E-FILED
Monday, 04 May, 2009 04:47:29 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS, GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH, LATERIAL STINSON, and KEITH WALKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA MAHONE, EDDIE JONES, DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN GARLIC, DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA, MELODY FORD, and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.

) ) ) ) ) No.l:07-CV-1298-HAB-JAG ) ) Judge Harold A. Baker ) ) Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman ) ) ) ) )

Defendants

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial

Stinson, and Keith Walker, prisoners currently incarcerated in various adult correctional

centers of the Illinois Department of Corrections (the "IDOC"), on their own behalf and
on behalf of all mentally ill inmates who are now or will be incarcerated in moc adult

correctional centers, hereby complain against Defendants Roger E. Walker, Jr., Director

of the IDOC; Roberta Fews, Deputy Director ofthe IDOC Office of Programs and

Support Services; Dr. Wendy Navarro, Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services

for the IDOC; Dr. Sylvia Mahone; Eddie Jones; Dr. Willard Elyea; Dr. John Garlic; Dr.

Michael F. Massa; Melody Ford, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., as follows:

1. This is a class action lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of Plaintiffs' and the class members' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free of cruel and unusual punishment while they are incarcerated in IDOC facilities, to redress violations of their liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (the "Rehab Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, to be free of discrimination on account oftheir disabilities.
2. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendants' conduct unconstitutional and violative of the ADA and the Rehab Act, and an injunction against. Defendants' unlawful conduct as set forth below on pages 19-21.
3. America's prisons have become the new mental institutions. Fifty years ago, half a million mentally ill Americans lived in public mental health hospitals. In 2002, fewer than eighty thousand did. At the same time these mentally ill persons were being deinstitutionalized and released to treatment - or lack of treatment - by chronically underfunded programs, the U.S. rate of incarceration soared.
4. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, authors D. James and L. Glaze, dated September, 2006, revised December 14,2006, stated that "At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons ....
These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners ...." iliL. p. 1.) "State prisoners
were most likely to report a recent history of a mental health problem []. About 24% of
2

State prisoners had a recent history of a mental health problem ...." (Id. p. 2.) However, approximately "3 in 10 State [] prisoners were found to have symptoms of a mental disorder without a recent history." (ld. p. 3.) Based upon a modified structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association), the report found that over 15% of State prisoners reported at least one symptom of a psychotic disorder; over 70% reported at least one symptom ofa major depressive disorder, and almost 74% reported at least one symptom of a mania disorder. (Id. p. 2.) This compares to 3.1 % of the general US population reporting at least one symptom of a psychotic disorder; 7.9% reporting at least one symptom of a major depressive disorder; and 1.8% reporting a symptom of a mania disorder. (Id. p. 3.)
5. The IDOC and its third-party contractor for medical and mental health services, Wexford, have utterly failed to deal with this devastating problem. Defendants' policies and procedures - or lack thereof- create cruel and inhuman conditions for those inmates who are mentally ill. The treatment of mentally ill inmates throughout the IDOC's adult correctional facilities - grossly inadequate treatment, erratic and inconsistent treatment, punitive treatment, or no treatment at all - continually violates the constitutional and legal rights of Plaintiffs and the class members.
6. The court has jurisdiction ofthis cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Venue is proper in the Central District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least one ofthe Defendants resides in the District and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in the District.
3

7. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all mentally ill prisoners, or prisoners who may become mentally ill while incarcerated, who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in the IDOC's adult correctional facilities. A class action is proper pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(I) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. Members ofthe class on whose behalf Plaintiffs sue are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. According to the IDOC's website, as of May 2007, there were more than 45,000 adult prisoners in the IDOC's correctional facilities, of whom more than half likely suffer, or will suffer, from mental illness. (See paragraph 4 above.)
9. There are questions oflaw or fact common to all class members. The failure of Defendants to implement policies and procedures - including policies and procedures they already have in place - to identify and care for the large number of mentally ill inmates currently in custody, to help prevent inmates from developing mental illness while incarcerated, or to limit the extent to which mental illness results in extra punishment for inmates, is a violation of Plaintiffs' and the class members' constitutional and legal rights.
10. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims ofthe class, and Plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class members.
11. Separate injunctive and declaratory actions maintained by individual members ofthe class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members ofthe class, thereby establishing incompatible standards of
4

conduct for Defendants. Adjudication regarding individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of or impair the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.
12. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class that Plaintiffs represent, thereby making final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the class as a whole.
13. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center; he was previously incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. He has a history of auditory hallucinations, suicide attempts, and self-mutilation. Despite Mr. Rasho's serious mental illness, he has been taken on or off medication, put into and then taken out of the Pontiac Mental Health Unit, and told by correctional officers when he was on crisis watch to call them "when [he] hit an artery." Mr. Rasho's 1996 incarceration for burglary has been greatly prolonged by punishment for infractions related to his mental illness, so that his current release date is now 2018.
14. Plaintiff Patrice Daniels is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Despite his mental illness, he has been placed in segregation for extended periods; he has repeatedly caused injury to himself and received medical attention for these injuries, but did not receive mental health screening or mental health care. He has requested transfer to a Mental Health Unit but been denied.
15. Plaintiff Gerrodo Forrest is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has a history of mental illness including auditory hallucinations, delusions, and repeated suicide attempts, compounded by limited intellectual and cognitive abilities.
5

He has spent most of his time in prison in segregation due to acting out triggered by his psychological illness and impairments.
16. Plaintiff Laterial Stinson is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has a long history of diagnoses and treatment for mental illness, but his diagnoses and medications have constantly changed as he has been shifted from doctor to doctor.
17. Plaintiff Lynda Smith is currently incarcerated at Dwight Correctional Center. She has a history oftreatment for mental illness, and has also had surgery for a brain tumor. She has been in custody since November 1989 and has spent a total often years since then in segregation. She was not originally placed in the Mental Health Unit at Dwight, and she is not currently there despite her repeated requests that she be transferred there. She believes that her grievances have been destroyed by the doctor at Dwight. Her incarceration has been prolonged due to disciplinary infractions and her current release date is 2032.
18. Plaintiff Keith Walker is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Despite suffering from mental illness, Mr. Walker has been removed from the Mental Health Unit and has had his medication discontinued. Mr. Walker has spent months upon months in segregation for disciplinary infractions related to his mental illness, and has had his incarceration prolonged due to disciplinary infractions related to his mental illness.
6

