or other contraband. Under such circumstances, Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiffs expose the most private part of their physical person for a visual inspection was unconscionable, was an illegal stripsearch by any definition, and was a flagrant violation of the balancing requirement of Bell v. Wolfish, sul3ra.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Count l
18. Paragraphs 1-17 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 18.
19. Plaintiffs’ search, described above, was part of a continuing pattern of misconduct and is the result of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs and practices of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Franklin County, either written or unwritten, that are systematically applied whenever an arrestee is admitted to the Franklin County Correctional Complex. A judgment was recently entered against tile Defendants for similar misconduct and the Defendants continue to perform illegal stripsearches. Such practices constitute an arbitrary use of government power, and evince a total, intentional and unreasonable disregard for the constitutional and common law rights of the citizens of Kentucky, including Plaintiffs and the wholesale violations of those rights likely to result from the systematic pursuit of such practices.
20. As the result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, through Defendants’ intentional or grossly negligent conduct, were deprived without due process of law of the following rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to each of them by the Constitution of the United States in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983:
Page 8 of 13

(a) Their right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(b) Their right to privacy in their persons against unreasonable intrusions under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(c) Their right to the equal protection of the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(d) Their right not to be subj coted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
21. Moreover, given the preexisting law that clearly prohibited Defendants’ conduct and the recent entry of a judgment against these same Defendants for this same
conduct, Defendants search of Plaintiffs was intentional, wanton and malicious, and was indicative of Defendants’ total and reckless disregard of, indifference to the rights of, and risk of harm to, Plaintiffs.
B. Count II 22. Paragraphs 1-21 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 22. 23. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably inflicted upon Plaintiffs severe mental and emotional distress.
C. Count III 24. Paragraphs 1-23 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 24.
25, By virtue of the foregoingD, efendants were negligent, and grossly negligent, all to the damage of Plaintiffs.
Page 9 of 13

VIII. DAMAGES 26. Paragraphs 1-25 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 26. 27. Plaintiffs were unjustifiably and unconstitutionally searched in a manner that generated tremendous and overwhelming embarrassment, humiliation and mental and emotional distress. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and are entitled to recover, actual damages. Furthermore, Defendants’ violations of the constitutional and common law rights of Plaintiffs were cruel, malicious, and evinced a total and reckless disregard for and indifference to those rights, entitling Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages from Defendants in order to deter such conduct in the future. IX. DE CLARA TORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 28. Paragraphs 1-27 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 27. 29. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs requests that this Court issue a declaratory judgment deeming unconstitutional any and all statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or practices under which they were forced to expose their genitalia for visual inspection, and further request that this Court permanently enjoin Defendants from following or enforcing such statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or usages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and all other members of the class, respectfully demand the following retief: (a) trial by jury, (b) for an award of actual and punitive damages, (c) that they be granted the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein, and (d) that they be awarded their costs, attorneys’ fees and all other
Page 10 of 13

relief to which they are entitled under law or in equity. VERIFICATION
I, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell, and Brittney Creech, after being duly sworn state that we have each read this complaint and the statements it contains are true and correct to the best of our knowledge.

A MICHELLEVBLACK

MAURII~-N 0~ MITCHELL " "~ "

BRITTI~EY (~J~ECH

"

COMMONWEAL TH OF KENTUCKY )

)

COUNTY OF ANDERSON

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me by Tina Michelle Black on this ~ day of

y omm ionoxo e : NOTAR~ ~BLI~?,~TA-TE AT LARGE

Page 11 of 13

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

)

COUNTY OF ANDERSON

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me by Maureen O. Mitchell on this ~day of March, 2005.

NOTARY~UBLIC, S-T~TE AT LARGE My commission expires: ~

COMMONWEAL TH OF KENTUCKY )

)

COUNTY OF ANDERSON

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me by ~rittney Creeclv oja/this ~¢(~ day of

March, 2005.

~/"--~ "~ NO~~PI~B~I~, STATE AT LARGE

My commission expires:

Pagel2ofl3

Respectfully submitted,~
213 SAINT CLAIR STREET P.O. BOX 1788 FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40602-1788 (502) 875-0908 (502) 875-0750 facsimile
MARIE K. BRANNON 236 WEST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 1788 FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40602-I788 (502)/8e75-0908 / / (5012)(.~75-0750 fac~fi/~le
~~S. ~A~E H~E~(~ S. MAI~,IE HELLARD, P.S.C. 148 South Main Street Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342 (502) 839-0004
138 South Main Street [~/ Lawrenceburg, Kentucl~ 40342 (502) 839-6020 (502) 839-6029 facsimile
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
Page 13 of 13

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 1 of 31

CASE NO.: 3:05cv18 JMB

TINA MICHELLE BLACK, MAUREEN 0. MITCHELL, BRITTNEY CREECH, JEFFREY CURTIS, WENDY HOCKENSMITH, DEJDRA WASH, REBECCA HAGAN, KAREN GAMBLE, ANGELA NESSELRODE, PENNY TILLETT, TOMMY CUMMINS,
JILLIAN BAKER, SANDRA McCLEASE,
ANGELA LEAR, LINDA EPLJNG,
JOE FARLER, JIMMY HAMMONDS,
DAVANlKA BARBER, NATALIE ELIZABETH McCLEASE, TONY RAY McCLEASE, JAMES DION BIXLER, JONATHAN COX, TAMMY LAURINE COOPER, NATASHA MARIE
HUNTER,PATRICIA TIPTON, JULIEANN CORNN, and
DARREN DEAN HOCKENSMITH

V.

FRANKL,INCOUNTY, KENTUCKY

SERVE:

Hon. Robert Roach Franklin County Judge Executive 313 West Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AND

FRANKLIN COUNTY CORREETIONAL COMPLEX

SERVE:

James Kemper, Jr. (Former Jailer) JailerBlirector 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AND

Ted Hammermeister (Current Jailer) Jailermirector 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Page I of 31

MAY 09 2!305
PLATNTIFFS

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 2 of 31

JAMES JSEMPER, JR And TED HAMMERMEISTER,
INDMDUALLY,AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

SERVE:

James Kemper, Jr. JailerDirector 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Ted Hammermeister JailerDirector 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
** ** ** ** ** ** **

DEF'E"TS
**

PIAINTIFFS' FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT I. mTRODUCTION
Tina Michelle Black, Maureen 0. Mitchell, Brittney Creech, Jeffrey Curtis, Wendy Hockensmith, Deidra Wash, Rebecca Hagain, Karen Gamble, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Tommy Cummins, Jiian Baker, Sandra McClease, Angela Lear, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Jimmy Hammonds, Davanika Barber, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, James Dion Bixler, Jonathan Cox, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Natasha Marie Hunter, Patricia Tipton, Julie Ann Cornn, and Darren Dean Hockensmith, Plaintiffs, file this action complaining of the egregious and unjustifiable conduct of the Defendants named in the caption above. As more specifically set forth below, Plaintiffs, after arrests for minor offenses, were unlawfully and unjustifiably stripsearched by Defendants. It is the purpose of this action to recover the actual damages PlaintiEs sustained as a result of Defendants' conduct, as well as any punitive damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled, and to insure that no citizen is ever again victimized by the

Page 2 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 3 of 31
blatant and malicious violation of constitutional and common law rights that were endured by Plaintiffs.
II. JUMSDICTIONAND W N U E 2. Plaintiffs seek damages &om Defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, for gross and unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, this C6urt has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages under the pendant jurisdiction of this Court for negligence, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Franklin County, Kentucky, is the location of all Defendant parties to this action and the location of all acts pertinent to this suit, venue is proper in this Court.
III PARTlES 3. Tina Michelle Black, Maureen 0. Mitchell, and Brittney Creech, all named in the original Complaint filed for record herein, are three of the Plaintiffs named herein, and any and all information contained in the original Complaint filed for record herein with respect to said Plaintiffs is hereby incorporated and reiterated, the same as if fully set forth in this First Amended Complaint. 4. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Curtis, is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky, and who is an adult male. 5. Plaintiff, Wendy Hockensmith, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky, and who is an adult female.
Page 3 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 4 of 31
6. Plaintiff, Deidra Wash, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky, and who is an adult female.
7. Plaints, Rebecca Hagan, is an adult female, who is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky.
8. Plaintiff, Karen Gamble, is an adult female, who is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky.
9. Plaintiff, Angela Nesselrode, is an adult female, who is a resident of Ffankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
10. Plaintiff, Penny Tillett, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
11. Plaintif??, Tommy Cummins, is an adult male, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
12. Plaintiff, Jillian Baker, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
13. Plaintiff, Sandra McClease, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
14. Plaintiff, Angela Lear, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
15. Plaintiff, Linda Epling, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
16. Plaintiff, Joe Farler, is an adult male, who is a resident of Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky.
Page4of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 5 of 31
17. Plaintiff, Jimmy Hammonds, is an adult male, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
18. Plaintiff, Davanika Barber, is an adult female, who is a resident of Jefferson County, Kentucky.
19. Plaintiff, Patricia Tipton, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
20. PlainM, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, is an adult female, who is a resident ofFranklin County, Kentucky.
21. Plaintiff, Tony Ray McClease, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
22. Plaintiff, James Don Bixler, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin
County, Kentucky. 23. Plaintiff, Jonathan Cox, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin
County, Kentucky. 24. Plaintiff, Tammy Laurine Cooper, is an adult female, who is a resident of
Anderson County, Kentucky. 25. Plaintiff, Natasha Marie Hunter, is an adult female, who is a resident of
Franklii County, Kentucky. 26. Plaintiff, Julie Ann Cornn, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin
County, Kentucky. 27. Plaintiff, Darren Dean Hockensmith, is an adult male, who is a resident of
Franklin County, Kentucky.
PageSaf 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 6 of 31
28. Defendant, Franklin County, at all times mentioned herein, employed, was responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of, the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
29. Defendant, Franklin County Correctional Complex, at all times mentioned herein, employed, was responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of th’e 05cers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
30. Defendant, James Kemper, Jr., was Director of the Franklin County Correctional Complex at the time of the acts complained of, and as such established policies formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex. Ted Hammermeister is the current Director of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
IK CLASSACTION 31. This action is brought, pursuant to FRCP 23, and other applicable law, by
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated whose joinder in this action is impracticable because the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
32. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, all as set forth hereinbelow.
33. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims ofthe class
Page 6 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 7 of 31
34. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
K NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT 35. Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with one another, engaged in the conduct described below under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Franklin County. The individual Defendants named above knowingly participated or acquiesced in, contributed to, encouraged, implicitly authorized or approved of the ccjnduct described below individually and in their official capacities with Franklin County and/or the Franklin County Correctional Complex. The offenses described below resulted from the failure of Defendants to employ qualified persons for positions of authority, and/or to properly or conscientiously train and supervise the conduct of such persons after their employment, and/or to promulgate appropriate operating policies and procedures either formally or by custom to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was intentional or grossly negligent, indicated active malice toward Plaintiffs or a total and reckless disregard for and indifference to each of their constitutional and common law rights, and justifies an award of punitive damages in addition to the actual damages which the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover.
m. FACTS
36. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. Plaintiffs reiterate each and every allegation contained in the original Complaint fled herein, and more specifically, those allegations contained in numerical paragraphs 14,15, and 16.
Page 7of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 8 of 31
I
37. With respect to the facts, on January 28, 2005, Jefiey Curtis, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, after having been found in contempt of court by the Franklin District Court for failure to pay fines, and failure to attend classes at Kentucky Alternatives Program. Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished. Plaints Curtis was not strip searched initially when brought into the jail, but was strip searched several days after his initial incarceration.
38. Plaintiff, Wendy Hockensmith, on June 28,2004, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, and charged with improper use of electronic equipment, which charge was ultimately dismissed. After Plaintiff was taken into custody by police, she was transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Hockensmith was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
39. Plaintiff, Deidra Wash, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense, in Franklin County, Kentucky. Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Franklin County Correctional Complex. Initially, Plaintiff was not strip searched. It was
Page8of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 9 of 31
not until several days later, on or about February 8, 2005, after having been taken to Court for a hearing on her case, that Plaintiff was strip searched by the jail official, having been required to remove all of her clothing under the visual inspection of a jail employee. At the time when Plaintiff was strip searched, there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
40. Plaintiff, Rebecca Hagan, on March 27, 2004, was charged with
possession of drug paraphernalia, operating a motor vehicle under the innuence of h€oXicants, and possession of marijuana, in Anderson County, Kentucky. Those charges are still pending. Plaintiff Hagan was taken into custody by Lawrenceburg Police, and later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was canying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintif€Hagan was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
41. Plaintiff, Karen Gamble, was charged in Anderson County, Kentucky,
with Assault IV. As a result of a plea agreement entered by her with the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, Plaintiff was required to serve 2 days in the Franklin County Correctional Complex. Plaintiffreported for service of her sentence on October 27, 2004, at 600p.m. at the Frankliin County Correctional Complex. After arrival, Plaintiff was instructed to go into a room where there was a shower, a shelfunit with clothes and bins of flip flops. Plaint8 was told by a jail employee to strip off all of her clothing, including all under
Page 9 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 10 of 31
garments. Plaintiffasked, but was refused, to be allowed to wear her under garments. Plaintiff was made to stand in fiont of the jail employee naked, raise her arms, then bend over and shake her hands through her hair. Plaints was made to open her mouth and raise her tongue. After this, Plaintiff was instructed to turn around, facing away fiom the guard, bend over and spread her buttocks open for the guard to see inside her rectal area. There was no reasonable cause to believe that Plaints was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
42. That Plaintiff, Angela Nesselrode, was charged in Clark County, Kentucky, and transported from Clark County jail to Franklin County Correctional Complex on March 7, 2005, on charges of contempt of court for failure to appear, and failure to pay fines. Plaints was not initially strip searched upon her arrival at the jail. She was, however, on March 8, 2005, strip searched by a jail employee. On March 10, 2005, she was moved to general population, at which time she was informed that jail policy is to strip search all female prisoners who are moved to the general population. Thus, again on March 10,2005, PlaintiffNesselrode was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Nesselrode was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee on each of the two (2) occasions when she was strip searched.
43. Plainm, Penny Tillett, was arrested on March 6, 2004, for theft by deception and contempt of court in Franklin County, Kentucky. On March 8, 2004,
Page 10 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 11 of 31
Plaintiff Tillett had a hearing in Franklin District Court. Later on March 8, 2004, when Plaintiff was back at the jail, she was informed that she was being moved to back to the general population, and that she needed to shower in advance of the move. The female officer who was moving her made Plaintiff strip off all of her clothing, including all under garments. Plaintiff had to stand in fiont of the jail employee naked, raise her arms,
lift her breasts so that the guard could see under them, then turn around, facing away
fiom the guard, bend over and cough. There was no reasonable cause to believe that Phbtiff was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
44. Plaintiff, Tommy Cummins, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in May of 2004, on contempt for failure to pay fines. Plaintiff Cummins was taken into custody by police. Plaintiff was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was canying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifkally, Plainti€f was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
45. Plaintiff, Jillian Baker, was arrested on March 19, 2005, in Franklin County, Kentucky, on charges of failure to appear and failure to pay fines. She was taken into custody, and taken to the Franklin County Correctional Complex, but was never placed into the general population. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Baker advised the jail officer that she was
Page11 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 12 of 31
wearing a tampon, but was still required to bend over naked before the guard. Further,
the Plaintiff was required to l i i her breasts in order that the guard could see under them.
46. Plaintiff, Sandra McClease, was arrested August 2003 for extortion and in November of 2003 for thee by deception. Plaintiff was transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex on each such occasion where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specitically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County COrrectional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
47. Plaintiff, Angela Lear, was charged with possession of a forged instrument, two (2) counts, in March of 2003, in Franklin County, Kentucky, one of said charges having been later dismissed and the other Plaintiff having been found not guilty. The Plaintiff was taken into custody and transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove
all of her clothing, liR her breasts in the presence of the jail officer, turn around and bend
over so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. 48. Plaintiff, Linda Epling, was charged with a violation of her probation
conditions when she failed to maintain automobile insurance for a period of time. Plaintiff E p h g was taken into custody in Shelby County, Kentucky, and taken to the Shelby County Jail, where she was held for 1 and 112 days. Plaintiff was never strip
Page12of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 13 of 31
searched by the Shelby County Jail. Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex, where, upon her arrival she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Epling was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
49. Plaintiff, Joe Farler, was arrested on charges of contempt of court and/or Alcohol Intoxication in May of 2004. Plaintiff was taken to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was required to serve 60 days. During PlaintifPs time in the Franklin County Correctional Complex, he was searched on 4 different occasions. On the first such occasion, Plaintiff was hesitant to remove his clothing as directed. Plaintiff asked the jail guard whether or not such searches were legal in light of the fact that there had been previous litigation about illegal strip searches. The Plaintiff was informed by the guard that the jail personnel has the right to “strip search anybody we want, anytime we want to.” Plaintiff Farler was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
50. Plaintiff, Jimmy Hammonds, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in March of 2003, on charges of contempt for failing to attend domestic violence classes. Plaintiff Hammonds was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
Page 13 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 14 of 31
Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished. Plaintif€ Hammonds was required to bend over, cough all while a jail employee s h e d a light into the Plaintifl's rectal area.
51. Plaintiff, Davanika Barber, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in January of 2005, for speeding and driving on a suspended license. Said Plaintiff was taken into custody and later taken to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where slie spent several hours in a booking area, and was not strip searched during this period of time. However, after a court appearance, (wherein she was sentenced to serve 10 days in jail, such sentence to be served on weekends), the Plaintiff was strip searched every single time she reported to the jail for service of her sentence. At the time of each strip search Plaintiff was forced to endure, there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
52. Plaintiff, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, on charges of unlawfbl transaction with a minor as a result of truancy. Plaintiff McClease was taken into custody and later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
53. plaintiff, Tony Ray McClease, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, on charges of unlaw!&l transaction with a minor as a result of truancy.
Page 14 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 15 of 31
Plaintiff McClease was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealiig weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
54. Plaintiff, James Dion Bixler, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in’ November, 2004, for operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was suspended. PlaintSBixler was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specitically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
55. Plaintig Jonathan Cox, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in December of 2004, for operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was suspended. Plaintiff Bixler was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
Pagel5of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 16 of 31

‘

I

56. Plaintiff, Tammy Laurine Cooper, was arrested in Anderson County, Kentucky, for contempt of court on underlying convictions of driving on a suspended operator’s license, and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff Cooper was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Moreover, said Plaintiff had numerous court appointments after having been incarcerated, and was strip searched each and every time upon her return from court. Said PlaintiE has now been strip searched more than twenty (20) times since August 25,2004.
57. Plaintiff, Natasha Marie Hunter, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in the year 2000 on charges of shoplifting. Said Plaintiff was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
58. Plaintiff, Patricia Tipton, was arrested in 2001 in Franklin County, Kentucky for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff Tipton was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause
PageZ6of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 17 of 31
to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaint8 was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove
all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
Further, said Plaint8 is currently serving a misdemeanor sentence in the said Franklin County Correctional Complex, where she was placed in lockdown for 30 days. Upon being released &om lockdown, said Plaint8was strip searched when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. SfieciScally, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
59. Plaintiff, Julie Ann Corn, was arrested in Franklin County on June 16, 2004, for theft by unlawfbl taking (misdemeanor). Said Plaintif€was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or conceding weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
60. Plaintiff, Darren Dean Hockensmith, was arrested in Franklin County in April of 2005, for contempt of court as a result of his failure to pay child support. Said Plaint8 was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaint8 was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex
Page 17of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 18 of 31
employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
61. In 1979, the United States Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee has the right not to be searched unless the reasonableness of such search is established by “balancing ...the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. On April 18, 1989, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 (6* Cir 1989), cert.denied, 493 U.S. 977, I f 0 S.Ct. 503 (1989), inwhichit held:
It was clearly established on October 21, 1986, that a pretrial detainee has the right not to be searched unless the reasonableness of such search is established by “a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.” (Citations omitted). It was equally clearly established that a person charged only with a t r a c violation or nonviolent minor offense may not be subjected to a strip search unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the particular person might be carrying or concealing weapons or other contraband.
-Id. At 1257 (Emphasis in original). Masters specifically involved the strip-search of a
person arrested for a nonviolent minor offense by the Jefferson County Department of Corrections. In this case, Plaintiffs were arrested for nonviolent minor offenses. Neither their behavior nor their appearance gave Defendants any reasonable grounds for believing that they might be carrying or concealing weapons or other contraband. Under such circumstances, Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiffs expose the most private part of their physical person for a visual inspection was unconscionable, was an illegal stripsearch by any definition, and was a flagrant violation of the balancing requirement of Bell v. Wolfish, .-
Page 18 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 19 of 31
, ‘.
WL CAUSES OFACTION
A. CountI 62. Paragraphs 1-61 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 62. 63. Plaintiffs’ search, described above, was part of a continuing pattern of misconduct and is the result of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs and practices of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Franklin County, either wiitten or unwritten, that are systematically applied whenever an arrestee is admitted to the Franklin County Correctional Complex. A judgment was recently entered against the Defendants for similar misconduct and the Defendants continue to perform illegal stripsearches. Such practices constitute an arbitrary use of government power, and evince a total, intentional and unreasonable disregard for the constitutional and common law rights of the citizens of Kentucky, including Plaintiffs and the wholesale violations of those rights likely to result from the systematicpursuit of such practices. 64. As the result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, through Defendants’ intentional or grossly negligent conduct, were deprived without due process of law of the following rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to each of them by the Constitution of the United States in violation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983:
(a) Their right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(b) Their right to privacy in their persons against unreasonable intrusions under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments;
Page 19 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 20 of 31
(c) Their right to the equal protection of the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(d) Their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
65. Moreover, given the preexisting law that clearly prohibited Defendants’ conduct and the recent entry of a judgment against these same Defendants for this same conduct, Defendants search of PlaintiEs was intentional, wanton and malicious, and was indicative of Defendants’ total and reckless disregard of, indflerence to the rights of, and risk of harm to, Plaintiffs.
B. CountII 66. Paragraphs 1-65 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 66. 67. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably inflicted upon Plaintiffs severe mental and emotional distress.
C. Count IU
68. . Paragraphs 1-67 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this
Paragraph 68 69. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants were negligent, and grossly
negligent, all to the damage of Plaintiffs. WIL DAMAGES
70. Paragraphs 1-69 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 70.
Page 20 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 21 of 31
71. Plaintiffs were unjustitiably and unconstitutionally searched in a manner that generated tremendous and overwhelming embarrassment, humiliation and mental and emotional distress. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and are entitled to recover, actual damages. Furthermore, Defendants' violations of the constitutional and common law rights of Plaintiffs were cruel, malicious, and evinced a total and reckless disregard for and indifference to those rights, entitling Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages from Defendantsin order to deter such conduct in the fiture.
- AK DECZARATORYJUDGiKWTAND PERMANEhTINJUNCTION
72. Paragraphs 1-71 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 72.
73. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs requests that this Court issue a declaratory judgment deeming unconstitutional any and all statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or practices under which they were forced to expose their genitalia for visual inspection, and firther request that this Court permanently enjoin Defendants from following or enforcing such statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or usages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and all other members of the class, respectfilly demand the following relief (a) trial by jury, (b) for an award of actual and punitive damages, (c) that they be granted the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein, and (d) that they be awarded their costs, attorneys' fees and all other relief to which they are entitled under law or in equity.
Page 21 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 22 of 31
VERIFICATION We, JeBey Curtis, Wendy Hockensmith, Deidra Wash, Rebecca Hagan, Karen Gamble, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tdett, Tommy Cummins, Jillian Baker, Sandra McClease, Angela Lear, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, J i y Hammonds, Davanika Barber, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, James Dion Bixler, Jonathan Cox, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Natasha Marie Hunter, Patricia Tipton, Julie Ann Cornn, and Darren Dean Hockensmith, after being duly sworn state that we have each read this Ainended Complaint and that the statementsit contains are true and correct to the best of our knowledge.
W.h%LbeLCMu/tR/
WEND$ HOCKENSMITH
c
- Qh bd&
DEIDRA WASH
A G E L A NESSELRODE
Page 22 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 23 of 31
TONY McCLEASE
-
JONATHAN CdX Page 23 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 24 of 31

COMMO".IEALTH OF KEhTUCKY

1

1

STATEAT LARGE

1

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged to before MAy, 2005.

COMMO".IEALTH OF KENTUCKY

1

1

STATE ATLARGE

1

Subscribed, sworn and achowledged to before me by READY day of May, 2005.

COMMO".IEALTH OF KEhTUCKY

1

1

STATEAT LARGE

1

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged to befo May, 2005.

COMMONKULTH OF KENTUCKY

1

)

STATEATLARGE

1

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged to b May, 200s.

Page 24 of 31

/
/

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 25 of 31

COMMONWEALE€ OFKENTUCKY )

)

STATE AT LARGE

)

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged
9.. day ofMay, 2005.

me by KAREN GAMBLE on this

NO'IC'ARYPUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE

My commission expires: /a& ' U - d ~

COMMO~ALZHOFKENTUCKY )

)

STATE ATLARGE

)

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged to before me by ANGELA NESSELRODE

on this

day ofMay, 2005.

NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE

My commission expires:

COMMOiVUX4LlHOFKENTUCKY )

1

STATE AT LARGE

1

g& Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged to befo day of May, 2005.

N O M Y PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE

My commission expires:

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

1

STATE ATLARGE

)

xbscribed, sworn and acknowledg

this

day OfMay, 2005.

C U M I N S on

My commission expires: Page 25 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 26 of 31

C0MPfOiVWEMII-I OF KENTUCKY )

1

STATE AT LARGE

)

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged t
Q’ day of May, 2005.

#a by JmANBARER on this

NOTAkY PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE

My commission expires: / O - & - M

COMMOhWEALTH OF hll?NTUCKY )

)

STATEAT LARGE

)

,e Subscribed, sworn and acknowledg

this

day of May, 2005.

McCZEASE on

COMMONWE4LJHOFKENTUCKY STATE AT LARGE

5-/k%! W
My commission expires:
) ) )

My commission expires: / d - & % 3 U 0 8

COMMUNWGILTH OF KENTUCKY )

)

STATE ATLARGE

1

Subscribed, sworn and 54L day ofMay, 2005.

NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE

My commission expires: /o-do-dc.t38

Page 26 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 27 of 31

C0MMONWEALIII-IOF KENTUCKY )

1

STATE AT LARGE

)

My commission expires: / o - m 2 # %

COMMONWE4L.THOFKENTUCKY )

)

STATE AT LARGE

1

& t5Su scribed, sworn and acknowledged to

this

dayofMay,2005.

~

HAMMONDS on

n MTARY PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE

j / d o ~ My commissionexpires: /[/J

COMMONWMLTlil OFKENTUCKY )

STATE ATLARGE

1

bscribed, sworn and acknowledge

this

day ofMay, 2005.

DAVANMA BARBER on

C0MMONwEALIII-IOF KENTUCKY )

STATE ATLARGE

Subscribed, sworn and acknowle

M~CLEASEon this

day ofMay,

TALIE ELIZABElH

Page 27 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 28 of 31

C O M M O m & W OF KENTUCKY )

STATE ATLARGE

Sub cribed, sworn and

on this

day of May, 2005.

COMMONWEALTHOFKENTUCm )

STATE ATLARGE

Sub cribed, sworn and acknowledged

onthis

day of May, 2005.

COMMONWEALTH OFKENTUCm )

)

STATE AT LARGE

1

9 Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged day of May, 2005.

S-/J7.3@5-

COMMOhWEAL.TH OF KENTUCKY )
)
STATE AT LARGE

2 Subscribed, s rn and acknowledg

COOPER on this

day of May, 2005

Page 28 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 29 of 31

COMMON???EXL,TH OF KENTUCKY )

1

STATE ATLARGE

1

2 Subscribed, sw rn and acknowledg

HUNTER on this

day ofMay, 200

My c o m s s i o n expires:

COMMONWE4L.TFI OFKENTUCKY )

)

STATEAT LARGE

1

4ubscribed, sworn and acknowledg

this

day of May, 2005.

PATHCZ4 TIPTON on

COMMONWEALTH OFKENTUCKY )

)

STATE AT LARGE

1

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged to before me by JULIE A" COR" on
this 5 5 day of May, 2005.

.

COMMONWEALJH OF KENTUCKY )

)

STATE ATLARGE

)

Subscribed, sworn d acknowledged to b

HOCKXNSMITFI on this

day of

by DARREN DEAN
,STATE AT LARGE

Page 29 of 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 30 of 31
Respeclfully submitted,
213 SAINT CLAIR STREET P.O. BOX 1788 FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40602-1788
(502) 875-0908
(502) 875-0750 facsimile
U L L - - - - by W
MARIE K. BRANNON 236 WEST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 1788 FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40602-1788
(502) 83-0908
s. MAkIE HELLARD, P.S.C.
148 South Main Street Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342
(502) 839-0004
138 South Main S
(502) 839-6020
(502) 839-6029 facsimile
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
Page3Oof 31

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 11 Filed 05/09/2005 Page 31 of 31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the

foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this

day of May, 2005, upon

Counsel for Defendants as follows:

Honorable Douglas T. McSwain Honorable Tammy S. Meade
STURGILL, TURNER,BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC
155 East Main Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Z:KLIENTS\sTRIp SEARCHbmplaint3.wpd

Page31 of 31

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
FRANKFORT DIVISION CASE NO. 3:05CV18JMH
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

TINA MICHELLE BLACK, MAUREEN O. MITCHELL, BRITTNEY CREECH, JEFFREY CURTIS, WEDNY HOCKENSMITH, DEIDRA WASH, REBECCA HAGAN, KAREN GAMBLE, ANGELA NESSELRODE, PENNY TILLETT, TOMMY CUMMINS, JILLIAN BAKER, SANDRA MCCLEASE, ANGELA LEAR, LINDA EPLING, JOE FARLER, JIMMY HAMMONDS, DAVANIKA BARBER, NATALIE ELIZABETH MCCLEASE, TONY RAY MCCLEASE, JAMES DION BIXLER, JONATHAN COX, TAMMY LAURINE COOPER, NATASHA MARIE HUNTER, PATRICIA TIPTON, JULIE ANN CORNN, DARREN DEAN HOCKENSMITH, ALPHA LEMAY, TIMOTHY LEE GREEN, TERESA HENDREN, SARA HODGKIN, DEREK HARVEY, WILLIAM MILLS, APRIL ENGLER, JENNIFER RENEER, KIMBERLIE SIMMONS, TIM CHILDERS, AUDREY CUNNINGHAM, MELISSA PICKETT, AND STEPHEN WISE

V.

FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY

SERVE: AND

Hon. Robert Roach Franklin County Judge Executive 313 West Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

SERVE:

James Kemper, Jr. (Former Jailer) Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Ted Hammermeister (Current Jailer) Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

PLAINTIFFS

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 2 of 23

AND

JAMES KEMPER, JR. and TED HAMMERMEISTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF FRANKLIN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

SERVE:

James Kemper, Jr. Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Ted Hammermeister Jailer/Director 400 Coffee Tree Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell, Brittney Creech, Jeffrey Curtis, Wendy Hockensmith, Deidra Wash, Rebecca Hagan, Karen Gamble, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Tommy Cummins, Jillian Baker, Sandra McClease, Angela Lear, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Jimmy Hammonds, Davanika Barber, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, James Dion Bixler, Jonathan Cox, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Natasha Marie Hunter, Patricia Tipton, Julie Ann Cornn, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Alpha LeMay, Timothy Lee Green, Teresa Hendren, Sara Hodgkin, Derek Harvey, William Mills, April Engler, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, Melissa Pickett and Stephen Wise, Plaintiffs, file this action complaining of the egregious and unjustifiable conduct of the Defendants named in the caption above. As more specifically set forth below, Plaintiffs, after arrests for minor offenses, were unlawfully and unjustifiably strip-searched by Defendants. It is the purpose of this action to recover the actual damages Plaintiffs sustained as a result of Defendants’ conduct, as well as any punitive damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled, and to insure that no citizen is
2

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 3 of 23
ever again victimized by the blatant and malicious violation of constitutional and common law rights that were endured by Plaintiffs.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Plaintiffs seek damages from Defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, for gross and unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages under the pendant jurisdiction of this Court for negligence, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Franklin County, Kentucky, is the location of all Defendant parties to this action and the location of all acts pertinent to this suit, venue is proper in this Court.
III. PARTIES 3. Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell, and Brittney Creech, all named in the original Complaint filed for record herein, are three of the Plaintiffs named herein, and any and all information contained in the original Complaint filed for record herein with respect to said Plaintiffs is hereby incorporated and reiterated, the same as if fully set forth in this First Amended Complaint. 4. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Curtis, is an adult male, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky. 5. Plaintiff, Wendy Hockensmith, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
3

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 4 of 23
6. Plaintiff, Deidra Wash, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
7. Plaintiff, Rebecca Hagan, is an adult female, who is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky.
8. Plaintiff Karen Gamble, is an adult female, who is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Anderson County, Kentucky.
9. Plaintiff, Angela Nesselrode, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
10. Plaintiff, Penny Tillett, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
11. Plaintiff, Tommy Cummins, is an adult male, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
12. Plaintiff, Jillian Baker, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
13. Plaintiff, Sandra McClease, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
14. Plaintiff, Angela Lear, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
15. Plaintiff, Linda Epling, is an adult female, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
16. Plaintiff, Joe Farler, is an adult male, who is a resident of Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky.
4

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 5 of 23
17. Plaintiff, Jimmy Hammonds, is an adult male, who is a resident of Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky.
18. Plaintiff, Davanika Barber, is an adult female, who is a resident of Jefferson County, Kentucky.
19. Plaintiff, Patricia Tipton, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
20. Plaintiff, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
21. Plaintiff, Tony Ray McClease, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
22. Plaintiff, James Don Bixler, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
23. Plaintiff, Jonathan Cox, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
24. Plaintiff, Tammy Laurine Cooper, is an adult female, who is a resident of Anderson County, Kentucky.
25. Plaintiff, Natasha Marie Hunter, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
26. Plaintiff, Julie Ann Cornn, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
27. Plaintiff, Darren Dean Hockensmith, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
5

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 6 of 23
28. Plaintiff, Alpha LeMay, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
29. Plaintiff, Timothy Lee Green, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
30. Plaintiff, Teresa Hendren, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
31. Plaintiff, Sara Hodgkin, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
32. Plaintiff, Derek Harvey, is an adult male, who is a resident of Mercer County, Kentucky.
33. Plaintiff, Williams Mills, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
34. Plaintiff, April Engler, is an adult female, who is a resident of Lincoln County, Kentucky.
35. Plaintiff, Jennifer Reneer, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
36. Plaintiff, Kimberlie Simmons, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
37. Plaintiff, Tim Childers, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
38. Plaintiff, Audrey Cunningham, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
6

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 7 of 23
39. Plaintiff, Melissa Pickett, is an adult female, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
40. Plaintiff, Stephen Wise, is an adult male, who is a resident of Franklin County, Kentucky.
41. Defendant, Franklin County, at all times mentioned herein, employed, was responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of, the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
42. Defendant, Franklin County Correctional Complex, at all times mentioned herein, employed, was responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
43. Defendant, James Kemper, Jr., was Director of the Franklin County Correctional Complex at the time of the acts complained of, and as such established policies formally or by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training, supervision and conduct of the officers and employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex. Ted Hammermeister is the current Director of the Franklin County Correctional Complex.
IV. CLASS ACTION 44. This action is brought, pursuant to FRCP 23, and other applicable law, by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated whose joinder in this action is impracticable because the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
7

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 8 of 23
45. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, all as set forth hereinbelow.
46. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. 47. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
V. NATURE OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT 48. Defendants, individually and in conspiracy with one another, engaged in the conduct described below under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Franklin County. The individual Defendants named above knowingly participated or acquiesced in, contributed to, encouraged, implicitly authorized or approved of the conduct described below individually and in their official capacities with Franklin County and/or the Franklin County Correctional Complex. The offenses described below resulted from the failure of Defendants to employ qualified persons for positions of authority, and/or to properly or conscientiously train and supervise the conduct of such persons after their employment, and/or to promulgate appropriate operating policies and procedures either formally or by custom to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was intentional or grossly negligent, indicated active malice toward Plaintiffs or a total and reckless disregard for and indifference to each of their constitutional and common law rights, and justifies an award of punitive damages in addition to the actual damages which the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover.
VI. FACTS
8

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 9 of 23
49. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. Plaintiffs reiterate each and every allegation contained in the original Complaint filed herein, and more specifically, those allegations contained in numerical paragraphs 14, 15, and 16.
50. With respect to the facts, on January 28, 2005, Jeffrey Curtis, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, after having been found in contempt of court by the Franklin District Court for failure to pay fines, and failure to attend classes at Kentucky Alternatives Program. Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Curtis was not strip searched initially when brought into the jail, but was strip searched several days after his initial incarceration.
51. Plaintiff, Wendy Hockensmith, on June 28, 2004, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, and charged with improper use of electronic equipment, which charge was ultimately dismissed. After Plaintiff was taken into custody by police, she was transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Hockensmith was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
52. Plaintiff, Deidra Wash, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense, in Franklin County, Kentucky. Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Franklin County
9

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 10 of 23
Correctional Complex. Initially, Plaintiff was not strip searched. It was not until several days later, on or about February 8, 2005, after having been taken to Court for a hearing on her case, that Plaintiff was strip searched by the jail official, having been required to remove all of her clothing under the visual inspection of a jail employee. At the time when Plaintiff was strip searched, there was no reasonable cause to believe she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
53. Plaintiff, Rebecca Hagan, on March 27, 2004, was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants, and possession of marijuana, in Anderson County, Kentucky. Those charges are still pending. Plaintiff Hagan was taken into custody by Lawrenceburg Police, and later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there as no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Hagan was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
54. Plaintiff, Karen Gamble, was charged in Anderson County, Kentucky, with Assault IV. As a result of a plea agreement entered by her with the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Plaintiff was required to serve 2 days in the Franklin County Correctional Complex. Plaintiff reported for service of her sentence on October 27, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. at the Franklin County Correctional Complex. After arrival, Plaintiff was instructed to go into a room where there was a shower, a shelf unit with clothes and bins of flip flops. Plaintiff was told by a jail employee to strip off al of her clothing, including all under garments. Plaintiff asked, but was
10

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 11 of 23
refused, to be allowed to wear her under garments. Plaintiff was made to stand in front of the jail employee naked, raise her arms, then bend over and shake her hands through her hair. Plaintiff was made to open her mouth and raise her tongue. After this, Plaintiff was instructed to turn around, facing away from the guard, bend over and spread her buttocks open for the guard to see inside her rectal area. There was no reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
55. That Plaintiff, Angela Nesselrode, was charged in Clark County, Kentucky, and transported from Clark County jail to Franklin County Correctional Complex on March 7, 2005, on charges of contempt of court for failure to appear, and failure to pay fines. Plaintiff was not initially strip searched upon her arrival at the jail. She was, however, on March 8, 2005, strip searched by a jail employee. On March 10, 2005, she was moved to general population, at which time she was informed that jail policy is to strip search all female prisoners who are moved to the general population. Thus, again on March 10, 2005, Plaintiff Nesselrode was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Nesselrode was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee on each of the two (2) occasions when she was strip searched.
56. Plaintiff, Penny Tillett, was arrested on March 6, 2004, for theft by deception and contempt of court in Franklin County, Kentucky. On March 8, 2004, Plaintiff Tillett had a hearing in Franklin District Court. Later on March 8, 2004, when Plaintiff was back at the jail, she was informed that she was being moved to back to the general population, and that she
11

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 12 of 23
needed to shower in advance of the move. The female officer who was moving her made Plaintiff strip off all of her clothing, including all under garments. Plaintiff had to stand in front of the jail employee naked, raise her arms, lift her breasts so that the guard could see under them, then turn around, facing away from the guard, bend over and cough. There was no reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
57. Plaintiff, Tommy Cummins, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in May of 2004, on contempt for failure to pay fines. Plaintiff Cummins was taken into custody by police. Plaintiff was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
58. Plaintiff, Jillian Baker, was arrested on March 19, 2005, in Franklin County, Kentucky, on charges of failure to appear and failure to pay fines. She was taken into custody, and taken to the Franklin County Correctional Complex, but was never placed into the general population. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Baker advised the jail officer that she was wearing a tampon, but was still required to bend over naked before the guard. Further, the Plaintiff was required to lift her breasts in order that the guard could see under them.
12