19. Defendant Roger E. Walker, Jr. is the Director ofthe IDOC; as such, he has overall responsibility for the administration of all correctional facilities in the State. He resides in Springfield, Illinois.
20. Defendant Roberta Fews is the Deputy Director of the IDOC Office of Programs and Support Services. She has responsibility for the office ofthe Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC, which is within her department rather than under the authority ofthe Medical Director ofthe IDOC.
21. Defendant Dr. Wendy Navarro is the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC, and as such, has immediate responsibility for the mental health and psychiatric care of inmates in the custody of the IDOC.
22. Defendant Dr. Sylvia Mahone is the medical director of Pontiac Correctional Center.
23. Defendant Eddie Jones is the former warden of Pontiac Correctional Center.
24. Defendant Dr. Willard Elyea is the former Medical Director of the IDOC. 25. Defendant Dr. John Garlic is the supervising clinical psychologist at Pontiac Correctional Center. 26. Defendant Dr. Michael F. Massa is the psychiatrist assigned to the South Medical Unit at Pontiac Correctional Center. 27. Defendant Melody Ford is the chairperson ofthe IDOC Administrative Review Board.
7

28. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which provides health services, including mental health services, throughout the IDOC by contract with the State of Illinois.
29. Defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. 30. Mental illness is grossly undertreated in the IDOC's facilities. One measure of the deficiency is how few of its adult correctional centers provide any sort of specialized mental health services at all: The State of Illinois currently has only four adult correctional facilities (out of a total of 28) which offer some form of specialized mental health services to inmates: Dixon Correctional Center, Pontiac Correctional Center, Tamms Correctional Center (the state's "super-max" facility); and Dwight Correctional Center. The available spaces for specialized mental health treatment are minuscule compared to the need: according to the IDOC's Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2007 (the most recent report available), as of June 2007, Pontiac's Mental Health Unit housed 69 inmates, and Dixon's Psychiatric Unit housed 183 inmates. 31. Defendants avoid treating inmates with mental illness by failing to identify inmates with mental illness. Despite an Administrative Directive which requires that "All offenders [] transferring into a facility shall be screened and, when appropriate, referred to a mental health professional," the mental health screening at IDOC adult correctional centers is arbitrary, haphazard, and riddled with gaps. Most inmates do not receive such screening. 32. Even for those prisoners identified as needing mental health care, the care is grossly substandard. The IDOC's contracts with Wexford, signed year after year by
8

Defendant Walker, contain no performance standards; thus it is no surprise that the State of Illinois pays hundreds of millions of dollars, year after year, for care that violates constitutional standards and established legal norms.
33. Access to the limited number of specialty mental health units is limited and difficult. The standards for transfer to a facility with a specialty mental health unit are unclear; prisoners with obvious mental health needs may not be transferred to such facilities at all. Even at facilities with specialty mental health units, prisoners are refused assignment to the mental health unit despite requesting it and despite being on, or having been on, potent psychiatric medications.
34. Prisoners who ask to be transferred to mental health units are refused for reasons that have nothing to do with mental health treatment considerations (~, too much segregation time). Grievances by inmates as to the quality of care provided in the mental health units are treated not as complaints about care, but as challenges to being assigned there. Prisoners are transferred out of mental health units in retaliation for filing a grievance, assisting other inmates in grieving, or other reasons having nothing to do with psychiatric care.
35. What limited and erratic care there is, is provided chiefly by medication. A prisoner with paranoid schizophrenia may see a psychiatrist once a month, to "re-up" his medications, and a social worker once a month. It can be very easy to get off medications: just ask, or stop taking the medications. There are no adequate mechanisms in place to monitor whether mentally ill inmates are really taking the medications they are
9

prescribed, or to encourage them, through therapeutic contact, to stick with their medication regimes.
36. Prisoners who are transferred from one correctional facility to another may receive radically different qualities of care, or no care; different medications, or no medications at all. Inmates who are transferred from one facility to another may be left without their medications because of delay in assessing them or delay in transfer oftheir medical records, putting them in serious, perhaps life-threatening danger.
37. The diagnosis of - or failure to diagnose - inmates' mental health problems by mental health professionals in IDOC facilities, and the day-to-day treatment of mentally ill prisoners by staff, is routinely poisoned by the notion of "offender manipulation," and mentally ill inmates are routinely categorized as uncooperative malingerers. Both regular staff and supposed mental health "professionals" fail to recognize the "uncooperative" and "manipulative" conduct as the symptoms of mental illness which they are.
38. Correctional staff are not trained to deal with the mentally ill. Staff often do not respond to prisoners' threats to harm themselves, and use unnecessary force on mentally ill prisoners. Prisoners on suicide watch are neglected, abused, or both. They can be stripped naked; placed in a cell with no mattress or blankets; put in four-point restraints. In winter, staff in some facilities will open the windows, and then sit and laugh.
10

39. Inmates who engage in conduct due to their mental illnesses are punished in absurd and irrational ways - for instance, being given a ticket and segregation time for "damage to state property" for destroying a jumpsuit in a suicide attempt.
40. Mentally ill inmates accumulate large amounts of segregation time for disciplinary infractions caused by their mental illness, but their mental illness is not taken into account in the hearings about their infractions. Prisoners are housed in segregation, and given little or no mental health care, despite having, for instance, passionate beliefs that they are subjects of "mind-control" technology experiments by the IDOC. Mentally ill prisoners are sent to Tamms Correctional Center, the "super-max" facility, without regard for the damage the severe social and sensory deprivations of Tamms are likely to have on their psychological state. It is well-known that placing mentally ill inmates in segregation or isolation is highly likely to exacerbate their mental illness. Even without mental illness, many prisoners in isolation experience mental deterioration; isolation is especially dangerous to those who are already mentally ill. Studies have found that the effects of isolation include: paranoid psychosis and uncontrolled rage, including increased homicidal and suicidal impulses; frequent schizophrenia; and impairment of the ability to socially reconnect with others once released. Yet mentally ill prisoners still accumulate years upon years of "seg" time in the IDOC, or are sent to Tamms.
41. Likewise, prisoners who were originally incarcerated for comparatively minor offenses (~., burglary) can end up spending more time in prison due only to their mental illness than those convicted of much more serious offenses.
11

42. The units in which mentally ill prisoners are housed - both the mental health units themselves and other locations where they may be placed - are often filthy, vermin-ridden and filled with human waste. This is true of individual cells and of common areas, such as showers. Staff do not clean them, and inmates are not able to clean them. In the Pontiac "North Segregation" Unit, for instance, inmates are given a half cup of green soap once a week to clean their cells. In the beginning, they are also given a sponge, but once the sponge wears out they are not given a new one.
43. The careless, inconsistent, and indifferent care Plaintiffs have received for their mental illness is emblematic of Defendants' violations of the constitutional and legal rights of inmates and their deliberate indifference to them. Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer greatly and unnecessarily as a result.
COUNT I (Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.c. § 1983
Based Upon Failure to Diagnose And Treat Serious Mental Health Needs) 44. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 43 as if
alleged herein. 45. Plaintiffs and the class members have a serious medical need or condition,
namely mental illness or mental health conditions, which require treatment. 46. Defendants' policies, practices, and customs are designed to intentionally
fail to diagnose or treat large numbers of mentally ill prisoners. Defendants have displayed and continue to display deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' and the class members' mental health needs.
12

47. Defendants' acts and omissions constitute cruel and unusual punishment of Plaintiffs and the class members and violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
48. Defendants' policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs and the class members at unreasonable, continuing, and foreseeable risk of developing or exacerbating serious medical and mental health problems.
49. Defendants' violations of Plaintiffs' and the class members' constitutional rights has inflicted both physical and mental harm and injury, including by causing avoidable pain, mental suffering, and deterioration oftheir health. Upon information and belief, in some cases it has resulted in premature death.
50. As a proximate result of Defendants' unconstitutional policies, practices, customs, acts, omissions, and deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury and the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT II (Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.c. § 1983
Based Upon Failure To Train Or Supervise) 51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 50 as if alleged herein.
13

52. Defendants fail to adequately train or supervise individuals in their employ or under their control and supervision as to how to properly respond to and interact with prisoners with serious mental health needs.
53. Defendants' failure to adequately train or supervise violates Plaintiffs' and the class members' constitutional rights.
54. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to train, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, deprivation of the rights secured under the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. Such deprivations are causing and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury and the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT III (Violation of Liberty Interest Under The Due Process Clause Of The Fourteenth
Amendment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 54 as if alleged herein. 56. Defendants' policies and procedures and acts or omissions which cause Plaintiffs and the class members to be placed in isolated environments for extended periods impose an atypical and significant hardship on Plaintiffs and the class members in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. 57. Defendants' policies and procedures and acts or omissions which fail to take into account Plaintiffs' and the class members' mental illness in imposing additional
14

punishment violate Plaintiffs' and the class members' liberty interests and due process
rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment of the u.s. Constitution.
58. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, deprivation of the rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Such deprivations are causing and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT IV (Title II Of The Americans With Disabilities Act) 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 58 as if alleged herein. 60. Each ofthe IDOC facilities housing Plaintiffs and the class members are public entities as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131. All Defendants at all relevant times acted in their official capacities as representatives of at least one of these public entities. 61. Plaintiffs and class members are otherwise qualified individuals with a disability as defined under the ADA and its implementing regulations, including 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) and § 12102(2). Plaintiffs and the class members have mental and/or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; or they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments.
15

62. Plaintiffs and the class members meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants.
63. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs and class members on the basis oftheir disabilities in the following ways:
a) Refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the class members with proper treatment for their serious mental illness despite knowledge of such serious mental illness;
b) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as placing them in administrative segregation or other isolated environments as punishment;
c) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as depriving them of clothes, heat, or sanitary surroundings;
d) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs and some class members to mental health units and housing them in elevated security divisions or tiers, or general population divisions, which are especially chaotic, noisy, isolated and offer less or no mental health treatment, and also increase the likelihood of serious physical and mental harm due to the fact that the staff
16

and guards in such divisions are not trained to interact with seriously mentally ill detainees. 64. In acting in the manner alleged above, Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs and the class members in violation ofthe ADA. 65. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury, including the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT V (Violation of Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act) 66. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 65 as if alleged herein. 67. Upon information and belief, the IDOC receives federal financial assistance, thus making it subject to Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.c. § 794(a) and § 705(20). 68. Each Plaintiff and each class member is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability as defined in the Rehabilitation Act and implementing regulations. Plaintiffs and the class members have mental and/or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; or they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments.
17

69. Plaintiffs and the class members meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants.
70. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs and class members based upon their disabilities in the following ways:
a) Refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the class members with proper treatment for their serious mental illness despite knowledge of such serious mental illness;
b) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity oftheir illness by such methods as placing them in administrative segregation or other isolated environments as punishment;
c) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as depriving them of clothes, heat, or sanitary surroundings;
d) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs and some class members to mental health units and housing them in elevated security divisions or tiers, or general population divisions, which are especially chaotic, noisy, isolated and offer less or no mental health treatment, and also increase the likelihood of serious physical and mental harm due to the fact that the staff
18

and guards in such divisions are not trained to interact with seriously
mentally ill detainees.
71. In acting in the manner alleged above, the Defendants have unlawfully
discriminated against Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of the Rehabilitation
Act.
72. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the
class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm
and injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury, including the risk of
death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at
law to address the wrongs described herein.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the class members request that this Court:
(a) Declare that Defendants' actions and inactions are unlawful and
unconstitutional for the reasons specified above;
(b) Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Defendants to
provide:
1. Mental health training for correctional staff as part of their initial training and as a required element of their annual training, including training on: signs of mental illness; treatments for mental illnesses; side-effects of medications used for the treatment of mental illness; effective interaction with mentally ill prisoners and defusing potentially escalating situations; suicide prevention training; safe use of physical and mechanical restraints for mentally ill offenders; how to distinguish between conduct that reflects a serious mental illness and conduct that deliberately breaks prison rules; and compassion for the mentally ill.
2. That all inmates shall receive (1) an initial mental health screening upon admission to an IDOC facility; (2) a detailed mental health screening by a mental health professional within two weeks of arrival at any IDOC facility (unless such 19