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 13 of 23
59. Plaintiff, Sandra McClease, was arrested August 2003 for extortion and in November of 2003 for theft by deception. Plaintiff was transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex on each such occasion where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
60. Plaintiff, Angela Lear, was charged with possession of a forged instrument, two (2) counts, in March of 2003, in Franklin County, Kentucky, one of said charges having been later dismissed and the other Plaintiff having been found not guilty. The Plaintiff was taken into custody and transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, lift her breasts in the presence of the jail officer, turn around and bend over so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
61. Plaintiff, Linda Epling, was charged with a violation of her probation conditions when she failed to maintain automobile insurance for a period of time. Plaintiff Epling was taken into custody in Shelby County, Kentucky, and taken to the Shelby County Jail, where she was held for 1 and ½ days. Plaintiff was never strip searched by the Shelby County Jail. Plaintiff was then transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex, where, upon her arrival she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a
13

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 14 of 23
Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Epling was required to spread her legs, stoop, and cough vigorously, all under the direct visual observation of a jail employee.
62. Plaintiff, Joe Farler, was arrested on charges of contempt of court and/or Alcohol Intoxication in May of 2004. Plaintiff was taken to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was required to serve 60 days. During Plaintiff’s time in the Franklin County Correctional Complex, he was searched on 4 different occasions. On the first such occasion, Plaintiff was hesitant to remove his clothing as directed. Plaintiff asked the jail guard whether or not such searches were legal in light of the fact that there had been previous litigation about illegal strip searches. The Plaintiff was informed by the guard that the jail personnel has the right to “strip search anybody we want, anytime we want to.” Plaintiff Farler was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
63. Plaintiff, Jimmy Hammonds, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in March of 2003, on charges of contempt for failing to attend domestic violence classes. Plaintiff Hammonds was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished. Plaintiff Hammonds was required to bend over, cough all while a jail employee shined a light into the Plaintiff’s rectal area.
64. Plaintiff, Davanika Barber, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in January of 2005, for speeding and driving on a suspended license. Said Plaintiff was taken into custody
14

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 15 of 23
and later taken to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she spent several hours in a booking area, and was not strip searched during this period of time. However, after a court appearance, (wherein she was sentenced to serve 10 days in jail, such sentence to be served on weekends), the Plaintiff was strip searched every single time she reported to the jail for service of her sentence. At the time of each strip search Plaintiff was forced to endure, there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband.
65. Plaintiff, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, on charges of unlawful transaction with a minor as a result of truancy. Plaintiff McClease was taken into custody and later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
66. Plaintiff, Tony Ray McClease, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, on charges of unlawful transaction with a minor as a result of truancy. Plaintiff McClease was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where hew as subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
67. Plaintiff, James Dion Bixler, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in November, 2004, for operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was suspended. Plaintiff Bixler was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County
15

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 16 of 23
Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
68. Plaintiff, Jonathan Cox, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in December of 2004, for operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was suspended. Plaintiff Bixler was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
69. Plaintiff, Tammy Laurine Cooper, was arrested in Anderson County, Kentucky, for contempt of court on underlying convictions of driving on a suspended operator’s license, and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff Cooper was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished. Moreover, said Plaintiff had numerous court appointments after having been incarcerated, and was strip searched each and every time upon her return from court. Said Plaintiff has now been strip searched more than twenty (20) times since August 25, 2004.
70. Plaintiff, Natasha Marie Hunter, was arrested in Franklin County, Kentucky, in the year 2000 on charges of shoplifting. Said Plaintiff was taken into custody and was later
16

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 17 of 23
transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
71. Plaintiff, Patricia Tipton, was arrested in 2001 in Franklin County, Kentucky for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff Tipton was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
Further, said Plaintiff is currently serving a misdemeanor sentence in the said Franklin County Correctional Complex, where she was placed in lockdown for 30 days. Upon being released from lockdown, said Plaintiff was strip searched when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
72. Plaintiff, Julie Ann Cornn, was arrested in Franklin County on June 16, 2004, for theft by unlawful taking (misdemeanor). Said Plaintiff was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where she was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that she was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional
17

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 18 of 23
Complex employee to remove all of her clothing, so that a visual inspection of her person could be accomplished.
73. Plaintiff, Darren Dean Hockensmith, was arrested in Franklin County in April of 2005, for contempt of court as a result of his failure to pay child support. Said Plaintiff was taken into custody and was later transported to the Franklin County Correctional Complex where he was subjected to a strip search when there was no reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying or concealing weapons or contraband. Specifically, Plaintiff was required by a Franklin County Correctional Complex employee to remove all of his clothing, so that a visual inspection of his person could be accomplished.
74. Plaintiffs, Alpha LeMay, Timothy Lee Green, Teresa Hendren, Sara Hodgkin, Derek Harvey, William Mills, April Engler, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, Melissa Pickett, and Stephen Wise, individually and separately, were arrested in Franklin County during the time frame at issue in this case, and each was arrested on a minor or misdemeanor, non-violent offense, but Defendants and their representatives strip searched and/or body cavity searched each of these individual plaintiffs.
75. In 1979, the United States Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee has the right not to be searched unless the reasonableness of such search is established by “balancing…the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. On April 18, 1989, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 977, 110 S.Ct. 503 (1989), in which it held:
It was clearly established on October 21, 1986, that a pretrial detainee has the right not to be searched unless the reasonableness of such search is established by “a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal
18

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 19 of 23
rights that the search entails.” (Citations omitted). It was equally clearly established that a person charged only with a traffic violation or nonviolent minor offense may not be subjected to a search unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the particular person might be carrying or concealing weapons or other contraband. Id. at 1257 (emphasis in original). Masters specifically involved the strip-search of a person arrested for a nonviolent minor offense by the Jefferson County Department of Corrections. In this case, Plaintiffs were arrested for nonviolent minor offenses. Neither their behavior nor their appearance gave Defendants any reasonable grounds for believing that they might be carrying or concealing weapons or other contraband. Under such circumstances, Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiffs expose the most private part of their physical person for a visual inspection was unconscionable, was an illegal strip-search by any definition, and was a flagrant violation of the balancing of Bell v. Wolfish, supra.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Count I
76. Paragraphs 1-75 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 76.
77. Plaintiffs’ search, described above, was part of a continuing pattern of misconduct and is the result of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs and practices of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Franklin County, either written or unwritten, that are systematically applied whenever an arrestee is admitted to the Franklin County Correctional Complex. A judgment was recently entered against the Defendants for similar misconduct and the Defendants continue to perform illegal strip-searches. Such practices constitute an arbitrary use of government power, and evince a total, intentional and unreasonable disregard for the
19

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 20 of 23
constitutional and common law rights of the citizens of Kentucky, including Plaintiffs and the wholesale violations of those rights likely to result from the systematic pursuit of such practices.
78. As the result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, through Defendants’ intentional or grossly negligent conduct, were deprived without due process of law of the following rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to each of them by the Constitution of the United States in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983:
(a) Their right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(b) Their right to privacy in their persons against unreasonable intrusions under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(c) Their right to the equal protection of the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(d) Their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighty and Fourteenth Amendments.
79. Moreover, given the pre-existing law that clearly prohibited Defendants’ conduct and the recent entry of a judgment against these same Defendants for this same conduct, Defendants search of Plaintiffs was intentional, wanton and malicious, and was indicative of Defendants’ total and reckless disregard of, indifference to the rights of, and risk of harm to, Plaintiffs.
B. Count II 80. Paragraphs 1-79 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 80. 81. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably inflicted upon Plaintiffs severe mental and emotional distress.
C. Count III 20

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 21 of 23
82. Paragraphs 1-81 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 82.
83. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants were negligent, and grossly negligent, all to the damage of Plaintiffs.
VIII. DAMAGES 84. Paragraphs 1-83 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 84. 85. Plaintiffs were unjustifiably and unconstitutionally searched in a manner that generated tremendous and overwhelming embarrassment, humiliation and mental and emotional distress. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and are entitled to recover, actual damages. Furthermore, Defendants’ violations of the constitutional and common law rights of Plaintiffs were cruel, malicious, and evinced a total and reckless disregard for and indifference to those rights, entitling Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages from Defendants in order to deter such conduct in the future.
IX. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 86. Paragraphs 1-85 above are incorporated herein by reference and made this Paragraph 86. 87. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment deeming unconstitutional any and all statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or practices under which they were forced to expose their genitalia for visual inspection, and further request that this Court permanently enjoin Defendants from following or enforcing such statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, procedures, customs or usages.
21

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 76-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 22 of 23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and all other members of the class,
respectfully demand the following relief: (a) trial by jury, (b) for an award of actual and punitive
damages, (c) that they be granted the declaratory and injunctive relief requested herein, and (d)
that they be awarded their costs, attorneys’ fees and all other relief to which they are entitled
under law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
S. MARIE HELLARD, P.S.C. S. Marie Hellard, Esq. 148 South Main Street Lawrenceburg, KY 40342 (502) 839-0004
and
HERREN & ADAMS 148 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 (859) 254-0024
/s/ Thomas K. Herren________________ THOMAS K. HERREN CHARLES C. ADAMS, JR. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC
TINA MICHELLE BLACK, et al.,
V.
FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM ORDER This civil rights litigation was recently referred to the undersigned for resolution of pending discovery disputes and motions to amend pretrial deadlines and for a settlement conference, if appropriate. On June 21, 2006, defendants moved to compel written discovery responses from a number of plaintiffs who had not responded to discovery requests served in January of this year. Plaintiffs only response is to request additional time,1 until October 1, 2006 “due to the number of plaintiffs.” Only sixteen plaintiffs remain at this time. Plaintiffs are forewarned that their response does not demonstrate good cause for the overdue responses. Nevertheless, in light of the recency of the referral of this motion to the undersigned and the fact that the requested

1As defendants note in a reply memorandum, plaintiffs’ response itself was untimely.

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 2 of 7
extension is just 22 days away, the court will grant the extension on this occasion.
On July 21, 2006, plaintiffs moved to compel defendants to produce both written records and an additional Rule 30(b)(6) witness concerning defendants’ strip search policies. Specifically, plaintiffs seek copies of all strip search forms for all inmates confined between March 28, 2004 and the present, as well as copies of inmate files for 56 inmates identified in plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a) disclosures.2
Defendants object to production of any inmate records outside of those pertaining to plaintiffs, on the basis that this case has not yet been certified as a class action and defendants’ motion to strike class action allegations remains pending before the court. Therefore, defendants argue that information pertaining to inmates other than plaintiffs is irrelevant. Defendants also cite privacy concerns, and the burden and expense of searching and copying the records of other inmates.
2In a Memorandum Opinion and Order of August 16, 2005, the court partially granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims of certain plaintiffs. The court held that the claims of any plaintiff whose claims arose more than a year prior to the date the amended complaint was filed (5-9-05)would be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, reasoning that the claims of new plaintiffs do not relate back to the date the complaint was filed (3-28-05).
2

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 3 of 7
With respect to the production of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, defendants state that they have no objection to producing a witness on the subject “of the strip search policies and procedures and application thereof” as requested by plaintiffs’ counsel via correspondence dated May 31,2006, but that plaintiffs never issued a Notice of Deposition for such a representative and failed to respond to defendants’ request for more detailed information concerning the subject matter of the representative’s testimony. Defendants also complain generally that, while they are willing to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, they should not be forced to produce witnesses for deposition prior to being able to complete plaintiffs’ depositions, which have been stalled pending receipt of plaintiffs’ responses to written discovery. Plaintiffs filed no reply to defendants’ response.3
Plaintiffs’ motion concerning defendants’ responses to written discovery requests will be denied absent a stronger showing of relevance or class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) representative will be denied
3In their initial motion to compel, plaintiffs partially address the issue of timing, noting correctly that the Federal Rules do not permit one party to insist on production by another party prior to providing discovery. Nevertheless, plaintiffs offer to produce “three or four of their plaintiffs prior to or simultaneously with the requested [Rule 30(b)(6)] deposition.”
3

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 4 of 7
for failure to comply with LR 37.1 as it does not appear that plaintiffs have exhausted good faith extrajudicial efforts to schedule the Rule 30(b)(6) representative prior to bringing the dispute before this court.
Plaintiffs have also moved for five OR six months extension of the pretrial deadlines agreed to by the parties and adopted by this court on November 14, 2005.4 Although no prior extensions of the pretrial scheduling deadlines have been granted, the sole basis provided for the proposed lengthy extension is the current discovery dispute and defendants’ refusal to produce the records of non-party inmates. Defendants oppose any extension unless the court certifies this litigation as a class action.
When a motion is made after the expiration of a deadline, “excusable neglect” must be demonstrated for the party’s failure to act in a timely manner. Rule 6(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. In this case, defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to meet this standard despite filing their motion for extension after the expiration of deadlines to amend the pleadings and to complete Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures. Defendants also dispute plaintiffs’ contention that they need additional
4For the most part, plaintiffs seek an extension of five months. However, plaintiffs seek at least a six months’ extension of the deadline to amend their pleadings.
4

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 5 of 7
discovery prior to producing expert reports, noting that defendants produced the strip search reports and inmate files for all plaintiffs, as well as FCCC policies and procedures, over seven months ago.
The court having reviewed the pending motions, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ motion to compel discovery [DE #58] is granted in part, but plaintiffs’ request for additional time likewise will be granted. Plaintiffs shall respond to the outstanding discovery not later than October 1, 2006. Should plaintiffs fail to timely comply with this order, the court will entertain a motion for discovery sanctions under Rule 37;
2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery [DE #62] is denied without prejudice to renew upon a ruling on the motion for class certification and/or upon full compliance with LR 37.1;
3. Plaintiffs’ motions for an extension of the deadline to amend pleadings [included in DE #45] and of all other pretrial deadlines [DE #62] are granted in part and denied in part as follows:
a. The deadline to amend pleadings is extended until October 2, 2006;
b. All discovery shall be commenced in time to be 5

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 6 of 7
completed by February 28, 2007, with joint or separate status reports to be filed the same date;
c. Any dispositive motions shall be filed not later than March 20, 2007;
d. Any motions in limine shall be filed not later than April 5, 2007;
e. Plaintiffs must complete Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures not later than October 2, 2006, with defendants to make corresponding disclosures not later than November 29, 2006;
f. The final pretrial dates of March 19, 2007 and April 24, 2007 shall be vacated, with this record to be submitted to the presiding district judge upon entry of this order to schedule new dates if appropriate and for ruling on pending matters not referred to the undersigned [DE ##42, 45, 52, 53, 60];
g. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF THESE DEADLINES WILL BE GRANTED ABSENT A STRONG SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE AFFIDAVIT, unless class certification is granted;
4. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time in which to produce expert reports [DE #68] is granted as specified in ¶3(e) of this Order;
6

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 71 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 7 of 7 5. If the parties jointly request a court-convened
status conference, joint status report to be filed on or before October 10, 2006 with mutually agreeable dates.
This 8th day of September, 2006.
7

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC

AT ~

Q

V

u LESLIE G Y’cl’7b~FR
CLERK s DiS1x:e j COURT

TINA MICHELLE BLACK, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS

V.

FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This matter is before the court on five nondispositive motions: 1) plaintiffs’ second

motion to amend their complaint; 2) defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ expert; 3)

defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions; 4) plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to certify this

litigation as a class action; and 5) defendants’ motion to extend time to produce expert

information. A sixth motion, filed by defendants for summaryjudgment, will be submitted to the

presiding district judge.

Background

The presiding district judge previously set forth the factual background of this litigation

in a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on August 16,2005:

All of the claims in this original complaint and amended complaint arise hom alleged
strip searches conducted upon Plaintiffs at the Franklin County Correctional
Complex (“FCCC”). Generally, the original and amended complaints allege that personnel at the FCCC strip searched Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs were arrested for
various minor, nonviolent offenses. ...

Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this case on March 28, 2005. On April 6, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew via an Agreed Order with Defendants. On May 9,2005, Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint, adding 24 new Plaintiffs. . ..

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 2 of 13
DE #35 at pp. 1-2. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims of eleven plaintiffs. The court also dismissed claims against the FCCC, the plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment claims and the Equal Protection claims of all plaintiffs except for plaintiff Black.
As noted by the district court in a subsequent Opinion and Order filed on September 28, 2006, “there are currently 16 Plaintiffs in this action, all of whom assert that the Defendants violated their Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. In addition, Plaintiff Black asserts an Equal Protection claim.” DE #72, p. 1.
Analysis 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend their Complaint [DE #76] On October 2, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add 13 new plaintiffs. Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motion, suggesting that this court’s prior order granting plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings contemplated only the addition of new claims rather than additional parties. Amendment of pleadings is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), which states in relevant
part that “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course . . . Otherwise a
party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court . . . and leave shall be freely given when justice requires.” The order granting the plaintiffs an extension of time in which to amend their pleadings does not bear the restrictive interpretation ascribed to it by the defendants. In deciding whether to grant a plaintiffs motion to amend their pleadings, “the court should consider the delay in filing, the lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the
2

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 3 of 13
opposing party, and futility of amendmentt.” Perkins v. Am. Electric Power Fuel Supply, Inc., 246 F.3d 593, 605 (6” Cir. 2001). None of the Perkins factors militate against permitting the requested amendment. Plaintiffs’ motion falls within the time frame prescribed by the court, and there is no evidence that the plaintiffs have unduly delayed discovery.
Defendants’ restrictive interpretation of the court’s prior order extending the time to amend is also undermined by the court’s order of September 28,2006. (D.E. #72). In denying the defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations in that order, the court noted that plaintiffs’ counsel had received numerous communications from third parties complaining of similar treatment at the hands of the defendants. The court extended the discovery period to allow time for plaintiffs to investigate, among other things, new complaints from unknown plaintiffs. Judicial economy is promoted by the joining of all relevant parties. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint will be granted.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness [DE #79] The defendants have moved to strike the plaintiffs’ expert pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(c)(l). The defendants claim that the both the initial and amended expert disclosure reports offered by the plaintiffs fail to meet the standards laid out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and were filed after the October 1, 2006 deadline. Plaintiffs respond by first arguing that the original report met the requisite standards, given the stage of the discovery completed at that time. Second, plaintiffs assert that any deficiencies in the original report are remedied by the amended report filed in opposition to defendants’ motion to strike. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) explains the disclosure requirements for experts: Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, this disclosure shall, with respect to a witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert
3

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 4 of 13
testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony, and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition with the preceding four years.
Sanctions for failure to provide disclosure of experts under Rule 26 is governed by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(c)(l), which states:
A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(l), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court, on motion and after affording an opportunity to be heard, may impose other appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, these sanctions may include any of the sanctions authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and may include informing the jury of the failure to make the disclosure.
Plaintiffs’ initial expert disclosure clearly does not comply with the strict requirements of
Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The report provides only the most general and conclusory information, stating
that “Mr. Rosazza will testify that there are various violations of not only the Franklin County
Jail policy and procedure, federal and state law, including basic civil rights,” and that “Mr.
Rosazza will include a comprehensive statement of the case as well as specific opinions and the
basis for his opinions.” The deficiencies of the report are Substantial.
First, the report fails to explain how the expert reached his conclusion that violations of law
have occurred. Second, none of the parties are identified in the report. It is difficult to
understand how such a report could in any way inform the course of the defendants’ subsequent
4

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 5 of 13
deposition of the expert. Finally, the report expressly states that a comprehensive statement of the case will be forthcoming. However, the place for such a statement lies in the report itself. While Rule 26 permits supplementation of initial disclosures, such disclosures are intended to correct or complete an already satisfactory report, not bolster a facially deficient one. For these reasons, plaintiffs’ initial expert disclosure report is unsatisfactory.
The plaintiffs filed a supplemental report on November 9,2006 as an attachment to their response to defendants’ motion to strike. In a reply in support of the motion to strike, the defendants complain that the supplemental report is both untimely and fails to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). With respect to timeliness, the court’s order of September 8,2006 granted plaintiffs an extension of their deadline to submit expert disclosures until October 2,2006, but warned that absent a strong showing by affidavit, no further extensions would be granted.
Noting the court’s admonition that further extensions of discovery deadlines would be denied absent a strong showing of good cause, defendants argue that the supplemental report is untimely because plaintiffs failed to seek an extension or to provide good cause to extend the October deadline. Therefore, defendants urge this court to strike plaintiffs’ expert.
Although the court concurs with defendants’ assessment of plaintiffs’ supplemental report as deficient under Rule 26(a)(2), I decline to strike plaintiffs’ expert as untimely. Plaintiffs’ original report was timely, despite its serious deficiencies. In this case the court will construe the supplemental report as relating back to the timely submitted original report.
The supplemental report indicates that the plaintiffs’ expert has been “provided with a number o f . . . allegations of illegal strip andor body cavity searches which on their face would not meet the requirements of the FCJ policy, would be a violation of commonly accepted
5

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 6 of 13
standards and practices in the industry, and would be violations of constitutional standards.” However, the report fails to explain what those standards are, or to relate them to any specific allegations. Nevertheless, the supplemental report exhibits at least a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of Rule 26 such that striking the plaintiffs’ expert would be an unduly harsh penalty.
None of the authorities cited by defendants require the imposition of the requested penalty as a sanction under Rule 37.l For example, in Smith v. Botsford Gen. Hosp., 419 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2005), the trial court struck the testimony of an expert medical witness for failing disclose ex parte communications with the decedent’s relative regarding his condition and symptoms. Id. at 516. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal, noting that “Rule 37 authorizes-indeed, directs-exclusion of the witness as a sanction for a Rule 26 violation.” Id. at 5 17. Although the defendants make much of the word “directs” in this context, closer reading of the opinion clarifies the Sixth Circuit’s affirmation of the lower court’s discretion to “impose less stringent sanction than mandatory preclusion.” This view is bolstered by the appellate court’s citation to other cases emphasizing that “‘because the district court is in the best position to determine whether a party has complied with discovely orders, its discretion is especially broad.”’ Id. (quotingAmes v. VunDyne, 100 F.3d 956 (Table), 1996 WL 662899 at *4 (6th Cir. 1996)); see also Roberts ex. rel. Johnson v. Galen of Va.,Inc., 325 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2002)(no abuse of discretion for failing to exclude expert who failed to file report).
Although a greater sanction would be warranted if the failure to disclose were discovered
In addition to the cases discussed, the defendants cited Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 164 F.R.D. 49 (S.D.W.V. 1995). While the Smith court found certain expert disclosures to be inadequate, the court merely granted the opposing party’s motion to compel.
6

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 7 of 13
on the eve of trial, in this case the harsh sanction of exclusion is not appropriate. Instead, the court will direct plaintiffs to further supplement their report, and impose a small monetary sanction.
3. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [DE #80] Defendants have also moved for sanctions pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 37(b) based upon the alleged failure of certain plaintiffs to comply with this court’s order of September 8,2006. In that order, the court granted defendants’ prior motion to compel discovery, directing plaintiffs to serve their responses by October 1,2006. Plaintiffs were explicitly warned that a failure to timely submit the discovery responses could result in sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P 37. The defendants now seek dismissal of the claims asserted by eleven plaintiffs. Plaintiffs offer several explanations for their non-compliance. Plaintiffs’ counsel state that they have been unable to reach Mr. Curtis, Ms. Nesselrode, Ms. Baker, Mr. Farler, Mr. Bixler, and Ms. Cornn, despite repeated attempts. Each owes responses to the defendants’ written interrogatories and requests for document production. No explanation has been provided for their failure to respond other than an apparent breakdown in communication between plaintiffs and their attorneys. As to Ms. Creech, Ms. McClease, Mr. McClease, and Mr. Hockensmith, plaintiffs’ counsel contends that they cannot produce documents which are not in their possession. However, plaintiffs have failed to respond to the requests with any information concerning their possession or non-possession of the requested documents. Defendants further assert that these plaintiffs have failed to answer certain written interrogatories. Unlike other plaintiffs, Ms. Cooper has responded to defendants’ discovery requests.
7

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 8 of 13
Defendants’ only complaint is that her signature does not appear on her answers to
interrogatories. Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that Ms. Cooper is currently incarcerated and that
she will sign and verify her responses at the earliest possible time. Likewise, Ms. Black, Ms.
Hockensmith, and Ms. Epling have all complied with the defendants’ discovery requests.
In considering the appropriate sanctions for failure to provide responses to discovery
requests under court order, the Court is guided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), which provides in
relevant part:
If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule . . . the court in which the action is
pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among other the following:
(A) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party form introducing designated matters in evidence;
(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; ... In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising that party or both to the pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
A district court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a party
who has violated the court’s discovery order. See Phillips v. Cohen, 400 F.3d 388,402 (6thCir.
2005) (“The choice of what sanction to impose is vested in the court’s discretion.”); 8A Charles
8

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 9 of 13
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure 3 2284
(2006) (“The district court may, within reason, use as many and as varied sanctions as are necessary to hold the scales of justice even.”).
No just reason has been provided for the failure of the first group of plaintiffs to adhere to the court’s discovery order. Although the extreme sanction of dismissal is not warranted at this time, the court will award defendants their reasonable attorney’s fees in making the motion as a sanction for plaintiffs’ past non-compliance. Should plaintiffs fail again to comply with this order, the court will consider additional sanctions including but not limited to dismissal.
The court will direct the second group of plaintiffs to more fully respond to the outstanding discovery requests without imposing sanctions at this time. Similarly, the court will direct Ms. Cooper to sign and verify her responses as soon as possible, on a date not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of this order. Any future failure to comply with this order by the second group of plaintiffs or by Ms. Cooper will almost certainly result in sanctions.
4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time To Certify Class [DE #90] The amended complaint contains allegations which relate to plaintiffs’ intent to seek class certification. Early in this litigation plaintiffs agreed to withdraw a motion to certify a class pending an initial period of discovery. Now, some twenty-one months after the initiation of this litigation, plaintiffs have yet to re-file a motion to certify a class. The court’s September 28, 2006 Opinion denied defendants’ motion to strike all class action allegations from plaintiffs’ complaint, but directed plaintiffs to file a motion to certify promptly or face the striking of their class allegations.
9

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 10 of 13
Because the Court is unable to determine whether this action meets the requirements of Rule 23 on the existing record, the Court will permit discovery to proceed before striking the class allegations from the Complaint. .... The Court will, however, require that any Motion for Class Certification be file within 60 days of the entry date of this Opinion and Order. Failure to file any such motion will result in the striking of the class allegations from the complaint. DE #72 at p. 4. On the date they were required to file their motion, plaintiffs instead moved for an extension of time in which to file their motion to certify a class. Plaintiffs seek an additional sixty days in which to file their motion “due to the state of discovery” including the overall discovery deadline of February 28, 2007. Plaintiffs argue specifically that they need further discovery “to show what point the searches have occurred in the process of booking/arraigmnents, etc.,” and “on the application by the jail personnel of their own policies.” However, plaintiffs have been aware of the sixty-day deadline in which to gather any necessary discovery since September 28. In addition, the order extending the overall discovery deadline to February was set prior to the court’s September 28 order directing plaintiffs to file their class certification motion within sixty days. Clearly, the court intended for plaintiffs to complete any discovery necessary to file the class certification motion at the outset of the discovery period. However, defendants point out that the only deposition requested by plaintiff in the last sixty days has been a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a representative most knowledgeable on the FCCC’s policies and procedures, which deposition was recently cancelled by plaintiff due to a conflict. The only outstanding paper discovery referenced by plaintiffs was the subject of a motion to compel w-hichwas denied by this court in its September 28 order.
10

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 11 of 13
Rule 23 requires that class certification “shall” be decided “as soon as practicable” after the commencement of an action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l), a fact recognized by the court in setting the prior deadline. As stated, this litigation is now more than 21 months old.
Plaintiffs argue that it would be inappropriate to rule on class certification before additional plaintiffs are added by the proposed second amended complaint. However, if a class is certified, an unknown number of plaintiffs may be added. The addition of plaintiffs in the second amended complaint as potential class representatives does not preclude a decision on the propriety of a class under Rule 23.
Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel represents that the sheer volume of material in this litigation “has prompted the undersigned counsel to consider whether our office is equipped to handle class action litigation, with appropriate notification to class members, etc.” Counsel also seeks additional time “to consult possible substitute counsel for that purpose.” Again, the court can only note that plaintiffs’ counsel have had more than twenty-one months - presumably including prior to the filing of the complaint - to determine whether counsel is equipped to handle class action litigation. Counsel have not demonstrated good cause for a further extension.
Despite the lack of good cause shown, the court will in the interest of justice permit plaintiffs a brief extension of time in which to file their motion for class certification before imposing the harsh penalty of striking plaintiffs’ allegations. Although only the briefest extensions is warranted, due to the briefing schedule of the plaintiffs’ motion itself as well as the timing of the entry of this order, the extension will result in plaintiffs having a full sixty days beyond the expiration of their original November 27 deadline.
11

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 12 of 13
5. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time To Produce Expert Information [DE #91] Defendants seek to extend time to produce expert information on the new plaintiffs added in the second amended complaint. The extension is limited to the disclosure of Rule 26 information pertaining to the newly proposed plaintiffs. No opposition being heard and for good cause shown, it will be granted. Conclusion The Court having reviewed the pending motions, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint [D.E. #76] is granted, the court having already received plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, and the amended complaint shall be filed of record; 2. Defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ expert [D.E. #79] is denied; 3. Plaintiffs shall within fifteen (15 ) days from the date of entry of this order provide a revised expert disclosure report that more fully complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) as discussed in this order. Failure to do so may subject plaintiffs to additional sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(l), including precluding the expert Witness from testifying at trial; 4. Upon motion, defendants may extend the deadline for disclosure of their own expert witness(es) until sixty (60) days after final submission of the plaintiffs’ expert report. 5 . The defendants’ motion for sanctions [DE #&O] is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Plaintiffs shall pay to defendants the sum of $500.00 as a monetary sanction based upon the fees expended by defendants in filing the motion to strike plaintiffs’ deficient expert report, and defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions.
12

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 13 of 13
b. Within ten (10) days of the date of this order, all plaintiffs shall fully comply with this court’s September 8,2006 order as more fully detailed in the body of this Memorandum Order. Any plaintiff who fails to fully comply with this order may be subject to dismissal, the court having twice directed plaintiffs to respond to discovery and having imposed in this order a lesser monetary sanction for their prior noncompliance.
6. Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to certify a class [DE #90] is granted in part. Plaintiffs shall file any such motion not later than January 26,2007. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. A failure to timely file a motion to certify will result in the class allegations being stricken from the complaint;
7. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time in which to identify experts on the newly added plaintiffs [DE #91] is granted.
This 29thday of December, 2006.
1&u Signed By:
J. Grecrory Wehrman
United States Magistrate Judge
13

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 132 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT FRANKFORT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC
TINA MICHELLE BLACK, et al.,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Although six non-dispositive motions have been disposed of by Memorandum Order filed this day, a seventh motion which seeks dismissal of certain plaintiffs as a sanction under Rule 37 [DE #102] will be addressed herein pursuant to local practice. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b). As indicated in the Memorandum Order, the defendants’ motion has been to denied as to certain plaintiffs, but is appropriate as to plaintiffs Jillian Baker and Darren Dean Hockensmith for failure to prosecute, failure to participate in discovery, and failure to comply with the prior discovery orders of this court. Dismissal is a sanction which should be used "if the Court concludes that the party's failure to cooperate in discovery was willful, in bad faith, or due to its own fault." Beil v. Lakewood Engineering & Mf'g Co., 15 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 1994). "If a party has the ability to comply with a discovery order and does not, dismissal is not an abuse of discretion." Regional Refuse Systems, Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 154 (6th Cir. 1988). See also Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237 (6th Cir. 1995); Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916 F.2d 1067 (6th Cir. 1990).
1

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 132 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
While dismissal is obviously the harshest sanction which can be imposed for discovery abuses, it is warranted in some cases. However, dismissal under either Rule 37 or Rule 41(b) should be imposed only after consideration of the following factors: (1) whether the party’s failure to cooperate is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dilatory conduct of the party; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. See Regional Refuse System, Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co. 842 F.2d at 153-55.
In this case, all factors favor the dismissal of the two identified plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs’ repeated failure to respond to legitimate discovery requests violated the Civil Rules of Procedure and this court’s prior orders of September 8 and December 29, 2006, and can only be viewed as deliberate. The defendants have been prejudiced by their inability to obtain discovery within the time frame mandated by this court and by being put to additional expense of filing repeated motions. The plaintiffs have had sufficient notice of the possibility of dismissal based upon their failure to respond to defendants’ discovery requests. Not only did this court previously order plaintiffs to respond, but in its order of December 29, 2006 the court specifically warned plaintiffs that dismissal would be recommended should they continue to fail to respond. See Harmon v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 110 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir. 1997)(flatly rejecting any argument that the plaintiff lacked notice that the district court was contemplating dismissal, in light of the fact that the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss); Regional Refuse Systems,Inc.,842 F.2d at 154 (same). Lesser sanctions were explicitly considered and imposed in the court’s previous order and plaintiffs were permitted time to “show cause” for their failure
2

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 132 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
to respond. Monetary sanctions are no longer a realistic alternative given plaintiffs’ complete failure to participate in the discovery process and the lack of any legitimate justification for their repeated failures to do so.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of identified plaintiffs [DE #102] be granted in part and that the claims of Jillian Baker and Darren Dean Hockensmith be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to respond to discovery, and failure to comply with this court’s September 8 and December 29, 2006 orders.
OBJECTIONS to this report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days of the date of service of the same or further appeal is waived. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981), Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Poorly drafted objections, general objections or objections that require a judge's interpretation should be afforded no effect and are insufficient to preserve the right of appeal. See Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). A party may file a response to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Rule 72(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
This 26th day of March, 2007.
3

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 144 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at FRANKFORT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-18 TINA MICHELLE BLACK, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS

v.

ORDER

FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, JAMES KEMPER, JR. AND TED HAMMERMEISTER,

DEFENDANTS

**** **** **** ****

On its own motion, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Order entered in this matter on May

24, 2007 (Rec. No. 143) dismissing this action as settled is SET ASIDE. The Court further hereby

ORDERS as follows:

1) There being no objections filed to the Report and Recommendation entered in this matter on

March 26, 2007 and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Report and

Recommendation (Rec. No. 132) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court and the claims

of the Plaintiff Jillian Baker are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute;

2) The Court, by Memorandum Opinion entered in this matter on March 26, 2007 (Rec. No.

130), having ordered the Plaintiffs Jennifer Reneer, Sara Hodgkin, Teresa Hendren, Derek

Harvey, Kimberlie Simmons and Timothy Green to show cause why their claims should not

be dismissed as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and for failure to

prosecute and those Plaintiffs having failed to respond, the claims of those Plaintiffs are

DISMISSED with prejudice as sanctions under Rule 37 and for failure to prosecute; and

Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 144 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 2 3) the claims of the Plaintiffs Maureen O. Mitchell, Deidra Wash, Rebecca Hagan, Karen
Gamble, Penny Tillet, Sandra McClease, Angela Lear, Jimmy Hammonds, Davanika Barker, Natasha Marie Hunter, Jonathan Cox, and Tommy Cummins having been previously DISMISSED by the Court pursuant to Orders dated August 16, 2005 (Rec. No. 35) and September 28, 2006 (Rec. No. 72), the claims of those Plaintiffs are and remain DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the August 16, 2005 Opinion and Order and the September 28, 2006 Opinion and Order. Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007.
2

 
 Case: 3:05-cv-00018-KKC-JGW Doc #: 149 Filed: 08/20/07 Page: 1 of 1 - Page ID#: 1879

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
FRANKFORT DIVISION CASE NO.: 3:05CV18KKC

TINA MICHELLE BLACK et al.,
V.
FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, JAMES KEMPER, JR., AND TED HAMMERMEISTER,

PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS.

AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

By agreement of the partie s, as represented to the Court by the signature of their respective attorney herein below, and the Court being sufficiently advised;
IT IS HER EBY ORDERED that any and al l claims asserted against Defendants by Plaintiffs Wendy Hockensm ith, Melissa Pickett, Tina Black , Linda Epling, W illiam Mills an d Aubrey Cunningham be, and the same are, hereby DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, as settled, each side paying their respective costs and attorney fees.
As no further claim s of Plaintiffs rem ain, the case should be stricken from the docket as settled. There being no just cause for delay, this is a final and appealable order.

/s/ Thomas K. Herren (by permission) Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Andrew DeSimone Attorney for Defendants
g:\wp61\doc\dpm\60376\1ch\frankfor\black\agreed order 3.doc

August 20, 2007

 
 Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 1993445 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky.
Tina Michelle BLACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY; et al., Defendants.
No. Civ.A. 3:05-18-JMH. | Aug. 16, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Marie K. Brannon, Rodney McDaniel, Frankfort, KY, S. Marie Hellard, Thomas M. Jones, Lawrenceburg, KY, for Plaintiffs.
Douglas L. McSwain, Tammy S. Meade, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney PLLC, Lexington, KY, James E. Boyd, Franklin County Attorney’s Office, Frankfort, KY, Richard M. Sullivan, Conliffe, Sandmann & Sullivan, Louisville, KY, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HOOD, J.
*1 This matter is before the Court on several motions. First, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint [Record No. 12]. Plaintiffs filed a response [Record No. 20] to which Defendants replied [Record No. 22]. After Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint [Record No. 21]. Defendants also sought leave, which the Court granted, to file a supplemental motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ original complaint and amended complaint [Record No. 30]. Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint [Record No. 32] to which Defendants replied [Record No. 34]. This matter is now ripe for review.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
All of the claims in the original complaint and amended complaint arise from alleged strip searches conducted

upon Plaintiffs at the Franklin County Correctional Complex (“FCCC”). Generally, the original and amended complaints allege that personnel at the FCCC strip searched Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs were arrested for various minor, nonviolent offenses. The specific nature of each Plaintiffs’ claims will be discussed where relevant in the Discussion section of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this case on March 28, 2005, alleging constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of three Plaintiffs. On April 6, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew via an Agreed Order with Defendants. On May 9, 2005, Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint, adding 24 new Plaintiffs. Although the specific nature of Plaintiffs’ individual claims varies, all of the claims generally assert that Plaintiffs were strip searched in contravention of their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint on May 9, 2005. After seeking an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, Defendants also sought dismissal of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint via a second motion to dismiss filed on June 8, 2005. On June 21, 2005, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental motion to dismiss followed by an Agreed Order granting such motion. The Court entered the Agreed Order, thereby granting Defendants’ motion for leave to file a supplemental motion to dismiss.
Typically, when a “plaintiff files [an] amended complaint, [the] new complaint supersedes all previous complaints and controls [the] case from that point forward.” Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir.2000). In this case, however, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint incorporated by reference the original complaint and merely added claims asserted by different Plaintiffs arising out of similar factual scenarios. Additionally, Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss with respect to both of Plaintiffs’ complaints. As such, one motion to dismiss does not supersede the other and, instead, the Court must address the merits of both motions to dismiss, and the supplemental motion to dismiss.
1

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

STANDARD OF REVIEW
*2 Defendants labeled the instant motion a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 12(b)(6). A 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the pleadings and is “not a challenge to the plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950, 958-59 (2005). A district court considering a motion to dismiss must “assume that all allegations are true and dismiss the claim ‘only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” ’ Id. at 959 (quoting Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996)). At the same time, though liberal, “ ‘this standard of review does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions.” ’ Id. (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109-10 (6th Cir.1995)).
On the other hand, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) gives district courts the power to convert a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment “where the court is presented with materials outside the pleadings.” Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. S. Council of Indus. Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund, 203 F.3d 926, 931 (6th Cir.2000). The Rule states, “If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment ... and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).
However, in construing the language from the Rule mandating that a court wishing to convert the motion must “give all parties ... ‘reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to’ the issue,” the Sixth Circuit has stated that “it is ‘serious error’ for a district court to convert the motion sua sponte to a summary judgment motion without notice to parties and without further discovery.” Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713, 719 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir.2001)). In fact, only “unequivocal notice” will satisfy the notice requirement. Helwig, 251 F.3d at 552. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit has recognized a district court’s authority to, in lieu of providing notice to the parties and converting the motion into one for summary judgment, disregard the extrinsic evidence submitted and examine only the sufficiency of the complaint. See Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir.1999) (“On the other hand, Life of Virginia’s attachment of the illustration ... is a ‘matter [ ] outside the pleadings.’ But the district court did not consider the illustration in making its Rule 12(b)(6) decision to dismiss the complaint, so no harm was done.” (emphasis added)).