inmate is already on the mental health caseload as a result of screenings at a prior facility); and (3) an appropriate mental health classification.
3. That initial and detailed mental health screenings must become part of an inmate's permanent file.
4. That inmates identified as in need of evaluation through the screening process will receive a complete mental health evaluation by a mental health professional within 14 days.
5. That any institution employee may also refer an inmate for a mental health evaluation based upon observation of the inmate's behavior.
6. That every inmate on the mental health caseload will receive an evaluation update at least once annually.
7. That each inmate with a mental illness classification shall have a written treatment plan, updated annually.
8. For any inmate with known/reported history of mental health treatment who is transferred, procedures to ensure that inmate's complete mental health records are transferred to the new institution within 48 hours.
9. Procedures for removal from mental health caseload.
10. That inmates in segregation units or other isolation environments will be reviewed at least once per week by mental health professional.
11. That inmates entering segregation or other isolation environments will be promptly screened for suicide potential.
12. That no inmate with a mental illness classification shall be incarcerated at Tamms or placed in segregation for longer than 20 consecutive days and no more than 40 days total per year.
13. Procedures for identifying, monitoring and treating inmates with suicide potential, including provision of suicide-resistant gowns and blankets for inmates on suicide watch.
14. Protocols for administration and monitoring inmates on psychotropic medications, including protocols for involuntary administration.
15. Protocols for inmates on suicide watch.
16. Moving the supervision of mental health treatment from the director of programs to the medical director of the IDOC. 20

17. A qualified expert to supervise and report to Court on implementation ofthe procedures and programs included herein.
18. A documented external peer review program for mental health professionals.
19. A quality improvement program for inmate mental health care as part of any contract with a third-party contractor.
20. Regular performance evaluations of mental health services by independent qualified professionals.
21. Internal quality review mechanisms including independent reviews of any thirdparty contractors.
22. Requirements that independent contractors providing mental health services pay workers at levels comparable to community mental health settings.
23. Increased numbers of hospital beds and acute-care facilities for treatment of mental illness.
24. Increased numbers of intermediate care facilities for mental illness.
25. A presumption in any disciplinary hearing involving an inmate with a mental illness classification that the disciplinary incident was caused by mental illness.
(c) Award Plaintiffs and the class members their costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
(d) Award the named Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages for the
violations of their constitutional and legal rights;
(e) Award any such further relief as the Court may deem just.

May 4, 2009

sf Marc Kadish One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

•
21

Harold C. Hirshman (ARDC #1226290) Camille E. Bennett (ARDC #6224457) Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 (phone) (312) 876-7934 (fax) hhirshman@sonnenschein.com cbennett@sonnenschein.com
Alan Mills Uptown People's Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) Alanmill@aol.com
Barry G. Lowy (ARDC #6196719) Equip for Equality 235 S. Fifth St. Springfield, IL 62705 (800) 758-0464 (phone) (217) 523-0720 (fax) contactus@equipforequality.org

Marc R. Kadish Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com

14750697

22

E-FILED
Monday, 04 May, 2009 04:48:14 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 20, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk ofthe Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification to the following:
Heidi Hildebrand Counsel for defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones, Dr. Willard Elyea, Melody Ford, Dr. Navarro, Dr. John Garlic and the Illinois Department ofCorrections Theresa M. Powell David M. Walter Counsel for defendants Dr. Sylvia Mahone and Dr. Michael F. Massa
sl Marc Kadish Marc R. Kadish Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747
•

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82

Page 1 of 7

E-FILED

Friday, 19 November, 2010 04:22:50 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS, GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH, LATERIAL STINSON, and KEITH WALKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA MAHONE, EDDIE JONES, DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN GARLIC, DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA, MELODY FORD, and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
Defendants

) ) ) ) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) ) Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ AND STATE DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN Plaintiffs and th e State Defendants 1 hereby propose a case m anagement plan and case

schedule.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This is a sta tewide civil rights class action. Plaintiffs allege system-wide failures in the

identification and treatment of mentally ill inmates within the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) facilities, which endanger and har m Plaintiffs and the class members. Plaintiffs bring

claims under federal law and the United States Constitution. They seek a prelim inary and

permanent injunction requiring the Defendants to improve mental health care for prisoners.

1 The “State Defendants” do not include defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and Wexford employees Drs. Sylvia Mahone and Michael Massa.