DISCUSSION
A. Consideration of Matters Outside the Pleadings *3 At the outset, the Court must address the fact that Defendants submitted a significant amount of evidence outside the pleadings in support of their motion to dismiss. Although the Court recognizes its authority to convert a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment after providing the requisite notice to the parties, the Court finds that conversion in this case would be entirely inappropriate. First, rather than merely refuting the evidence submitted by Defendants in support of their motion, Plaintiffs explicitly oppose the Court treating the motion as one for summary judgment absent additional discovery. More important, however, is the Plaintiffs’ reason for so objecting-no discovery has been conducted in this matter. In the Court’s view, it would be not only premature but unreasonable to require Plaintiffs to, prior to having conducted any discovery, fully produce evidence to refute that presented by Defendants. As such, the Court declines to treat the instant motion as one for summary judgment and, rather, will disregard the extrinsic evidence submitted and examine only the sufficiency of the complaint. Id.1
B. FCCC as a “Sueable” Entity Plaintiffs original complaint and amended complaint assert claims against the FCCC as a separate entity. However, this Court has recognized that the FCCC “is not a legal entity capable of being sued.” Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F.Supp.2d 667, 674-75 (E.D.Ky.2002). Moreover, Plaintiffs concede in response to the instant motions that the FCCC is not a legal entity that is subject to suit. (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 13.) As such, the FCCC must be dismissed as a Defendant to this action.
C. Statute of Limitations The parties agree that the statute of limitations applicable to this cause of action is a one-year statute of limitations. Collard v. Kentucky Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir.1990)(“[W]e conclude that section 1983 actions in Kentucky are limited by the one-year statute of limitations.”). Thus, Plaintiffs must have filed their claims within one year of the alleged unconstitutional conduct. However, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the claims in the amended complaint “relate back” to the filing of the first complaint. The law is clear that a complaint that adds new parties to the action does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. See

2

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

Bishop v. Atmos Energy Corp., 161 F.R.D. 339, 341 (W.D.Ky.1995)(citing Leitch v. Lievense Ins. Agency, Inc. (In re Kent Holland Die Casting & Plating, Inc.), 928 F.2d 1448, 1449 (6th Cir.1991) & Smart v. Ellis Trucking Co., 580 F.2d 215, 218 (6th Cir.1978)). Therefore, the claims in the complaint must have arisen on or after May 9, 2004, and the claims in the amended complaint must have arisen on or after March 28, 2004-one year before the date of the filing of each complaint.
All of the claims in the original complaint arose within one year of the filing of the complaint. However, with respect to the amended complaint, the claims of the following Plaintiffs arose before May 9, 2004, and are subject to dismissal: Rebecca Hagan (“Hagan”), Penny Tillett (“Tillett”), Sandra McClease (“S.McClease”), Angela Lear (“Lear”), Jimmy Hammonds (“Hammonds”), and Natasha Marie Hunter (“Hunter”). Additionally, Patricia Tipton’s (“Tipton”) claims arose out of two different sets of facts, one of which arose prior to May 9, 2004. Thus, to the extent that Tipton’s claims arise out of facts occurring in 2001, such claims are time barred.
*4 Defendants also argue that Tommy Cummins’s (“Cummins”) claims arose on May 6, 2004, and, therefore, were not timely filed. In so arguing, Defendants rely on extrinsic evidence and not on the facts as alleged in the complaint. The amended complaint alleges only that Cummins was strip searched in May of 2004. Defendants note in their reply that Cummins did not challenge the fact that his claim arose on May 6, 2004. However, as the Court explained previously, it will not at this point in the proceedings, absent any discovery, require Plaintiffs to refute this fact in response to a motion to dismiss. On the other hand, nothing shall preclude Defendants from re-raising this argument after Plaintiff has had the opportunity to conduct some discovery on this and other issues raised by the instant motions.
D. Prison Litigation Reform Act The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states, “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title ... by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Additionally, “the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002).
Defendants first ask that the Court revisit its prior holding from Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F.Supp.2d 667 (2002), that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements do not apply to former prisoners. Id. at 676. Specifically,

Defendants cite several opinions from other districts wherein courts have taken the opposite position of this Court. See, e.g., Morgan v. Maricopa County, 259 F.Supp.2d 985, 991-92 (D.Ariz.2003); Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F.Supp. 1318, 1327 (S.D.Ind.1997), aff’d, 133 F.3d 459 (7th Cir.1997); Kerr v. Puckett, 967 F.Supp. 354, 361-62 (E.D.Wis.1997). The Court recognizes that neither the Sixth Circuit nor the United States Supreme Court have addressed this issue. Nonetheless, consideration of both positions on this issue leads the Court to conclude that the Smith reasoning and holding remain sound and, thus, controlling in this case. In fact, one court that recently addressed this issue following thorough consideration of both sides of the argument noted that the position posited by Defendants-that the PLRA applies to both current and former prisoners-“is decidedly the minority view.” Thomas v. Baca, No. CV 04-008448, 2005 WL 697986, at * (C.D.Cal. Mar.23, 2005)(citing Smith, 227 F.Supp.2d 667). Thus, the Court rejects Defendants’ request that the Court overturn its holding from Smith.
Along a similar vein, Defendants argue that, regardless of how the Court resolves the issue of application of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements to former prisoners, all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a different provision of the PLRA. The relevant provision states, “No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” § 1997e(e)(emphasis added).
*5 The Court notes that the cases on which Defendants rely for this argument are essentially the same cases on which Defendants relied for their argument that § 1997e(a) applies to former prisoners-cases with holdings that this Court declined to adopt. Moreover, although the precise issue before this Court in Smith was whether the exhaustion requirements in § 1997e(a) applied to former prisoners, in concluding that they did not, the Court relied in great part on the definition of “prisoners” contained in § 1997e itself. The PLRA defines a “prisoner” as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” § 1997e(h). Subsection (e) precludes claims by “prisoners” absent allegations of physical injury.
In fact, rather than specifying a particular provision of § 1997e that applied to current prisoners only, the Court in Smith opined, “The plain language of the PLRA suggests that former prisoners do not fall within its scope as §§ 1997e(a), (e), and (h) speak of those prisoners “confined in a jail, prison or other correctional facility” or “incarcerated or detained,” a status to be determined at the time the suit is “brought.” Smith, 227 F.Supp.2d at 675
3

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

(emphasis added). In light of the Smith opinion, which the Court finds persuasive, the Court finds that, like § 1997e(a), § 1997e(e) only applies to individuals who were prisoners at the time they brought suit.
On the other hand, Defendants note that three of the Plaintiffs-Jonathan Cox (“Cox”), Tammy Laurine Cooper (“Cooper”), and Tipton-were in fact incarcerated at the time that the amended complaint was filed, albeit on different charges than those from which the allegations of the amended complaint arose. Defendants argue that the PLRA exhaustion requirements apply to the claims of such Plaintiffs because they were “prisoners” at the time that they filed the amended complaint. Noting that the Court is aware of no controlling authority on this issue, the Court agrees. Nothing in the plain language of the PLRA exempts a prisoner who is detained on different charges than those that yielded the imprisonment from which the claims arose from the exhaustion requirements or from the requirement that the prisoner allege more than just emotional injury. See §§ 1997e(a), (e) & (h).
At the same time, with respect to Plaintiffs Cox and Cooper, it is not clear from the face of the complaint that they were prisoners at the time the complaint was filed. As such, on a 12(b)(6) motion, it is not appropriate to dismiss their claims for failure to exhaust or for failure to allege physical injury. However, nothing in the Court’s decision on this issue shall preclude Defendants from reasserting the non-exhaustion defense or the physical injury defense in a motion for summary judgment after Plaintiffs have had a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery in this matter sufficient to respond to such a motion.
*6 Plaintiff Tipton, on the other hand, acknowledges in the complaint that she was a prisoner at the time of the filing of the complaint and, nevertheless, fails to allege any facts regarding exhaustion of remedies and fails to allege any physical injury resulting from the alleged strip search. Although claims dismissed for failure to exhaust are to be dismissed without prejudice, Knuckles El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir.2000), that is not the case with respect to claims brought by prisoners that fail to allege physical injury. As a result, Plaintiff Tipton’s remaining claims against Defendants, arising out of the imprisonment that resulted from her misdemeanor sentence, must be dismissed with prejudice.2
E. Qualified Immunity In the qualified immunity analysis, the “threshold inquiry” is whether the allegations of the complaint, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002); Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 527 (6th Cir.2002). Despite an alleged constitutional violation,

defendants “may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ’ Id. at 739 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)).
For the right to be “clearly established,” it “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right,” or in other words, “the unlawfulness must be apparent” in light of “pre-existing law.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). In recent months, the United States Supreme Court refined the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Brosseau v. Haugen, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 596, 598-600, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004); see also Lyons v. City of Xenia, --- F.3d ----, No. 03-3282, slip op. at 4-5 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2005).
Specifically, “[i]n ‘an obvious case,’ the Court acknowledged, the ‘general” ‘standards for the constitutional right at issue “ ‘can “clearly establish” the answer, even without a body of relevant case law.” Lyons, slip op. at 4 (quoting Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 599). Where it is not “obvious,” however, that the right is clearly established, a reviewing court must “turn to ask whether, at the time of [the defendant’s] actions, it was “ “ “clearly established” ” ” in [a] more particularized sense that [the defendant] was violating [the plaintiff’s constitutional] right.” Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 599 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). According to Brosseau and Lyons, this is established only where “the violation is shown by the failure to adhere to “a ‘particularized’ body of precedent that ‘squarely govern[s] the case.” ’ Lyons, slip op. at 10 (quoting Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 599-600).
1. Equal Protection Claims *7 Regarding the threshold question of whether Plaintiffs have alleged equal protection violations, Hope, 536 U.S. at 736, the Court finds that, with respect to all but one Plaintiff, they have not. Defendants concede that Plaintiff Tina Michelle Black (“Black”) has alleged an equal protection violation,3 by alleging that males at FCCC were not strip searched upon return from work release and that women were. However, Defendants are correct that none of the other Plaintiffs have brought forth any allegations that they were treated any differently than anyone else. Thus, the Court concludes that only Plaintiff Black’s equal protection claim survives the “threshold inquiry.” Id.
Moreover, the Court notes that Defendants have not posited any arguments that the right asserted in Plaintiff Black’s equal protection claims was not “clearly
4

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

established.” In fact, Defendants have conceded that Black’s equal protection claims may proceed into discovery. Thus, the Court need not address the issue of qualified immunity with respect to such claims.
2. Ninth Amendment Claims Consideration of Brosseau and Lyons yields the conclusion that all of Plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment claims must be dismissed. Regardless of whether Plaintiffs have identified a Ninth Amendment right that Defendants violated, any such right-without a doubt-is not clearly established. Plaintiff has not identified, and the Court is unaware of, any case law arising in a similar factual context wherein a court found a strip search to have violated a plaintiff’s Ninth Amendment privacy rights. As such, FCCC personnel would not have known that what they were doing violated that right, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment claims.4
3. Search and Seizure, Due Process, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claims First, the Court notes that Defendants have not moved for dismissal of the following Plaintiffs’ search and seizure, due process, and cruel and unusual punishment claims on qualified immunity grounds-Wendy Hockensmith, James Dion Bixler, and Darren Dean Hockensmith. Thus, such claims may proceed into discovery.
Defendants next point out that claims of pretrial detainees do not proceed under the same analysis as do claims of inmates, which is correct. Claims brought by pretrial detainees, in fact, do not fall under the Eighth Amendment at all. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)(“The Court of Appeals properly relied on the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment in considering the claims of pretrial detainees.”). Thus, Defendants properly assert that the Eighth Amendment claims of any of the Plaintiffs who were pretrial detainees at the time the claims arose are subject to dismissal. What Defendants fail to recognize is that it is difficult, if not impossible, in most instances to ascertain merely from the face of the complaint whether the particular Plaintiffs were pretrial detainees or inmates who had already been sentenced at the time the alleged constitutional violations occurred. Thus, it would be inappropriate for the Court, absent additional discovery, to draw conclusions on this issue at this early stage of the proceedings.
*8 Nonetheless, some of Plaintiffs’ claims, as alleged, fail to qualify as constitutional violations and, thus, must be dismissed. First, Plaintiff Black alleges constitutional violations arising out of two different sets of strip

searches, one of which occurred “each day after [Black] return[ed] to the jail from work release.” (Pls.’ Compl. at 5.) Regardless of how the Court analyzes this claim, the Court finds that the strip searches that occurred after Black returned from work release each day were constitutional.
The Sixth Circuit has explicitly held:
[W]here pretrial detainees, including those charged with minor, nonviolent offenses, are kept in a detention center’s general population prior to arraignment, and are thereafter ... put in a position where exposure to the general public presents a very real danger of contraband being passed to a detainee, a policy of strip searching the detainees upon their return from the courthouse and prior to their being placed back in the general population of the detention center is both justified and reasonable.
Richerson v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 958 F.Supp. 299, 307 (E.D.Ky.1996)(emphasis added). The Court finds little difficulty in concluding that if pretrial detainees may constitutionally be strip searched after returning from an arraignment in which members of the general public could be present, inmates on work release, which is outside of the prison, likewise may be strip searched upon return to the prison. Like detainees transported to court, inmates on work release are potentially exposed to members of the general public such that the prison’s interest in preventing contraband or weapons from entering the prison is directly in play. Thus, Plaintiff Black has failed to allege a search and seizure, due process, or cruel and unusual punishment clause violation arising from having been strip searched following her return from work release. However, as indicated previously, Plaintiff Black’s equal protection claims arising out of the work release strip searches may proceed into discovery.
Similarly, and directly on point with Richerson is Plaintiff Deidra Wash’s (“Wash”) claims. Wash was strip searched after returning to the jail from court following a hearing on her case. The Court finds that Richerson is applicable to Plaintiff Wash’s claims and that Wash, thus, has failed to allege viable constitutional violations. Likewise, as one of two sets of strip searches alleged by Plaintiff Cooper, Cooper first alleges that she was strip searched every time she returned to the FCCC following a court hearing. However, as Richerson holds, such searches did not violate Cooper’s constitutional rights.5
5

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff Maureen O. Mitchell (“Mitchell”) has failed to allege a viable constitutional claim. After Mitchell was stopped for speeding, she was arrested and charged with driving on a suspended license, possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Mitchell was subsequently taken to the FCCC and was subjected to a strip search. As described below, consideration of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir.1989), leads the Court to conclude that the strip search did not violate Mitchell’s constitutional rights.
*9 Masters establishes that there is “no authority approving a practice of conducting a strip search of a person arrested for a simple traffic violation in the absence of at least reasonable suspicion that the person might be carrying a weapon, illegal drugs, or other contraband.” Id. at 1253. The Masters court went on to hold that “authorities may not strip search persons arrested for traffic violations and nonviolent minor offenses solely because such persons ultimately will intermingle with the general population at a jail when there were no circumstances to support a reasonable belief that the detainee will carry weapons or other contraband into the jail.” Id. at 1255 (emphasis added).
Despite Plaintiff Mitchell’s arguments to the contrary, Masters precludes Mitchell’s claim. Even if the Court assumes that the crimes with which Mitchell were charged were nonviolent minor offenses, Mitchell was charged with drug crimes and, therefore, is not entitled to the protection of the Masters holding. In this Court’s view, it is axiomatic that in such a case, jail personnel would have a “reasonable belief that [Mitchell] will carry ... contraband into the jail.” Id.6 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege a constitutional violation arising from having been strip searched after being arrested on drug charges and transported to the FCCC.7
Finally, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff Karen Gamble’s (“Gamble”) and Plaintiff Davanika Barber’s (“Barber”) claims against them. First, any attempt by Plaintiffs to argue that Gamble’s claim falls under the protection of Masters is entirely without merit. Gamble was only strip searched after reporting to FCCC to serve the sentence imposed upon her in accordance with a plea bargain between Gamble and the Government. Likewise, Barber alleges that she was strip searched upon reporting to the FCCC on weekends to serve her sentence. The Court finds that a strip search in these situations does not violate an individual’s constitutional rights. Even as Richerson indicates, a strip search does not violate one’s constitutional rights where the individual has been exposed to the public by attending a court hearing and returns to the jail. 958 F.Supp. at 306. Gamble and

Barber, having reported from the street to the FCCC to serve their sentences, present even more of a likelihood of transporting contraband or weapons into the general jail population than would a mere detainee who moves from the jail to a court hearing and back to the jail as in Richerson.8 Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff Gamble’s and Plaintiff Barber’s strip searches did not violate their constitutional rights and, thus, that their claims must be dismissed.
Next, the Court will address those claims for which a ruling in favor of Defendants on the qualified immunity issue is not warranted, at least not at this point in the proceedings. First, Plaintiff Black alleges that she was strip searched at FCCC after having been arrested and charged with contempt for failure to pay child support, taken into custody, and transported to the FCCC. However, it is unclear from the complaint how much time, if any, expired between these three events, whether anything else occurred in between, and whether Black was an inmate or merely a pretrial detainee at the time of the strip search. Regardless, the Court cannot conclude at this point, based solely on the allegations contained in the complaint, that Black can prove no set of facts consistent with the allegations that would entitle her to relief. Thus, Plaintiff Black’s claim satisfies the threshold inquiry, and Defendants are not entitled to a 12(b)(6) dismissal of her claims arising out of the initial strip search of her at the FCCC.9
*10 The same is true of the remaining claims that the Court has not yet addressed. Based on the allegations of the original complaint and the amended complaint, the remaining Plaintiffs were arrested and charged with minor, nonviolent offenses for which there would have been no reasonable suspicion that the Plaintiffs would transport contraband or weapons into the jail. Despite that, the complaints allege, the Plaintiffs were strip searched after arriving at FCCC.10 It is not entirely clear based on the allegations of the complaints when and under what circumstances all of the strip searches occurred. However, because the complaints allege minor, nonviolent offenses and no reasonable suspicion of contraband or weapons, the Court cannot conclude at this point that the remaining Plaintiffs cannot recover under any set of facts consistent with their allegations. See Masters, 872 F.2d at 1255.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original complaint [Record No. 12] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
6

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

(2) that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint [Record No. 21] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
(3) that Defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss [Record No. 30] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
(4) that all of Plaintiff Black’s constitutional claims against Defendants-except her equal protection claims, which remain viable-to the extent they are based on the strip searches conducted upon Black following her return from work release, be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(5) that Plaintiffs Mitchell’s, Wash’s, Hagan’s, Gamble’s, Tillett’s, S. McClease’s, Lear’s, Hammonds’s, Barber’s, Hunter’s, and Tipton’s claims against Defendants be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

(6) that Plaintiff Cooper’s claims against Defendants, to the extent they are based on the strip searches conducted upon Cooper following her return from court appearances be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(7) that the FCCC be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a Defendant to this action;
(8) that the equal protection claims of all of the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Black be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
(9) that all of the Plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment claims be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
	  

Footnotes

1

The Court emphasizes that it recognizes its authority to merely give the parties notice of its intention to treat the instant motion as

one for summary judgment, allow for a determined discovery period with respect to the issues raised in the motion, and then

address the merits of the motion. However, Defendants rely on a substantial amount of evidence to support many of their

arguments, which would result in the Court having to reserve ruling on numerous claims-the details of which the Court addresses

later in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. In light of this and because no discovery has yet been conducted, in the Court’s

view, it would be more efficient and more in keeping with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to treat this motion as a facial

attack on Plaintiff’s claims; deny the motion to the extent that it necessarily relies on extrinsic evidence; and allow Defendants the

opportunity, after some time is allowed for discovery, to re-raise any of their arguments that necessarily relied on evidence outside

the pleadings.

2

In response to Defendants’ argument on the physical injury requirement, Plaintiffs merely state:

It is clear beyond any doubt that the illegal strip searches employed by Defendants in these cases violated the Plaintiffs’

constitutional rights. The allegation that this clearly unconstitutional conduct also caused embarrassment, humiliation and

emotional distress does not eliminate the cause of action for Defendants’ conduct. Defendants’ conduct was actionable even

without the allegation of embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress.

(Pls.’ Resp. to Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 15.) However, Plaintiffs offer no authority whatsoever for this

seemingly conclusory argument that the physical injury requirement in § 1997e(e) does not apply in this case.

3

Defendants correctly point out that they have not conceded that they actually violated Plaintiff Black’s equal protection right. The

only thing that Defendants have conceded is that Black’s claim, if true, constitutes an equal protection claim. Thus, at the motion to

dismiss stage, such claim is not subject to dismissal.

4

In response to Defendants’ argument on this issue, Plaintiff merely states, “The fundamental rights under the ‘penumbra doctrine’

recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) involves the right to privacy and is

clearly established. Defendants thus are not entitled to qualified immunity on the Ninth Amendment claim.” (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs’

Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. at 13.) This wholly conclusory statement hardly establishes that Plaintiffs have alleged Ninth

Amendment violations and certainly fails to show that any such Ninth Amendment right was “clearly established.”

5

Defendants argue that numerous other Plaintiffs were strip searched only after returning from court and, thus, after having been

exposed to the public. However, other than those Plaintiffs who the Court addressed above, all of Defendants’ argument

necessarily require the Court to consider evidence outside the pleadings, which the Court declines to do. Defendants may re-raise

these arguments, though, after Plaintiffs have been allowed time to conduct a sufficient amount of discovery to rebut Defendants’

arguments.