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82 Page 2 of 7
The State Def endants have initia ted steps inte rnally to add ress the issu es raised in this litigation. This plan is designed to build on those efforts in a positive m anner and seeks to determine if the matter can be resolved through a collaborative implementation process.
Plaintiffs and the State Defendant s (hereafter, “parties”) enter into th is case management plan in order to coordinate their investigation and discovery so that fa cts may be expeditiously determined and the p rospects for settlement readily addressed. By entering into this plan, no party agrees to w aive its r ight to fully litigate all aspe cts of this ca se. Ra ther, the parties simply agree to delay norm al litigation efforts and instead pursue this altern ative path of collaborative fact finding and negotiation for a limited period of time.
II. FACT FINDING The parties agree to d efer formal discovery efforts except as set forth in this plan while they pursue fact finding through the procurem ent of a n expert’s report and during the negotiations that follow submission of the report. The parties agree to the appointm ent of experts in the area of prison mental health (the “Consultants”) as independent fact finders in this case. The Consultants shall conduct a thorough, independent, neutral exam ination of the f acts related to the delivery of m ental health services in light of the Second Am ended Complaint. The Consultants’ investigation shall proceed consistent with a protocol to be adopted by the Consultants and agreed to by the parties. The Consultants shall use their best professional judgment to determine what matters need to be examined, and the m ethods required for such examination. The pr otocol adopted by the Consultants may divide areas of investigation among members of the panel. As they examine all issues, the Consultants will take special note of staffing levels, staff credentialing, staff training, and disciplinary procedures (as th ey relate to prisone rs with m ental illness). The Consultants will review policies and procedures as well as the actual administration of the entire system.
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82 Page 3 of 7
The Protocol describing the scope and m ethodology for fact finding and the schedule for reports shall be proposed by the Consultants and a pproved by the parties. The final fact finding report, including appendices setting forth the basis of any findings in the report and an y recommendations for rem edial measures should a ny deficiencies be identified, shall be issued not later than December 15, 2011, though the parties request that the work be completed before that date if possible. The compensation and expenses of the Consultant s shall be paid by the IDOC but the Consultants shall in all respects work independently and shall be permitted to have access to all persons on all sides of the case as they see fit, consistent with the approved protocol.
The parties also agree that, in order to carry out their assignments, the Consultants will have timely and com plete access to all relev ant files, reports, memoranda, or other relev ant documents within the contro l of the State Defendants or sub ject to acces s by the State Defendants; have access, subject to security and safety concer ns, during announced on-site tours and inspections of the institutions encompassed by this case management plan, as well as any administrative offices; have unobstructed access to staff and access, subject to security and safety concerns, to other persons having inform ation relevant to the im plementation of this case management plan; and have the authority to e ngage in private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel.
The parties agree that any repor ts produced by the experts w ill not be disclosed except to the parties to this action or their counsel. The reports will not be filed with the court or used as evidence in subsequent proceedings except by agreement of the parties. The parties further agree that any s tatements made to the e xperts in th e settlement process will not be used for any purposes beyond the settlement process, either as substantive evidence or for impeachment; and,
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82 Page 4 of 7
if settlement is not re ached, the Consultants will not be allo wed to tes tify as to any personal knowledge gained through the settlement process.
III. CASE SCHEDULE AND MANAGEMENT A. Class Certification and Notice. The parties have stipulat ed that a plaintiff class should be certified in this case for settlem ent purposes only; a Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes is f iled herewith, togethe r with a propo sed order preliminarily certifying the c lass for settlement purposes. In the event this process does not result in settlement of this litigation, the parties agree that the settlement class will be decertified. The plaintiffs then will be allowed to m ove for certification of a class for purposes other than settlement. B. Protective Order. The parties will jo intly submit to this Court, no later than December 15, 2010, a proposed HIPPA com pliant protective order preserving the confidentiality of medical records of mem bers of the proposed class and all ot her inmates incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections whose records are identified by the Consultants as requiring review for purposes of the proposed investigation. C. Access to Records. All record s produced to the experts during the settlem ent process shall be returned to the Department of Corrections upon receipt of the expert’s report and will only be produced to the plaintiffs i f the case does not settle and th e records are otherwise discoverable. D. Negotiation. Upon the issuance of the fact fi nding report prepar ed pursuant to this case m anagement plan, the parties will en ter into negotiations in a good faith effort to resolve this matter. Nothing in this paragraph shall be in terpreted as an admission by the State Defendants of liability in any respect a nd no party agrees to w aive its right to fully litigate any and all aspects of this case.
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82 Page 5 of 7

E. Report to Court. The parties agree to report to the Court every thirty days or as

otherwise requested by the Court.

F. Stay of Litigation. The parties will subm it to the Court for approval a proposed

class certification order, a proposed notice to the class of class cert ification, and a proposed

protective order. All other pleadings and discover y in this case, except those filed pursuant to

this joint case management plan, shall be stayed unless otherwise directed by the Court.

Respectf

ully submitted,

/s/ Harold C. Hirshman

One

of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Harold C. Hirshman (ARDC #1226290) Camille E. Bennett (ARDC #6224457)
SNR DENTON US LLP
233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 (phone) (312) 876-7934 (fax) harold.hirshman@snrdenton.com camille.bennett@snrdenton.com
Alan Mills Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) Alanmill@aol.com
Barry G. Lowy (ARDC #6196719) Equip for Equality 235 S. Fifth St. Springfield, IL 62705 (800) 758-0464 (phone) (217) 523-0720 (fax) contactus@equipforequality.org

Marc R. Kadish Daniel Herrera Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com dherrera@mayerbrown.com

- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82 Page 6 of 7
/s/ Christopher L. Higgerson One of the Attorneys for Defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones, Dr. Willard Elyea, Melody Ford, Dr. Wendy Navarro, Dr. John Garlic, and the Illinois Department of Corrections Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson Illinois Attorney General 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-9029 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us
- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 82 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on November 19, 2010, she caused the
foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which
will send notice of electronic filing to:
Theresa M. Powell David M. Walter HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN National City Bank Building Suite 575 One N. Old State capitol Plaza P.O. Box 1687 Springfield, IL 62705 tpowell@heylroyster.com dwalter@heylroyster.com
/s/ Camille E. Bennett

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 1 of 27

E-FILED
Friday, 29 April, 2011 10:56:38 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS, )

GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH, )

LATERIAL STINSON, and KEITH

)

WALKER,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., )

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, )

DR. WENDY NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA )

MAHONE, EDDIE JONES, DR.

)

WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN

)

GARLIC, DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,

)

and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )

INC.

)

)

Defendants

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG Judge Michael M. Mihm Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson,

Keith Walker, and additional plaintiffs Phillip L. Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik,

Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, and Rasheed McGee, prisoners currently

incarcerated in various adult correctional centers of the Illinois Department of Corrections (the

“IDOC”), on their own behalf and on behalf of all inmates with serious mental illness who are

now or will be incarcerated in IDOC adult correctional centers, hereby complain as follows:

1. This is a class action lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress

violations of Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free of cruel and unusual punishment while they are

incarcerated in IDOC facilities; to redress violations of their liberty interests under the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 2 of 27
Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (the “Rehab Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, to address their right to be free of discrimination on account of their disabilities.
2. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendants’ conduct unconstitutional and violative of the ADA and the Rehab Act, and an injunction against Defendants’ unlawful conduct as set forth below.
3. As the U.S. rate of incarceration has soared over the past decade, the number of inmates with mental illness has soared as well. The IDOC and its contractor for medical and mental health services, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), have failed miserably to deal with this problem.
4. Mentally ill inmates in IDOC facilities are chronically underdiagnosed and undertreated. They are subjected to brutality instead of compassion, and housed in conditions that beggar imagination. If they complain about the quality of their care, they may get no care at all. They are mocked and abused by correctional staff, sprayed with caustic chemicals and derided for their illness. There are far too few spaces in the mental health care units. Mentally ill prisoners are routinely sent to segregation instead of mental health care units, although it is universally known that this can worsen their mental illness. Years are added to their imprisonment by punishment for behavior due to their serious mental illness, without any account being taken of their disabilities in the meting-out of that punishment. If they try to commit suicide by hanging themselves with a sheet from their beds, they will be ticketed for destruction of state property.
5. Defendants avoid treating inmates with mental illness by failing to identify inmates with mental illness. Despite an Administrative Directive which requires that “All offenders [] transferring into a facility shall be screened and, when appropriate, referred to a
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 3 of 27
mental health professional,” the mental health screening at IDOC adult correctional centers is arbitrary, haphazard, and riddled with gaps. Most inmates do not receive a meaningful mental health screening upon transfer.
6. Even for those prisoners identified as needing mental health care, the care is grossly substandard. The IDOC’s contracts with Wexford, signed year after year by the director of the IDOC, contain no enforceable standards governing the quality of care provided to prisoners. Thus it is no surprise that the State of Illinois pays hundreds of millions of dollars, year after year, for care that violates constitutional standards and established legal norms.
7. One measure of the deficiency in treatment is how few of IDOC’s adult correctional centers provide any sort of specialized mental health services at all: The State of Illinois currently has only four adult correctional facilities (out of a total of 28) which offer some form of specialized mental health services to inmates: Dixon Correctional Center, Pontiac Correctional Center, Tamms Correctional Center (the state’s “super-max” facility); and Dwight Correctional Center. The available spaces for specialized mental health treatment are minuscule compared to the need: according to the IDOC’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2007 (the most recent report available), as of June 2007, Pontiac’s Mental Health Unit housed 69 inmates, and Dixon’s Psychiatric Unit housed 183 inmates.
8. Access to the limited number of specialty mental health units is limited and difficult. The standards for transfer to a facility with a specialty mental health unit are unclear; prisoners with obvious mental health needs may not be transferred to such facilities at all. Even at facilities with specialty mental health units, prisoners are refused assignment to the mental health unit despite requesting it and despite being on, or having been on, potent psychiatric medications.
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 4 of 27
9. Prisoners who ask to be transferred to mental health units are refused for reasons that have nothing to do with mental health treatment considerations (e.g., too much segregation time). Grievances by inmates as to the quality of care provided in the mental health units are treated not as complaints about care, but as challenges to being assigned there. Prisoners are transferred out of mental health units in retaliation for filing a grievance, assisting other inmates in grieving, or other reasons having nothing to do with psychiatric care. Within the mental health treatment units, patients with a wide variety of problems are grouped together and treated by the same methods without regard for their differing diagnoses.
10. What limited and erratic care there is, is provided chiefly by medication. A prisoner with paranoid schizophrenia may see a psychiatrist once a month, to “re-up” his medications, and a social worker once a month. It can be very easy to get off medications: just ask, or stop taking the medications. There are no adequate mechanisms in place to monitor whether mentally ill inmates are really taking the medications they are prescribed, or to encourage them, through therapeutic contact, to stick with their medication regimes.
11. When prisoners have consultations with mental health professionals, they are often forced to do so in the form of conversations at the cell door, where not only correctional staff but other prisoners can eavesdrop. This severely compromises the ability to treat any mental illness, since it requires a prisoner to identify his symptoms in a setting where other prisoners can readily hear. This gives prisoners an incentive to minimize problems, and gives Defendants a reason not to provide treatment.
12. Prisoners who are transferred from one correctional facility to another may receive radically different qualities of care, or no care; different medications, or no medications at all. Inmates who are transferred from one facility to another may be left without their
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 5 of 27
medications because of delay in assessing them or delay in transfer of their medical records, putting them in serious, perhaps life-threatening danger.
13. The diagnosis of – or failure to diagnose – inmates’ mental health problems by mental health professionals in IDOC facilities, and the day-to-day treatment of mentally ill prisoners by staff, is routinely poisoned by the notion of “offender manipulation,” and mentally ill inmates are routinely categorized as uncooperative malingerers. Both regular staff and supposed mental health “professionals” fail to recognize the “uncooperative” and “manipulative” conduct as the symptoms of mental illness which they are.
14. Correctional staff are not trained to deal with the mentally ill. Staff often do not respond to prisoners’ threats to harm themselves, and use unnecessary force on mentally ill prisoners. Prisoners on suicide watch are neglected, abused, or both. They can be stripped naked; placed in a cell with no mattress or blankets; put in four-point restraints. In winter, staff in some facilities will open the windows, and then sit and laugh.
15. Inmates who engage in conduct due to their mental illnesses are punished in absurd and irrational ways - for instance, being given a ticket and segregation time for “damage to state property” for destroying a jumpsuit in a suicide attempt.
16. Mentally ill inmates accumulate large amounts of segregation time for disciplinary infractions caused by their mental illness, but their mental illness is not taken into account in the hearings about their infractions. Prisoners are housed in segregation, and given little or no mental health care, despite having, for instance, passionate beliefs that they are subjects of “mind-control” technology experiments by the IDOC. Mentally ill prisoners are sent to Tamms Correctional Center, the “super-max” facility, without regard for the damage the severe social and sensory deprivations of Tamms are likely to have on their psychological state.
- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 6 of 27
It is well-known that placing mentally ill inmates in segregation or isolation is highly likely to exacerbate their mental illness. Even without mental illness, many prisoners in isolation experience mental deterioration; isolation is especially dangerous to those who are already mentally ill. Studies have found that the effects of isolation include: paranoid psychosis and uncontrolled rage, including increased homicidal and suicidal impulses; frequent schizophrenia; and impairment of the ability to socially reconnect with others once released. Yet mentally ill prisoners still accumulate years upon years of “seg” time in the IDOC, or are sent to Tamms.
17. Likewise, prisoners who were originally incarcerated for comparatively minor offenses (e.g., burglary) can end up spending more time in prison due only to their mental illness than those convicted of much more serious offenses.