6

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff Brittney Creech (“Creech”) was charged with drug crimes and that her claim must be

dismissed. However, in so arguing, Defendants necessarily rely on evidence outside the pleadings, which this Court disregards for

purposes of this motion. Therefore, the Court will not at this point dismiss Creech’s claims on those grounds.

7

Black v. Franklin County, Kentucky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

7

Plaintiff cites several decisions from other districts wherein courts held strip searches to be unconstitutional despite the plaintiff

having been brought in on drug charges. However, the Court is of the opinion that cases from other circuits, i.e., non-controlling

case law, would not put Defendants on notice that the strip search at issue violated Plaintiff Mitchell’s constitutional rights. Thus,

even if the Court agreed with the cases to which Plaintiff Mitchell cites and adopted their holdings, which the Court does not, such

cases would not have been controlling in this district at the time of the alleged acts. Therefore, Defendants would be entitled to

qualified immunity with respect to Mitchell’s claims.

8

Moreover, as Defendants point out, an inmate, such as Gamble or Barber, is not entitled to the same privacy rights as

unincarcerated persons or even pretrial detainees. Cf. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 522-26, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393

(1984)(“[W]e hold that society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective expectation of privacy that a prisoner

might have in his prison cell and that, accordingly, the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not

apply within the confines of the prison cell.”).

9

The Court recognizes that under some circumstances it would be appropriate to find that, despite Plaintiff having alleged a

constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. However, this is not one such case. Because the law at issue

is clearly established and is directly on point with the allegations, Masters, 872 F.2d at 1255, if Defendants violated such law by

strip searching Plaintiff in violation of Masters, then Defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity. See Brosseau, 125

S.Ct. at 599; Lyons, slip op. at 10. Because the Court finds that there is a set of facts that Plaintiff Black could prove consistent

with the allegations of the complaint that would entitle her to relief, and because such law is clearly established, Defendants are not

at this point entitled to qualified immunity.

10

Specifically, the relevant Plaintiffs and the crimes with which they were charged are as follows: Creech-driving under the

influence; Jeffrey Curtis (“Curtis”)-contempt of court for failure to pay fines and failure to attend classes; Angela Nesselrode

(“Nesselrode”)-contempt of court for failure to pay fines and failure to appear; Tommy Cummins (“Cummins”)-contempt for

failure to pay fines; Jillian Baker (“Baker”)-contempt for failure to pay fines and failure to appear; Linda Epling

(“Epling”)-violation of probation for failure to maintain automobile insurance; Joe Farler (“Farler”)-contempt of court and/or

alcohol intoxication; Natalie Elizabeth McClease (“N.McCLease”)-unlawful transaction with a minor as a result of truancy; Tony

Ray McClease (“T.McClease”)-unlawful transaction with a minor as a result of truancy; Jonathan Cox (“Cox”)-operating a motor

vehicle on a suspended license; Cooper-contempt of court on underlying convictions of driving on a suspended license and driving

under the influence; and Julie Ann Corn (“Corn”)-misdemeanor theft by unlawful taking.

	  

8

 
 Black v. Franklin County, Ky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 2849863 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Frankfort.
Tina Michelle BLACK, et al., Plaintiffs v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, James Kemper, Jr. and Ted Hammermeister, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 05-18. | Sept. 28, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Charles C. Adams, Jr., Thomas K. Herren, Herren & Adams, Lexington, KY, Marie K. Brannon, Frankfort, KY, S. Marie Hellard, Thomas M. Jones, Lawrenceburg, KY, for Plaintiffs.
Douglas L. McSwain, Tammy S. Meade, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney PLLC, Lexington, KY, James E. Boyd, Frankfort, KY, Richard M. Sullivan, Conliffe, Sandmann & Sullivan, Louisville, KY, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
KAREN K. CALDWELL, District Judge.
*1 This matter is before the Court on various motions by the parties.
I. BACKGROUND. This action was initially filed on March 28, 2005 by three Plaintiffs who alleged that they were strip searched by employees of the Franklin County Correctional Complex (“FCCC”) after they were arrested for minor offenses. The Plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. On April 6, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Determine Propriety of Class Action. On May 9, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint naming 24 additional Plaintiffs.
Subsequently, the Court dismissed the claims of 11 of the Plaintiffs. The Court further dismissed the claims against the FCCC, the Plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment claims and

the Equal Protection claims of all the Plaintiffs except for Plaintiff Black. Accordingly, there are currently 16 Plaintiffs in this action all of whom assert that the Defendants violated their Fourth, Fifth and Eight Amendment rights. In addition, Plaintiff Black asserts an Equal Protection claim.
On July 18, 2005, the Court entered an Agreed Order (Rec. No. 31) by which the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine Propriety of Class Action was voluntarily withdrawn because the parties agreed that “additional class discovery may be necessary before such motion is ripe.” The parties later agreed to make initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on December 5, 2005 and that all discovery would be completed by December 31, 2006. (Rec. No. 38).
II. CURRENT MOTIONS.
A. Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations (Rec. No. 42) and Motion to Stay Same (Rec. No. 45). On February 22, 2006, the Defendants filed a motion to have the class action allegations stricken or dismissed from the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (Rec. No. 42). The Defendants argue that the class allegations should be stricken because this matter does not meet the requirements for a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. On March 14, 2006, the Plaintiffs responded with a motion to stay the Defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations. (Rec. No. 45). Plaintiffs state that, since the filing of the First Amendment Complaint on May 9, 2005, Plaintiffs’ counsel has been contacted by or on behalf of numerous other former or present inmates of the FCCC indicating that they had been illegally strip searched by the Defendants. Thus, on January 24, 2006, the Plaintiffs served interrogatories and documents requests upon the Defendants asking for information and documents regarding all individuals who were arrested for non-violent, minor offenses between March 28, 2004 and the present who were strip searched at the FCCC. In addition, the Plaintiffs requested information and documents pertaining to all individuals arrested for any offense since March 28, 2004 who were strip searched at the FCCC.
The Defendants have objected to the requested information on several grounds including that the information is irrelevant and overly burdensome. Plaintiffs state that they are narrowing their discovery requests and ask the Court to stay the Defendant’s motion to strike or dismiss the class action allegations until at least November 1, 2006 and that the deadline to amend pleadings be extended until October 1, 2006. In Reply (Rec. No. 48), the Defendants argue that delaying a ruling on class certification until after discovery will
1

Black v. Franklin County, Ky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

significantly prejudice the Defendants because they will have to take discovery without knowing whether this action is a class action. On July 21, 2006, the Plaintiffs moved to compel the Defendants to produce all strip search forms for all inmates from March 28, 2004 to present and copies of the inmate files of 56 identified inmates. (Rec. No. 62 and Rec. No. 70 at 2).
*2 On September 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order extending the deadline to amend pleadings until October 2, 2006 and extending discovery until February 28, 2007. The Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, pending a ruling on the class certification issue and vacated the scheduled pre-trial and trial dates for this action with new dates to be determined by this Court.
The party seeking to certify a class action has the burden of demonstrating that all of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met, and that the proposed class falls within one of the subcategories listed in Rule 23(b). Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 522 (6th Cir.1976). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(A)(1) provides that “[w]hen a person sues or is sued as a representative of a class, the court must-at an early practicable time-determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” Moreover, the district court “has a duty to certify the class action whether requested to do so or not.” Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 520-21 (1976).
The Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced by postponing a ruling on class certification until after discovery because they will not know during discovery if this matter is a class action or not. In In re Am. Medical Systems, et al., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir.1996), the Sixth Circuit stated the following with regards to discovery on the issue of class certification:
Although Rule 23 requires that a class certification “shall” be decided “as soon as practicable” after the commencement of an action, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1), this does not mandate precipitate action. The court should defer decision on certification pending discovery if the existing record is inadequate for resolving the relevant issues.
Id. at 1086 (quoting Chateau de Ville Prods., Inc. v. Tams-Witmark Music Library Inc., 586 F.2d 962, 966 (2d Cir.1978)). Because the Court is unable to determine whether this action meets the requirements of Rule 23 on the existing record, the Court will permit discovery to proceed before striking the class allegations from the

Complaint. The Court further notes that the parties did not make initial disclosures under Rule 26 until December 2005 and the Plaintiffs served discovery requests regarding their class allegations in January 2006. Thus, the Plaintiffs did not unnecessarily delay in seeking evidence supporting their class allegations.
The Court will, however, require that any Motion for Class Certification be filed within 60 days of the entry date of this Opinion and Order. Failure to file any such motion will result in the striking of the class allegations from the Complaint. The Court will also set aside the January 31, 2007 deadline for dispositive motions. The Court will set a new deadline for dispositive motions and new pretrial and trial dates by a separate Amended Scheduling Order.
B. Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Rec. Nos. 52 and 53) *3 The Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec.Nos.52) in which they ask the Court to dismiss the claims of Jonathan Cox on the basis that discovery has established that Cox was still incarcerated at the time this action was filed and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq. The Defendants have also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. No. 53) asking that the Court dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Tommy Cummins on the basis that his claims are time barred.
In their responses (Rec. Nos. 54 and 55), the Plaintiffs state they have no objection to the Defendants’ motions but ask that the claims by Cox and Cummins be dismissed without prejudice and that the dismissals be certified for interlocutory appeal. The Court will GRANT the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Rec. Nos. 52 and 53) and will dismiss the claims of Cox and Cummins. Because the Court has no basis for dismissing these claims without prejudice, the Court will dismiss the claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court has no basis for certifying the dismissal of these claims for interlocutory appeal and, thus, declines to do so.
C. Motion to Reconsider (Rec. No. 60). The Defendants have also filed a Motion to Reconsider (Rec. No. 60), asking the Court to reconsider its prior opinion that the PLRA does not apply to any of the Plaintiffs who were no longer prisoners at the time they filed their claim in federal court. The Defendants argue that, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006), this Court should find that the PLRA applies to former prisoners. Woodford, however, involved a prisoner who was
2

Black v. Franklin County, Ky, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

currently incarcerated at the time that he filed his claim in federal court. Id. at 2383. It did not involve a complaint by a former prisoner. The issue there was “whether a prisoner can satisfy the [PLRA’s] exhaustion requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 2382. The case did not involve the issue facing this Court or which the Court decided in its prior Opinion, which is whether the PLRA applies to a former prisoner. Thus, Woodford does not provide the Court with any basis for reconsidering its prior Opinion and the Motion to Reconsider will be DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION. For all the above reasons:
1) The Defendants’ Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations (Rec. No. 42) from the Complaint is DENIED:
2) The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue or Table the Motion to Strike (Rec. No. 45) is DENIED, the Court having ruled on the Motion to Strike;

3) The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the Deadline to Amend Pleadings (Rec. No. 45) is DENIED as moot, the Magistrate Judge having ruled on the same;
4) The Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Rec. No. 52 and 53) are GRANTED;
*4 5) The Claims of the Plaintiffs Jonathan Cox and Tommy Cummins are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice;
6) The Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum (Rec. No. 59) is GRANTED;
7) The Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Rec. No. 60) is DENIED; and
8) Any Motion to Certify this action as a Class Action must be filed within 60 days of the entry date of this Order with Response and Reply briefs permitted according to the Local Rules.
	  

3

 
 Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 1 of 40
CLOSED,R/R,REFER
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05−cv−00018−KKC−JGW

Black et al v. Franklin County, Kentucky et al Assigned to: Judge Karen K. Caldwell Referred to: Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/28/2005 Date Terminated: 08/20/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Tina Michelle Black

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. Herren &Adams 148 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 859−254−0024 Fax: 859−254−5991 Email: chuck.adams@herrenadams.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon 301 W. Main Street Frankfort, KY 40601 502−875−0908 Fax: 502−875−0750 Email: mariebrannon@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel 147 Northwood Road Frankfort, KY 40601 502−875−0908 Fax: 502−875−0750 TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard 148 S. Main Street Lawrenceburg, KY 40342 502−839−0004 Fax: 502−839−8844 Email: smariehellard@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren Herren &Adams 148 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 859−254−0024 Fax: 859−254−5991 Email: tom.herren@herrenadams.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones 138 S. Main Street Lawrenceburg, KY 40342 502−839−6020

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 2 of 40

Fax: 502−839−6029 Email: jonesthomasm@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maureen O. Mitchell TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Brittney Creech TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 3 of 40

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jillian Baker TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Davanika Barber TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Dion Bixler TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 4 of 40

Plaintiff Tammy Laurine Cooper TERMINATED: 03/13/2007
Plaintiff Julie Ann Cornn TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marie K. Brannon (See above for address)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 5 of 40

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jonathan Cox TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tommy Cummins TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 6 of 40

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeffrey Curtis TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Linda Epling

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 7 of 40

Plaintiff
Joe Farler TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Karen Gamble TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rebecca Ann Hagan TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 8 of 40

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jimmy Hammonds TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Darren Dean Hockensmith TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 9 of 40

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wendy Hockensmith

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Natasha Marie Hunter TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 10 of 40

Plaintiff Angela Lear TERMINATED: 06/11/2007
Plaintiff Natalie Elizabeth McClease TERMINATED: 03/13/2007
Plaintiff Sandra McClease TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marie K. Brannon (See above for address)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 11 of 40

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tony Ray McClease TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Angela Nesselrode TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 12 of 40

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Penny Tillett TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Patricia Tipton TERMINATED: 03/13/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 13 of 40

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Deidra Wash TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marie K. Brannon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rodney McDaniel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tim Childers TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Audrey Cunningham

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
April Engler TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 14 of 40

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Timothy Lee Green TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Derek Harvey TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Teresa Hendren TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sarah Hodgkin TERMINATED: 06/11/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alpha Lemay TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 15 of 40

Plaintiff William Mills
Plaintiff Melissa Pickett
Plaintiff Jennifer Reneer TERMINATED: 06/11/2007
Plaintiff Kimberlie Simmons TERMINATED: 06/11/2007
Plaintiff

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 16 of 40

Stephen Wise TERMINATED: 04/16/2007

represented by Charles C. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

S. Marie Hellard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas K. Herren (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Franklin County, Kentucky

represented by Andrew D. DeSimone Sturgill, Turner, Barker &Moloney PLLC 333 W.Vine Street Suite 1400 Lexington, KY 40507 859−255−8581 Fax: 859−231−0851 Email: adesimone@sturgillturner.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas L. McSwain Wyatt, Tarrant &Combs LLP − Lexington 250 W. Main Street Suite 1600 Lexington, KY 40507 859−288−7415 Fax: 859−259−0649 Email: dmcswain@wyattfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E. Boyd P.O. Box 290 Frankfort, KY 40602 502−875−3113 TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. Sullivan Conliffe, Sandmann &Sullivan 325 W. Main Street 2000 Waterfront Plaza Louisville, KY 40202 502−587−7711 Fax: 502−587−7756 Email: rsullivan@cssattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tammy Meade Ensslin Meade Ensslin Law Office 2716 Old Rosebud Suite 230 Lexington, KY 40509 859−963−9049 Fax: 859−317−9729 Email: tensslin@meadeensslin.com

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 17 of 40

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Franklin County Correctional Complex

represented by Douglas L. McSwain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy Meade Ensslin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew D. DeSimone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Kemper, Jr. Individually

represented by Andrew D. DeSimone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas L. McSwain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy Meade Ensslin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ted Hammermeister Individually

represented by Andrew D. DeSimone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas L. McSwain

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 18 of 40

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy Meade Ensslin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Official Defendant
James Kemper, Jr. In his Capacity as former Director of Franklin County Correctional Complex TERMINATED: 12/29/2006

represented by Andrew D. DeSimone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas L. McSwain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy Meade Ensslin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Official Defendant
Ted Hammermeister In his capacity as Director of Franklin County Correctional Complex

represented by Andrew D. DeSimone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas L. McSwain (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E. Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 19 of 40
Richard M. Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tammy Meade Ensslin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/28/2005
04/04/2005
04/04/2005
04/04/2005 04/04/2005
04/04/2005 04/06/2005 04/18/2005 04/29/2005
04/29/2005 05/02/2005 05/09/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT 5 summons(es)issued with copy ( Filing fee $250; receipt number 118215), filed by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, Case Assignment, Receipt &Summonses)(CBD) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell via PERSONAL SERVICE to Franklin County, Kentucky, Robert Roach, Franklin County Judge Executive, served on 3/29/2005, answer due 4/18/2005. (LKM) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell via PERSONAL SERVICE to James Kemper, Jr, OFFICIAL CAPACITY, served on 3/29/2005, answer due 4/18/2005. (LKM) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell via PERSONAL SERVICE to James Kemper, Jr., INDIVIDUALLY, on 3/29/2005 (LKM) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell via PERSONAL SERVICE to Ted Hammermeister. OFFICIAL CAPACITY, served on 3/29/2005, answer due 4/18/2005. (LKM) Modified text on 4/4/2005 (cleanup)(Moore, Lisa). (Entered: 04/04/2005)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell via PERSONAL SERVICE to Ted Hamermeister, INDIVIDUALLY, served on 3/29/2005. (LKM) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
7 MOTION to Certify Class by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell. Responses due by 4/24/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Tendered Notice of Class Suit)(CBD) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
8 AGREED ORDER: dfts shall have an extension of time through 5/2/2005 to file their responsive pleading to pltf's Complaint 1 . Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 04/18/2005)
9 Proposed Agreed Order − Extending Answer to Complaint until 5/9/05 by Brittney Creech, Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell. (CBD) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Hood for review: 9 Proposed Agreed Order re Extension of Time to Answer (CBD) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
10 AGREED ORDER: Dfts shall have an ext of time up through 5/9/05 to file their responsive pleading to Pla's 1 Complaint . Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 05/03/2005)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, filed by Jillian Baker, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins, Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 20 of 40

05/09/2005 05/09/2005
05/12/2005 05/13/2005 05/19/2005 05/23/2005 05/24/2005
05/24/2005 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 06/02/2005

McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell.(AKR) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
12 MOTION to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(AKR) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
13 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion 12 to Dismiss filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Ted Hammermeister# 2 SEALED Exhibit A − FCCC Strip Search Policies# 3 SEALED Exhibit B − Order of Commitment as to Tina Black; C − Intake Record as to Tina Black; D − Body Cavity Search Reports as to Tina Black# 4 SEALED Exhibit E − Uniform Citation as to Maureen Mitchell; F − Intake Record as to Maureen Mitchell; G − Body Cavity Search Report as to Maureen Mitchell# 5 SEALED Exhibit H − Uniform Citation as to Brittany Creech; I − Intake Record as to Brittany Creech; J − Body Cavity Search Report as to Brittany Creech# 6 SEALED Exhibit K − FCCC Greivance Procedure# 7 SEALED Exhibit L − Inmate Orientation# 8 SEALED Exhibit 2 − USDC EDKY 3:97−cv−35 Order &Final Judgment)(CBD) Modified text on 5/23/2005 (Ratliff, Kay). Additional attachment(s) Redacted Exhibits 1, a−l, 2 added on 5/23/2005 (Ratliff, Kay). Modified text per order dated 5/23/05 on 5/23/2005 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 05/11/2005)
14 SEALED MOTION filed by dfts (AKR) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Hood for review: 14 SEALED MOTION (AKR) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
15 AGREED ORDER: dfts shall have and extension of time through 6/8/2005, to file their responsive pleading to pltf's Amended Complaint 11 . Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 05/20/2005)
16 ORDER: (1) dft's mtn 14 is GRANTED; (2) Clerk of Court is directed that exhibits submitted in Record No. 13 are SEALED; &that redacted exhibits submitted with the current motion are SUBSTITUTED for sealed exhibits for purposes of dfts' motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 05/23/2005)
17 Proposed Agreed Order Extending Response Time to dfts' Motion to Dismiss by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Franklin County, Kentucky, Deidra Wash, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (CBD) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Hood for review: 17 Proposed Agreed Order Extending Response Time to Dfts' Motion to Dismiss (CBD) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Hood for review: 7 MOTION to Certify Class by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell (CBD) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
18 EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Out of Time (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McSwain, Douglas) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Hood for review: 18 EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave to Respond to Motion to Certify Class out of