18. The units in which mentally ill prisoners are housed - both the mental health units themselves and other locations where they may be placed - are often filthy, vermin-ridden and filled with human waste. This is true of individual cells and of common areas, such as showers. Staff do not clean them, and inmates are not able to clean them. In the Pontiac “North Segregation” Unit, for instance, inmates are given a half cup of green soap once a week to clean their cells. In the beginning, they are also given a sponge, but once the sponge wears out they are not given a new one.
19. The experiences of the Plaintiffs here are typical of the class members: 20. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center; he was previously incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. He has a history of auditory hallucinations, suicide attempts, and self-mutilation. Despite Mr. Rasho’s serious mental illness, he has been taken on or off medication, put into and then taken out of the Pontiac Mental Health Unit, and told by correctional officers when he was on crisis watch to call them “when [he] hit an
- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 7 of 27
artery.” Mr. Rasho’s 1996 incarceration for burglary has been greatly prolonged by punishment for infractions related to his mental illness, and his current projected parole date is 2018.
21. Plaintiff Patrice Daniels is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Despite his mental illness, he has been placed in segregation for extended periods; he has repeatedly caused injury to himself and received medical attention for these injuries, but did not receive mental health screening or mental health care. He has requested transfer to a Mental Health Unit but been denied.
22. Plaintiff Gerrodo Forrest is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has a history of mental illness including auditory hallucinations, delusions, and repeated suicide attempts, compounded by limited intellectual and cognitive abilities. He has spent most of his time in prison in segregation due to acting out triggered by his psychological illness and impairments.
23. Plaintiff Laterial Stinson was incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has a long history of diagnoses and treatment for mental illness, but his diagnoses and medications constantly changed as he was shifted from doctor to doctor.
24. Plaintiff Lynda Smith is currently incarcerated at Dwight Correctional Center. She has a history of treatment for mental illness, and has also had surgery for a brain tumor. She has been in custody since November 1989 and has spent a total of ten years since then in segregation. She was not originally placed in the Mental Health Unit at Dwight, and she is not currently there despite her repeated requests that she be transferred there. She believes that her grievances have been destroyed by the doctor at Dwight. Her incarceration has been prolonged due to disciplinary infractions and her current release date is 2030.
- 7 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 8 of 27
25. Plaintiff Keith Walker is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Despite having mental illness, Mr. Walker has been removed from the Mental Health Unit and has had several of his medications discontinued. Mr. Walker has spent months upon months in segregation for disciplinary infractions related to his mental illness, and has had his incarceration prolonged due to disciplinary infractions related to his mental illness.
26. Plaintiff Phillip L. Abraham is currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center. Due to his mental illness, he was involuntarily committed prior to his incarceration. He has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Since his incarceration, he has had difficulty receiving medication and has been denied treatment for his mental illness. He has been placed in segregation as a result of an altercation with a correctional employee over receiving medication for his mental illness.
27. Plaintiff Otis Arrington is currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center. Previously, he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center and Dixon Correctional Center, where he was placed in the special treatment/mental health units. However, when he refused to take prescribed medications because he had difficulty tolerating them, he was discharged from the special treatment/mental health units.
28. Plaintiff Kenneth Bakalik is currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, in the special treatment unit. Mr. Bakalik was abused as a child, and has a history of hospitalization for mental illness dating back to his childhood, with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Although he has received some treatment for his mental illness in the form of medication, he has received no counseling or therapy to help him deal with his history of having been abused, and the treatment he does receive is inadequate to deal with his serious mental illness which resulted in his incarceration in the first place.
- 8 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 9 of 27
29. Plaintiff Donald Collins is currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, in the special treatment unit. He has episodes of severe depression. He has been threatened, taunted, and repeatedly abused by correctional personnel, including being sprayed with bleach, and has been refused participation in group counseling programs.
30. Plaintiff Joseph Herman is currently incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. He has a long history of medication for psychiatric disorders, and has received multiple diagnoses of mental illness, including depression and major depression, schizoaffective disorder with psychotic features, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, dysthymic disorder, impulse control disorder, borderline personality disorder with antisocial traits, antisocial personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder. He was previously in the special treatment unit at Dixon Correctional Center and in the mental health unit at Pontiac Correctional Center, where he was beaten by correctional personnel. Despite his long history of serious mental illness, he is not in the special treatment unit at Tamms, and has repeatedly and seriously mutilated himself since his transfer to Tamms. Due to his mental illness, he has been involved in prison altercations for which he has been punished without regard for his mental illness, and his current projected release date is 2053, when he will be 79 years old.
31. Plaintiff Henry Hersman is currently incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In the past, he has swallowed razor blades, and attempted to commit suicide by driving a car into a house. Although he was previously placed in the special treatment unit at Dixon Correctional Center, he was transferred out of Dixon to Hill (which has no special mental health treatment unit) for reasons unrelated to his mental health care and in detriment of his mental health care, as
- 9 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 10 of 27
punishment for a charge of giving false information when he sent a note stating that a gang member intended to attack correctional staff.
32. Plaintiff Rasheed McGee is currently incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. Prior to being incarcerated, he was involuntarily committed on several occasions. He was previously in the special treatment unit at Pontiac Correctional Center, and was transferred from there to the special treatment unit at Tamms, but thereafter removed from the special treatment unit, supposedly at his “request,” when he complained that he was receiving no treatment for his mental illness. He is given involuntary halodol injections, but they do not stop his continuous auditory hallucinations telling him to hurt himself. He has asked to be returned to the special treatment unit, but refused; he has asked to be placed on suicide watch, but staff tells him that they will not do so unless he harms himself. When he does then harm himself, he is left completely stripped.
33. The careless, inconsistent, and indifferent care Plaintiffs have received for their mental illness is emblematic of Defendants’ violations of the constitutional and legal rights of inmates and their deliberate indifference to them. Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer greatly and unnecessarily as a result.
34. The court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Venue is proper in the Central District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least one of the Defendants resides in the District and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District.
35. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the IDOC and who, while incarcerated, have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I or Axis II disorder in the
- 10 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 11 of 27
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (hereafter "DSM-IV"), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction or any form of sexual disorder shall not by itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of this class definition.
36. A class action is proper pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