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 21 of 40

06/02/2005 06/02/2005
06/08/2005
06/16/2005 06/16/2005 06/20/2005 06/21/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/28/2005

time by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
19 ORDER: Motion 18 is GRANTED, and dfts have until 6/20/2005 to respond to pltf's Motion to determine Propriety of Class Action 7 . Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 06/02/2005)
20 RESPONSE to Motion 12 to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
21 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Ted Hammermeister# 3 Exhibit A,GG,HH − Jail Policies−Procedures# 4 Exhibit B,C,D,E,F − Jail Records−Davanika Barber# 5 Exhibit GH− Jail Records−Karen Gamble# 6 Exhibit IJ− Jail Records−Jillian Baker# 7 Exhibit KL− Jail Records−Linda Epling# 8 Exhibit MN− Jail Records−Deidra Wash# 9 Exhibit O,PQ− Jail Records−Julie Cornn# 10 Exhibit R,ST− Jail Records−Thomas Cummins# 11 Exhibit U,VW− Jail Records−Jeffrey Lee Curtis# 12 Exhibit X,YZ− Jail Records−Lyttle Farler# 13 Exhibit AAthroughtDD − Jail Records−NatalieMcClease# 14 Exhibit EE− Jail Records−Angela Hesslerode# 15 Proposed Order)(AKR) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
22 REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 MOTION to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Memorandum Opinion &Order dated 4/6/99)(CBD) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Hood for review: 12 MOTION to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
23 RESPONSE in Opposition re 7 MOTION to Certify Class by Brittney Creech, Tina Michelle Black, Maureen O. Mitchell filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Memorandum Opinion and Order# 2 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
24 NOTICE OF FILING (Affidavit of Ted Hammermeister) by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Ted Hammermeister)(AKR) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
25 Proposed Agreed Order Extending time to 7/8/2005 for pltfs' to Reply re Motion to Determine Class Certification by plaintiffs and defendants (CBD) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 25 Proposed Agreed Order Extending Time to Reply to Motion to Determine Class Certification (CBD) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 21 MOTION to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 06/28/2005)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 22 of 40

06/30/2005 07/01/2005
07/08/2005 07/08/2005 07/13/2005 07/18/2005
07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/22/2005
08/04/2005 08/05/2005

26 AGREED ORDER: IT IS ORDERED pltfs shall have through 7/8/2005 to file their reply to pltf's motion 7 to Determine Propriety of Class Action IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pltfs shall have an extension through 7/15/2005, to file their response to dfts' Motion 21 to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 06/30/2005)
27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Motion and Memo in Support thereof to Dismiss the Complaint and Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Tendered Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Complaint &Amended Complaint# 2 Tendered Memo in Support of Supplemental Motion to Dismiss# 3 Tendered Proposed Order re Motion to Dismiss)(CBD) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
28 Proposed Agreed Order removing pltfs' motion for class certification (CBD) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 28 Proposed Agreed Order removing motion for class certification (CBD) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 7 MOTION to Certify Class (Please see Proposed Agreed Order 28 submitted 7/8/2005) (CBD) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
29 AGREED ORDER: dfts Motion 27 for Leave to file a Supplemental Memo in support of their Motion to dismiss pltfs' complaint and Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED, The suppl. Memo of Law attached to dft's motion shall be filed herein. Pltfs' given to 7/22/2005 to file response to dfts' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 27 an dfts' suppl. Memo of Law. The parties agree that pltfs may file one response covering both the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and the suppl. Memo of Law. The dfts will thereafter have the time under FRCP to file their Reply. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 07/19/2005)
30 SUPPLEMENAL MOTION to Dismiss the Original Complaint and Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
31 AGREED ORDER: pltfs' motion 7 to certify class is removed from the Court's docket, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 07/19/2005)
32 RESPONSE to Motion 21 to Dismiss First Amended Complaint &Supplemental Motion 30 to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit 1 − John M. Cox − dft information sheet &Uniform Citation# 3 Exhibit 2 − Tammy Laurine Cooper Court Sheet# 4 Exhibit 3 − Tammy L. Cooper Order of Probation# 5 Exhibit 4 − Deidra Wash dft information sheet, Uniform CitationOrder# 6 Exhibit 5 − Jeffrey L. Curtis−dft info sheet,warrant for arrest,uniform citation &Memo from Ky Alternative Programs# 7 Exhibit 6 − Angela Nesslerode − Dft Info sheet, Warrant of Arrest &Uniform Citation)(AKR) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 21 MOTION to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 30 MOTION to Dismiss by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 08/05/2005)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 23 of 40

08/08/2005 08/12/2005 08/15/2005 08/16/2005
08/17/2005 08/30/2005 08/30/2005 10/12/2005 11/11/2005 11/14/2005 11/14/2005
11/22/2005

33 AGREED ORDER: dfts shall have an extension of time through 8/12/2005 to file their reply to pltf's response to dfts' 21 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and 30 SUPPLEMENTAL Memo of Law in support of the Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 08/08/2005)
34 REPLY to Response to Motions re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, 21 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 30 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Dismiss the Comaplitn and Amended Complaint filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Summary of Grounds for Dismissal)(CBD) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 12 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, 21 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Compalint, 30 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
35 MEMORANDUM OPINION &ORDER: dfts' motion to dismiss pltfs' original complaint 12 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 2) dfts' motion to dismiss pltfs' amended complaint 21 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 3) dfts' supplemental motion to dismiss 30 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 4) all of pltf, Black's constitutional claims against dfts − except her equal protection claims, which remain viable − to the extent they are based on the strip searches conducted upon Black following her return from work release, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 5) pltfs Maureen O. Mitchell; Deidra Wash; Rebecca Hagan; Karen Gamble; Penny Tillett; Sandra McClease; Angela Lear; Jimmy Hammonds; Davanika Barber; Natasha Marie Hunter; and Patricia Tipton's claims against the dfts are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 6) pltf Cooper's claims against the dfts, to the extent they are based on the strip searches conducted upon Cooper following her return from court appearances are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 7) Franklin County Correctional Complex is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 8) the equal protection claims of all pltfs other than pltf Black are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 9) all of the pltfs' Ninth Amendment claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 08/17/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for Order for Meeting and Report (CBD) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
36 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND, ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister.(CBD) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review and Order for Meeting and Report. (CBD) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
37 ORDER FOR MEETING AND REPORT: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 11/7/2005. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 10/12/2005)
38 JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 11/11/2005)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Chief Judge Hood for review: 38 Joint Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (AKR) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
39 ORDER: 1) motion to amend be filed on or before 3/15/2006 2) Discovery due by 12/31/2006. 3) reports from experts due from pltf 7/1/2006 and from dft 9/1/2006 4) Dispositive Motions due by 1/31/2007. 5) motions in limine ddl 2/19/2007 6) Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/19/2007 10:00 AM in Frankfort before Joseph M. Hood. one 7) week before conference pretrial filings due 8) Jury Trial set for 4/24/2007 09:00 AM in Frankfort before Joseph M. Hood. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood (CBD)cc: COR, Diary (Entered: 11/14/2005)
40 NOTICE of Appearance as co−counsel for plaintiffs by Charles C. Adams, Jr, Thomas K. Herren on behalf of Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 24 of 40

01/06/2006 02/22/2006 02/28/2006 03/09/2006
03/09/2006 03/15/2006
03/22/2006
03/22/2006

McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins (CBD) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
41 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE: Case reassigned to Judge Karen K. Caldwell for all further proceedings. Judge Joseph M. Hood no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 01/08/2006)
42 MOTION to Strike by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister and/or Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Allegation Responses due by 3/13/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
43 STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER DISCOVERY through &including March 30, 2006 by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (AKR) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
44 STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND to 3/16/2006 re 42 MOTION to Strike by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (CBD) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 44 Agreed Stipulation (CBD) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
45 MOTION (1) for Order to continue or table dfts' Motion to Strike 42 and/or Dismiss Class Action Allegation AND (2) to Extend Ddl to Amend Pleadings by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures# 3 Exhibit B − Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents# 4 Exhibit C − Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents# 5 Exhibit D − UOR Codes# 6 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
46 STIPULATION re 45 MOTION for Order by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy La by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 MOTION for Order by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy La filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn,

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 25 of 40

03/23/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/19/2006 05/04/2006 05/09/2006 05/18/2006

Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Plaintiffs' Supplemental Discovery Requests# 2 Exhibit 2−Letter Received 3−17−06)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
48 REPLY to Response to Motion re 45 MOTION for Order by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy La, 42 MOTION to Strike by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Jillian Baker. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 45 MOTION for Order by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy La, 42 MOTION to Strike by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
49 RESPONSE to Motion re 45 MOTION for Order by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy La, 42 MOTION to Strike by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
50 REPLY in Support of Plas' Motion to Extend Deadline to Amend Pleadings 45 filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter dated 3/16/06 to Tammy S. Meade)(AKR) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 45 MOTION for Order &to Extend Deadline to Amend Pleadings by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy La (AKR) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
51 STIPULATION Granting Defendants an Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
52 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister on Claims Made by Jonathan Cox (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1−Jonathan Cox Interrogatory Answers# 4 Exhibit 2−Jonathan Cox Request for Admissions)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
53 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister on Claims Made by Tommy Cummins (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1−Request for Admissions to Thomas Cummins)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
54 RESPONSE to Motion re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 26 of 40

05/18/2006
05/26/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/31/2006 06/21/2006
07/07/2006 07/07/2006 07/12/2006 07/21/2006

Hammermeister filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
55 RESPONSE to Motion re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
56 REPLY to Response to Motion re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister on Claims made by Jonathan Cox filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
57 REPLY to Response to Motion re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
58 MOTION to Compel by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister written discovery (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1−Discovery to Plaintiffs# 4 Exhibit 2−Stipulation of Extension of Time to Answer Discovery# 5 Exhibit 3−April 19, 2006 letter# 6 Exhibit 4−June 5, 2006 letter# 7 Exhibit 5−June 12, 2006 letter)(Meade, Tammy) Modified text to include "written discovery" on 6/22/2006 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 06/21/2006)
59 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Supplemental Memo Supporting Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Allegations (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1−−Woodford v. Ngo)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,,, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted HammermeisterUnder the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 USC Section 1975e (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−−Woodford v. Ngo# 2 Proposed Order)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 58 MOTION to Compel Written Discovery by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
61 RESPONSE to Defendants' Pending Motions re 42 MOTION to Strike, 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 59 MOTION for Leave to File, 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 58 MOTION to Compel, 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 27 of 40

07/21/2006
07/31/2006 07/31/2006 07/31/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/07/2006

Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Excerpt from Deposition of Jail Personnel# 3 Exhibit A − Faxed letter from W. Hockensmith# 4 Exhibit B − Amended Ntc of Depo &Ntc of Depo of Defendants# 5 Exhibit C − Plaintiffs' Supplemental Interrogatories &Disclosures# 6 Exhibit D − Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Request for Production &Disclosures# 7 Exhibit E − Letter dated 6/29/06 to T. Herren# 8 Exhibit F − Article dated 7/8/06 from United Press International)(AKR) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
62 MOTION to Compel Discovery AND MOTION for Extension of Time, Deadlines by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Excerpt of Depositiono of jail personnel# 3 Exhibit A − Faxed letter from W. Hockensmith# 4 Exhibit B − Amended Ntc of Depo &Ntc of Depo of Defendants# 5 Exhibit C − Plaintiffs' Supplemental Interrogatories &Disclosures# 6 Exhibit D − Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Request for Production &Disclosures# 7 Exhibit E − Letter dated 6/29/06 to T. Herren# 8 Exhibit F − Article dated 7/8/06 from United Press International)(AKR) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
63 REPLY to Response to Motion re 58 MOTION to Compel by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
64 REPLY to Response to Motion re 59 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, 42 MOTION to Strike by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
65 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,,, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 58 MOTION to Compel by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 59 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,,, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
66 RESPONSE to Motion re 62 MOTION to Compel filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Ted Hammermeister# 2 Exhibit 2 − June 12, 2006 Letter to Plaintiffs' Counsel# 3 Exhibit 3 − May 31, 2006 Deposition# 4 Exhibit 4 − Amended Notice of Deposition# 5 Exhibit 5 − Plaintiffs' Counsel Letter dated May 31, 2006# 6 Exhibit 6 − April 19, 2006 Letter to Plaintiffs' Counsel# 7 Exhibit 7 − June 5, 2006 Letter to Plaintiffs' Counsel)(Meade, Tammy) Modified − text cleanup on 8/8/2006 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 08/07/2006)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 28 of 40

08/07/2006 08/22/2006 08/31/2006 09/05/2006 09/06/2006 09/06/2006 09/06/2006 09/08/2006
09/08/2006 09/08/2006

67 RESPONSE to Motion re 62 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) Modified − text cleanup on 8/8/2006 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 08/07/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 62 MOTION to Compel Discovery &MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by pltfs (CBD) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
68 MOTION for Extension of Time by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister to Produce Expert Information (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Proposed Order)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 68 MOTION for Extension of Time by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
69 ORDER: matter REFERRED to Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman pursuant to 28 U.S. 636(b)(1)(A) for resolution of all discovery disputes, settlement conf., and amend scheduling ddls, if appropriate. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 09/06/2006)
Clerk's Note: 69 Order not sent to attorney Rodnaey McDaniel as previously shown on NEF − attorney suspended 7/24/2006 from practice in EDKY by Chief Judge Hood for a period of two years to run consecutively with suspension pending aginst him, and until he is reinstated by Ky Supreme Ct. (CBD) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
70 NOTICE OF MANDATORY ECF DIRECTED TO James E. Boyd, Marie K. Brannon, S. Marie Hellard and Richard M. Sullivan, non−registered attorneys re 69 Order, Case Referred to Magistrate Judge − had to be MAILED TO non−registered attorneys, which is in direct violation of this court's General Orders re: Mandatory ECF. Failure to comply will result in this matter being submitted to the Chief Judge to institute contempt proceedings. cc: COR (CBD) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
71 ORDER: 1) dfts' motion to compel discovery 58 is granted in part, but pltfs' request for additional time likewise will be granted. Pltfs respond to outstanding discovery not later than 10/1/2006. Should pltfs fail to timely comply, court will entertain a motion for discovery sanctions under Rule 37 2) pltfs' motion to compel discovery 62 is denied without prejudice to renew upon ruling on motion for class certification and/or full compliance w/ LR 37.1 3) pltfs' motions for ext of ddl to amend pldgs included in 45 and of all other pretrial ddls 62 are granted in part and denied in part as follows: a) ddl to Amended Pleadings due by 10/2/2006. b) Discovery due by 2/28/2007. c) Dispositive Motions due by 3/20/2007. d) motions in limine ddl 4/5/2007 e) pltfs complete expert disclosures by 10/2/2006, w/ dfts expert disclosures not later than 11/29/2006 f) final pretrial dates of 3/19/2007 and (Jury Trial) 4/24/2007 shall be vacated, with this record to be submitted to presiding judge upon entry of this order to schedule new dates if appropriate and for ruling on pending matters not refrerred to undersigned 42 45 52 53 60 g) NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF THESE DDLS WILL BE GRANTED ABSENT STRONG SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE AFFIDAVIT, unless class certification is granted 4) dfts' motion for extension of time to produce experts reports 68 is granted as specified in paragraph 3(e) of this Order 5) If parties jointly request court−convened statis conference, joint status report to be filed before 10/10/2006 with mutually agreeable dates. Signed by Judge J. Gregory Wehrman (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 09/08/2006)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for scheduling of new dates (pretrial and trial) if appropriate per 71 Order. (CBD) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment 45 MOTION for Order 42 MOTION to Strike 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Memorandum in Support of Motion per Order 71 (CBD) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 29 of 40

09/28/2006
09/28/2006 09/29/2006 10/02/2006 10/02/2006
10/03/2006
10/03/2006 10/20/2006 10/23/2006

72 OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Dfts' Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations 42 from Complaint is DENIED 2) pltfs' Motion to Continue or Table the Motion to Strike 45 DENIED, the Court having ruled on the Motion to Strike 3) pltfs' Motion to Extend the Ddl to Amend Pleadings 45 DENIED as moot, the Magistrate Judge having ruled on same 4) Dfts' Motions for Summary Judgment 52 and 53 are GRANTED 5) Claims of Jonathan Cox and Tommy Cummins are DISMISSED with prejudice 6) dfts' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memo 59 GRANTED 7) dfts' Motion to Reconsider 60 DENIED 8) Any Motion to Certify this action as a Class Action must be filed w/in 60 days of entry date of this Order w/ response and reply briefs permitted according to Local Rules. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 09/29/2006)
74 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 42 Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Woodford v. Ngo)(CBD) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
73 NOTICE OF MANDATORY ECF DIRECTED TO James E. Boyd and S, Marie Hellard, non−registered attorneys re 72 Order − had to be MAILED TO non−registered attorneys, which is in direct violation of this court's General Orders re: Mandatory ECF. Failure to comply will result in this matter being submitted to the Chief Judge to institute contempt proceedings. (cc: COR, Boyd and Hellard w/ ECR Registration Forms) (CBD) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
75 DISCLOSURES OF EXPERTS by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, James Dion Bixler, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXPERT REPORT# 2 Exhibit EXPERT CV)(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
76 SECOND MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint and 11 Amended Complaint by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT# 2 Proposed Order)(Herren, Thomas) Modified text to add links to Cmp and Amd Cmp on 10/3/2006 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 10/02/2006)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION TO T. Herron re 76 SECOND MOTION to Amend/Correct by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra M ; ERROR: attorney failed to create links to the events to which the Motion to Amend/Correct relates; Entry made by attorney; CORRECTION: Clerk has modified text to create the links; In the future, attorney is advised to create a link with the existing event to which the pleading relates. No further action required. (cc: COR) (CBD) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
77 ORDER: In accordance w/ Order of 9/8/2006 ent by Judge Wehrman 71 , parties advised of following dates: 1) Pretrial Conf. scheduled for 7/17/2007 @ 10:00 AM 2) Jury Trial scheduled for 8/13/2007 @ 9:00 AM. (CBD)cc: COR, diary (Entered: 10/03/2006)
78 RESPONSE to Motion re 76 SECOND MOTION to Amend/Correct by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra M filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
79 MOTION to Strike 75 Disclosures, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1−−Plaintiffs' CR 26

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 30 of 40

10/25/2006
10/27/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/31/2006 11/08/2006 11/09/2006 11/09/2006 11/14/2006 11/15/2006
11/15/2006

Compliance# 4 Exhibit 2−−Meade 10−9−06 letter# 5 Exhibit 3−−Herren 10−9−06 letter)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
80 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Pursuant to FRCP 37(b) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37(b)# 2 Exhibit 1−10/9/06 letter to Tom Herren from Tammy Meade# 3 Exhibit 2−10/3/06 letter to Tammy Meade from Tom Herren# 4 Proposed Order for Sanctions)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
81 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister on Claims Made by Tammy Cooper a/k/a Tammy Cubert (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1−−Request for Admissions to Tammy Cooper)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
82 MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(CBD) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 82 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (James E. Boyd) by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
83 ORDER: said Motion ( 82 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney) is sustained and counsel (James E. Boyd) is relieved from any further duties herein. Clerk shall notify all parties hereto of this Order . Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 10/31/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 76 SECOND MOTION to Amend/Correct by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra M (AKR) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
84 RESPONSE to Motion re 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Tina Michelle Black. (Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
85 RESPONSE to Motion re 79 MOTION to Strike 75 Disclosures, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Tina Michelle Black. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Expert Report)(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
86 REPLY to Response to Motion re 79 MOTION to Strike 75 Disclosures, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
87 RESPONSE to Motion re 80 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Tina Michelle Black. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pltf's 2nd Sup Req# 2 Exhibit Initial Discl# 3 Exhibit Pltf's Sup Int And Req# 4 Exhibit − Franklin Co Regional Jail Strip Search Report # 5 Exhibit Letter to Pltf's Counsel)(Herren, Thomas) Modified text by adding "Franklin Co Regional Jail Strip Search Report" on 11/16/2006 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 11/15/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell/Mag. Judge Wehrman for review: 79 MOTION to Strike 75 Disclosures, by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 31 of 40

11/16/2006
11/20/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/22/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/29/2006 12/01/2006
12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/13/2006 12/20/2006

NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION TO T. Herren re 87 Response to Motion; Error: attachment number 4 was insufficiently described as Exhibit; Entry made by attorney; Correction: the Clerk has renamed the attachment. It is necessary that ALL attachments are adequately described. ex: Exhibit A (incorrect); Exhibit A − Affidavit of John Doe (correct); No further action required by counsel. cc: COR (AKR) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
88 REPLY to Response to Motion re 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
89 REPLY to Response to Motion re 80 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Wehrman for review: 80 MOTION for Sanctions (for failure to provide discovery) by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
90 MOTION for Extension of Time by Tina Michelle Black to certify class action (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Herren, Thomas) Modified text by adding "to certify class action" on 11/28/2006 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 11/27/2006)
91 MOTION for Extension of Time by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister to Produce Expert Information on 14 Individuals in 2nd Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
92 DISCLOSURES by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Report# 2 Exhibit B−Curriculum Vitae# 3 Exhibit C−Fee Schedule# 4 Exhibit D−List of Cases)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
93 RESPONSE in Opposition re 90 MOTION for Extension of Time by Tina Michelle Black filed by Karen Gamble, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1−−Meade Correspondence 10−30−06# 3 Exhibit 2−−Meade Correspondence 11−10−06# 4 Exhibit 3−Herren Correspondence 11−29−06)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 90 MOTION for Extension of Time to certify class action by Tina Michelle Black and 93 Response to Motion for Extension to certify class action (CBD) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Wehrman for review: 91 MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Expert Information on 14 Individuals in 2nd Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
94 NOTICE of Change of Address by Andrew D. DeSimone (DeSimone, Andrew) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
95 NOTICE of Change of Address by Tammy S. Meade (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 32 of 40

12/29/2006
12/29/2006 01/08/2007 01/10/2007 01/16/2007 01/18/2007

96 MEMORANDUM ORDER: pltfs' MOTION 76 Amend Cmp is granted, Court having rec'd pltfs' second amended cmp, the amended cmp shall be filed 2) dfts' motion 79 to Strike pltfs' expert is denied 3) pltfs shall have 15 days from DOE this Order to provide revised expert disclosure rpt 4) upon mtn, dfts may extend ddl for disclosure of their own expert witness(es) until 60 fays after final submission of pltfs' expert rpt 5) dfts' motion for sanctions 80 is granted in part and denied in part (a) pltfs pay dfts $500.00 as monetary sanction (b) w/in 10 day sof DOE this order, pltf shall fully comply w/ Court's 9/8/2006 Order. Any pltf who fails to comply w/ this order my be subject to dismissal 6) pltfs' motion to extend time to certify class 90 is granted in part and denied in part. Pltfs shall file any such motion not later than 1/26/2007. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. Failure to timely file a motion to certify will result in class allegations being stricken from cmp 7) dfts' motion for extensions of time to identify experts on newly added pltfs 91 is granted. Signed by Judge J. Gregory Wehrman. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 12/29/2006)
97 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Franklin County, Franklin County Correctional Complex, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Individually and Officially, filed by Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Jillian Baker, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins.(CBD) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
98 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister.(Meade, Tammy) Modified text to better describe document by adding "Second" on 1/9/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 01/08/2007)
99 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Designated Witnesses on January 15, 2007; 1:00 p.m. by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins.(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
100 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES Supplemental CR 26 Expert Compliance by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement CR 26 Disclosures)(Herren, Thomas) Modified text w/ language in italics on 1/17/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 01/16/2007)
101 MOTION to Compel by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister answer to 2nd request for production of documents (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1 − Second Requests for Production to Tina Black# 4 Exhibit 2 − December 20, 2006 letter)(Meade, Tammy) Modified text to include language in italics on 1/19/2007 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 01/18/2007)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 33 of 40

01/18/2007 01/24/2007 01/24/2007 01/25/2007 01/25/2007 01/26/2007 01/27/2007 02/05/2007 02/06/2007
02/06/2007 02/06/2007

102 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
103 MOTION for Extension of Time by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister for Expert Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
104 RESPONSE to Discovery Request by Tina Michelle Black.(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
105 RESPONSE in Opposition re 101 MOTION to Compel by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Tina Michelle Black. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" − Tina Black's Answers to Second Request for Production)(Herren, Thomas) Modified text by adding description of exhibit on 1/25/2007 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 01/25/2007)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION TO T. Herren re 105 Response in Opposition to Motion; Error: attachment was insufficiently described as Exhibit "A"; Entry made by attorney; Correction: the Clerk has renamed the attachment. It is necessary that all attachments are adequately described. ex: Exhibit A (incorrect); Exhibit A − Affidavit of John Doe (correct); No further action required by counsel. cc: COR (AKR) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
106 MOTION to Certify Class by Wendy Hockensmith Responses due by 2/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit Strip Search Report# 3 Exhibit Notice of Deposition# 4 Exhibit FCC Search Policy 501 KAR 3:12# 5 Exhibit Deposition pages# 6 Proposed Order)(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
107 DISCLOSURES of Expert Regarding Newly Added Plaintiffs by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Expert Report Addendum)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 01/27/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Wehrman/Judge Caldwell for review: 103 MOTION for Extension of Expert Deadline, 102 MOTION for Sanctions (CBD) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
108 RESPONSE to Motion re 102 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
109 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Supplemental Memorandum (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−−Jillian Baker Deposition Transcript# 2 Proposed Order # 3 Memorandum in Support)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
110 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation to permit dfts to depose plaintiff James Bixler by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Franklin County, Kentucky, Deidra Wash, Franklin County Correctional Complex,

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 34 of 40

02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/09/2007
02/22/2007
02/22/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007 02/27/2007

James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Meade, Tammy) Modified text w/ language in italics on 2/26/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 02/06/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 110 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation (AKR) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
111 REPLY to Response to Motion re 102 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 102 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 101 MOTION to Compel by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
112 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Certify Class by Wendy Hockensmith filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1−Plaintiffs Expert Report dated November 7, 2006# 3 Exhibit 2−−Eddleman v. Jefferson County, Kentucky# 4 Exhibit 3−Bostick v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
113 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation to extend certain discovery ddls by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Franklin County, Kentucky, Deidra Wash, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Meade, Tammy) Modified text w/ language in italics on 2/23/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 02/22/2007)
114 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Lt Rachel Hensley)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 113 Proposed Agreed Order to extend deadlines (AKR) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
115 AGREED ORDER (re 113 ): All Discovery be commenced in time to be completed by 3/16/2007. All Dispositive Motions due by 4/6/2007. Motions in Limine due by 4/27/2007. This Agreed Order does alter the pretrial and trial dates scheduled in this matter. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 02/26/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 109 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 35 of 40

02/27/2007 02/27/2007 02/28/2007
02/28/2007
02/28/2007 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 03/05/2007 03/06/2007

Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, 106 MOTION to Certify Class by Wendy Hockensmith (AKR) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
116 MOTION for Leave to File to File Paper Pleading (Plaintiffs' Reply) by Tina Michelle Black, Et Al (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Tendered Reply to Response in Opposition to Motion to Certify Class# 3 Exhibit 1 to Tendered Reply# 4 Exhibit 2 to Tendered Reply)(CBD) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 116 MOTION for Leave to File Paper Pleading (Plaintiffs' Reply) by Tina Michelle Black, Et Al (CBD) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
117 INCORRECTLY FILED AS MOTION to Strike 116 MOTION for Leave to File by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClea by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Responses due by 3/14/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Meade, Tammy) Please see docket entry 118 CORRECT ENTRY for this pleading. Modified text w/ language in bold on 2/28/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 02/28/2007)
118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 116 MOTION for Leave to File to File Paper Pleading by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClea filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Meade, Tammy) Modified text w/ language in italics on 2/28/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 02/28/2007)
Clerk's Note: Atty T. Meade's office contacted Clerk to advise 117 MOTION to Strike was filed using incorrect event. Document should have been filed as Response in Opposition. Atty has refiled the document as 118 Response in Opposition to Motion. (STB) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
119 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Sandra McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Penny Tillett, Patricia Tipton, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
120 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1 − Notices of Deposition# 4 Exhibit 2 − Discovery Requests)(Meade, Tammy) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/6/2007 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 03/01/2007)
121 NOTICE OF FILING by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister re 120 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 119 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter,

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 36 of 40

03/06/2007 03/07/2007 03/08/2007 03/09/2007 03/13/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007
03/15/2007 03/16/2007

Angela Lear, Natalie Elizab (AKR) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
122 RESPONSE in Opposition re 119 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Jeffrey Curtis, Linda Epling, Joe Farler, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Brittney Creech, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Natalie Elizab filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Correspondence# 2 Proposed Order)(DeSimone, Andrew) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
123 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Petition for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Defendants' Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Petition for Class Certification)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
124 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of Designated Plaintiffs by Jeffrey Curtis, Joe Farler, Brittney Creech, Natalie Elizabeth McClease, Tony Ray McClease, Angela Nesselrode, Patricia Tipton, Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tammy Laurine Cooper, Julie Ann Cornn. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 124 Proposed Agreed Order of voluntary dismissal of certain plaintiffs. (AKR) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
125 ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DESIGNATED PLAINTIFFS re 124 Proposed Agreed Order: claims of Tammy Laurine Cooper (a/k/a Tammy Cubert), Julie Cornn, Jeffrey Curtis, Tony McClease, Joe Farler, Angela Nesselrode, Brittany Creech, and Patricia Tipton are dismissed, with prejudice . Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 03/14/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
126 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES Supplemental FRCP 26 (a)(2) Expert Disclosures by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−Addendum to Report Issued 1−22−07)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
127 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation to permit Defendants to depose Plaintiff James Bixler by Linda Epling, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Sandra McClease, Penny Tillett, Franklin County, Kentucky, Deidra Wash, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
128 DISCLOSURES −−Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Regarding Report of Thomas Rosazza by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−Review of Plaintiffs' Expert Report)(Meade, Tammy) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 127 Proposed Agreed Order to depose plaintiff James Bixler. (AKR) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 37 of 40

03/16/2007 03/26/2007
03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/27/2007 03/28/2007 04/05/2007 04/06/2007

129 AGREED ORDER: dft are permitted to depose James Bixler who is presently incarcerated at Kentucky State Reformatory, at a mutually agreeable date and time for the parties. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 03/16/2007)
130 MEMORANDUM ORDER (Minute Entry for Oral Argument held on 3/15/2007) before Judge J. Gregory Wehrman: 1) dfts' motion to compel 101 is denied as moot 2) dfts' motion for discovery sanctions 102 is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied as moot concerning pltf Creech, but granted as to pltfs Bixler, Baker and Hockensmith (a.) based upon his failure to comply w/ prior orders of court, Bixler shall pay $200.00 to dfts as a sanction under Rule 37. Any adtl failures to comply will likely result in dismissal of his claim (b.) undersigned will recommend dismissal of claims of Baker &Hockensmith by sep. RRfiled herewith for failure to prosecute 3) dfts' motion to file supplemental memo 109 granted 4) dfts' motion for ext of time to serve expert disclosures 103 5) pltfs motion for ext of time in which to complete discovery 119 granted through 4/1/2007. Pltf shall fully respond to all outstanding discovery including but not limited to interrogatories seeking i.d. of all fact witnesses. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. 6) dispositive motions ddl 4/23/2007 7) dfts' oral motion to limit scope of testimony of pltf's expert granted in part as more fully delineated above 8) dfts' motion for sanctions 120 granted in part as follows: (a.) Jennifer Reneer, Sara Hodgkin, Stephen Wise, Teresa Hendren, Derek Harvey, Kimberlie Simmons, and Timothy Green shall show cause w/in 15 days of date of this order why their cases should not be dismissed both as a sanction under Rule 37 and for failure to prosecute (b.) w/in 10 days of date of this order, dft, by counsel, shall file, an itemization of resonable expenses incurred in making referenced motion for sanctions. (c.) w/in 10 days of date of service of dft's counse's stmt of expenses, pltf, by counsel, by written response to be filed herein, why Court should not award dft all reasonable expenses as claimed. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 03/26/2007)
131 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 109 Motion for Sanctions filed by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Jillian Baker Deposition)(CBD) FILED per Order 130 (Entered: 03/26/2007)
132 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: dfts' motion to dismiss claims of identified pltfs 102 be granted in part and that claims of Jillian Baker and Darren Dean Hockensmith be dismissed w/ prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to respond to discovery, and failure to comply w/ this Court's Sept. 8 and Dec 29, 2006 orders. Objections to RRmust be filed w/ Clerk w/in 10 days of date of service of same. A party may file a resp to another party's obj w/in 10 days after being served w/ copy thereof. Signed by Judge J. Gregory Wehrman. (CBD)cc: COR Modified Doc Type to Opn per Order 144 on 6/11/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 03/26/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Petition for Class Certification by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (CBD) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
133 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Supplemental Exh in Support of Response to Petition for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1; Deposition of Thomas A. Rosazza# 2 Proposed Order)(DeSimone, Andrew) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
134 NOTICE OF FILING by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister re 130 Memorandum Order − Docket Call on Oral Argument Billing Itemization (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Billing Itemization)(DeSimone, Andrew) Modified text w/ language in italics and text clean up on 4/6/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 04/05/2007)
135 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of Designated Plaintiffs by Linda Epling, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Sandra McClease, Penny Tillett, Franklin County, Kentucky, Deidra Wash, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 38 of 40

04/09/2007 04/10/2007
04/11/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007
04/18/2007 04/18/2007 04/19/2007
04/26/2007

Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (DeSimone, Andrew) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 135 Proposed Agreed Order of voluntary dismissal of certain parties. (AKR) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
136 RESPONSE to Motion re 133 MOTION for Leave to File by Franklin County, Kentucky, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Linda Epling, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Darren Dean Hockensmith, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Sandra McClease, Penny Tillett, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Tim Childers, Audrey Cunningham, April Engler, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, Alpha Lemay, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Stephen Wise, Davanika Barber, James Dion Bixler, Maureen O. Mitchell, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: Plaintiffs, Jennifer Reneer, Sara Hodgkin, Teresa Hendren, Derek Harvey, Kimberlie Simmons &Timothy Green have not responded to 130 Order of Court to show cause why their case should not be dismissed. (AKR) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
137 ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DESIGNATED PLAINTIFFS: claims of Stephen Wise, Darren Hockensmith, James Bixler, Alpha LeMay, Timothy Childers, and April Engler are dismissed, with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED any pending motions regarding these pltf are moot. There being no just cause for delay, this is a final and appealable order. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 04/16/2007)
138 RESPONSE to 134 Notice of Filing Billing Itemization filed by Linda Epling, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Sandra McClease, Penny Tillett, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Audrey Cunningham, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Davanika Barber, Maureen O. Mitchell, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Herren, Thomas) Modified text w/ language in italics on 4/18/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 04/16/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Wehrman for review: 134 Notice of Filing Billing Itemization, 138 RESPONSE to Notice of Filing Billing Itemization, per Order 130 (CBD) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 132 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 102 MOTION for Sanctions by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister filed by Franklin County Correctional Complex,, James Kemper, Jr., Ted H (CBD) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
139 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister Against Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit 1 − Deposition of Tina Black# 4 Exhibit 2 − Affidavit of Sgt Richard Mazzacone# 5 Exhibit 3−−Deposition of Wendy Hockensmith# 6 Exhibit 4−−6−25−04 Uniform Citation−Wendy Hockensmith# 7 Exhibit 5−−Deposition of Melissa Pickett# 8 Exhibit 6−−7−29−04 Uniform Citation−Melissa Pickett# 9 Exhibit 7−−Deposition of Thomas A. Rosazza# 10 Exhibit 8−−Affidavit of Lt Rachel Hensley# 11 Exhibit 9−−Deposition of Audrey Cunningham# 12 Exhibit 10−−Deposition of Linda Epling)(DeSimone, Andrew) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review: 133 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit by Franklin County, Kentucky,

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 39 of 40

04/27/2007 05/13/2007 05/14/2007 05/23/2007 05/23/2007 05/24/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007 08/01/2007

James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister (AKR) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
140 MINUTE ENTRY FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 4/27/2007 before Judge J. Gregory Wehrman: Counsel jointly requested all pending motions be held in abeyance in light of ongoing negotiations. Pending Mr. Herren's re−notification to the plaintiffs directed to "show cause" in the Memorandum Order 130 filed 3/26/2007, those plaintiffs will be dismissed for failure to comply with discovery. Mr. Herren to file a status report on or before 5/11/2007. (COURT REPORTER: None) (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 04/30/2007)
141 STATUS REPORT OF PLAINTIFFS by Linda Epling, Karen Gamble, Rebecca Hagan, Jimmy Hammonds, Wendy Hockensmith, Natasha Marie Hunter, Angela Lear, Sandra McClease, Penny Tillett, Deidra Wash, Tina Michelle Black, Audrey Cunningham, Timothy Lee Green, Jillian Baker, Derek Harvey, Teresa Hendren, Sarah Hodgkin, William Mills, Melissa Pickett, Jennifer Reneer, Kimberlie Simmons, Davanika Barber, Maureen O. Mitchell, Jonathan Cox, Tommy Cummins. (Herren, Thomas) (Entered: 05/13/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Magistrate Judge Wehrman for review: 141 Status Report of Plaintiffs (AKR) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
142 MINUTE ENTRY FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 5/22/2007 before Judge J. Gregory Wehrman : Case has settled. A separate order will be entered by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 05/23/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review &Order: 142 Telephone Conference Minute Order (Case has settled). (AKR) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
143 SET ASIDE per Order 144 ORDER: action is DISMISSED W/ PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the ACTIVE DOCKET. Parties TENDER an agreed order dismissing case w/ prejudice w/in 45 days from entry of the Order. Court will entertain a motion to redocket action upon application w/in 45 days of this Order if settlement is not consummated. FURTHER ORDERED the PTC of 7/17/2007 and trial of 8/13/2007 are CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR, diary Modified w/ language in bold on 6/11/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 05/24/2007)
144 ORDER: Own its own motion, Court ORDERS the Order ent on 5/24/2007 143 dismissing action as settled is SET ASIDE. Court further ORDERS 1) Report and Recommendation 132 is ADOPTED as Opinion of the Court and claims of pltf Jillian Baker are DISMISSED w/ prejudice for failure to prosecute; 2) Pltfs Jennifer Reneer, Sara Hodgkin, Teresa Hendren, Derek Harvey, Kimberlie Simmons and Timothy Green having failed to show cause, the claims of those pltfs are DISMISSED w/ prejudice as sanctions under Rule 37 and for failure to prosecute 3) claims of pltfs Maureen O. Mitchell, Deidra Wash, Rebecca Hagan, Karen Gamble, Penny Tillett, Sandra McClease, Angela Lear, Jimmy Hammonds, Davanika Barker, Natasha Marie Hunter, Jonathan Cox and Tommy Cummins having been previously DISMISSED by court pursuant to Orders dated 8/16/2005 35 and 9/28/2006 72 , the claims of those pltfs are and remain DISMISSED for reasons stated in the 8/16/2005 Opinion and Order and the 9/28/2006 Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR Modified text − sp. error on 6/11/2007 (Dearborn, Christy). (Entered: 06/11/2007)
145 JUDGMENT: claims of pltfs Jillian Baker, Jennifer Reneer, Sara Hodgkin, Teresa Hendren, Derek Harvey, Kimberlie Simmons and Timothy Green, Maureen O. Mitchell, Deidra Wash, Rebecca Hagan, Karen Gamble, Penny Tillett, Sandra McClease, Angela Lear, Jimmy Hammonds, Davanika Barker, Natasha Marie Hunter, Jonathan Cox and Tommy Cummins are DISMISSED and jgm is ent for dfts as to these claims 2) There being no reason for delay, Court ORDERS this Jgm is Final and Appealable. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 06/11/2007)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Caldwell for review/scheduling. (CBD) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

Case 3:05-cv-18 As of: 06/30/2013 09:37 PM EDT Page 40 of 40

08/03/2007 08/14/2007
08/14/2007 08/20/2007

146 ORDER FOR MEETING AND REPORT: 1) w/in 21 days parties hold Rule 26 Meeting 2) w/in days thereafter parties shall file a Join Status Report. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 08/03/2007)
147 INCORRECT − Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation of Dismissal by Linda Epling, Wendy Hockensmith, Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister, Tina Michelle Black, Audrey Cunningham, William Mills, Melissa Pickett. (DeSimone, Andrew)See DE 148 for correct entry. Modified text by adding "Incorrect" &"See DE 148 for correct entry" on 8/15/2007 (Ratliff, Kay). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
148 NOTICE OF FILING by Franklin County, Kentucky, Franklin County Correctional Complex, James Kemper, Jr, Ted Hammermeister, Ted Hammermeister of Agreed Order of Dismissal (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Agreed Order of Dismissal)(DeSimone, Andrew) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
149 AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL: all claims asserted against dfts by pltfs Wendy Hockensmith, Melissa Pickett, Tina Black, Linda Epling, William Mills and Aubrey Cunningham are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as settled, each side paying their costs and attorney fees. As no further claims of pltfs remain, case should be stricken from the docket as settled. There being no just cause for delay, this is a final and appealable order. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 08/20/2007)