37. Members of the class on whose behalf Plaintiffs sue are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. According to the IDOC’s website in September 2010, the agency was responsible for the management of 45,000 adult inmates, of whom more than half likely have, or will have, mental illness.
38. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, authors D. James and L. Glaze, dated September, 2006, revised December 14, 2006, stated that “At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons . . . . These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners . . . .” (Id. p. 1.) “State prisoners were most likely to report a recent history of a mental health problem []. About 24% of State prisoners had a recent history of a mental health problem . . . .” (Id. p. 2.) However, approximately “3 in 10 State [] prisoners were found to have symptoms of a mental disorder without a recent history.” (Id. p. 3.) Based upon a modified structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV, the report found that over 15% of State prisoners reported at least one symptom of a psychotic disorder; over 70% reported at least one symptom of a major depressive disorder, and almost 74% reported at least one symptom of a mania disorder. (Id. p. 2.) This compares to 3.1% of the general US population reporting at least one symptom of a psychotic disorder; 7.9% reporting at least one symptom of a major depressive disorder; and 1.8% reporting a symptom of a mania disorder. (Id. p. 3.)
- 11 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 12 of 27
39. There are questions of law or fact common to all class members. The failure of Defendants to implement policies and procedures – including policies and procedures they already have in place – to identify and care for the large number of mentally ill inmates currently in custody, to help prevent inmates from developing mental illness while incarcerated, or to limit the extent to which mental illness results in extra punishment for inmates, is a violation of Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ constitutional and legal rights. Plaintiffs’ allegations of a broad pattern of discriminatory policies and procedures presumptively create common questions of law or fact.
40. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. They arise from the same practices and courses of conduct that give rise to the claims of the other class members.
41. Plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class members. Plaintiffs have no conflict with the other class members, since both Plaintiffs and the class members share the same interest in receiving appropriate diagnosis and treatment for mental illness and in the implementation of policies to prevent inmates from developing mental illness while incarcerated, and in being free of additional punishment as a result of mental illness. Class counsel are experienced in both civil rights litigation and class action lawsuits.
42. Separate injunctive and declaratory actions maintained by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class, thereby establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. Adjudication regarding individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of or impair the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.
- 12 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 13 of 27
43. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class that Plaintiffs represent, thereby making final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the class as a whole.
COUNT I (Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Based Upon Failure to Diagnose And Treat Serious Mental Health Needs, for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief against Defendants Walker, Fews, Navarro, and Wexford) 44. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 43 as if alleged herein. 45. Defendant Gladyse Taylor is the Director of the IDOC; as such, she has overall responsibility for IDOC’s policies and procedures and the administration of all correctional facilities in the State.1 46. Defendant Roberta Fews is the Deputy Director of the IDOC Office of Programs and Support Services. She has responsibility for the office of the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC. As such, she has responsibility for policies, procedures, and general oversight of the care of mentally ill inmates in the IDOC. 47. Defendant Dr. Wendy Navarro reports to Defendant Fews, and is the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC. As such, she has immediate responsibility for the mental health and psychiatric care of inmates in the custody of the IDOC. 48. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which provides health services, including mental health services, throughout the IDOC by contract with the State of Illinois. The individual mental health professionals who supply diagnoses and treatment to mentally ill inmates throughout the IDOC
1 Director Taylor is automatically substituted for Roger E. Walker, Jr., the former director of the IDOC, pursuant to Rule 25(d).
- 13 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 14 of 27
are almost always Wexford employees, and Wexford personnel determine what quality of care will be given to IDOC inmates with mental illness.2
49. Plaintiffs and the class members have a serious medical need or condition, namely mental illness or mental health conditions, which require treatment.
50. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are designed to intentionally fail to diagnose or treat large numbers of mentally ill prisoners. Defendants have displayed and continue to display deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ mental health needs.
51. Defendants’ acts and omissions constitute cruel and unusual punishment of Plaintiffs and the class members and violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
52. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs and the class members at unreasonable, continuing, and foreseeable risk of developing or exacerbating serious medical and mental health problems.
53. Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ constitutional rights have inflicted both physical and mental harm and injury, including by causing avoidable pain, mental suffering, and deterioration of their health. Upon information and belief, in some cases it has resulted in premature death.
54. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, customs, acts, omissions, and deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and
2 On information and belief, the IDOC directly employs some medical personnel who from time to time may diagnose a prisoner’s mental illness.
- 14 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 15 of 27
emotional injury and the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT II (Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Based
Upon Failure To Train Or Supervise, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants Taylor, Fews, Navarro, and Wexford)
55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 54 as if alleged herein.
56. Defendants fail to adequately train or supervise individuals in their employ or under their control and supervision as to how to properly respond to and interact with prisoners with serious mental health needs.
57. Defendants’ failure to adequately train or supervise violates Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ constitutional rights.
58. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to train, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, deprivation of the rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Such deprivations are causing and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury and the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT III (Violation of Liberty Interest Under The Due Process Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against
Defendants Taylor, Fews, and Navarro) 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 58 as if alleged herein.
- 15 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 16 of 27
60. Defendants’ policies and procedures and acts or omissions which cause Plaintiffs and the class members to be placed in isolated environments for extended periods impose an atypical and significant hardship on Plaintiffs and the class members in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
61. Defendants’ policies and procedures and acts or omissions which fail to take into account Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ mental illness in imposing additional punishment violate Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ liberty interests and due process rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
62. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, deprivation of the rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Such deprivations are causing and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT IV (Title II Of The Americans With Disabilities Act, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
against Defendants Taylor, Fews, and Navarro) 63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 62 as if alleged herein. 64. Each of the IDOC facilities housing Plaintiffs and the class members are public entities as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131. All Defendants at all relevant times acted in their official capacities as representatives of at least one of these public entities. 65. Plaintiffs and class members are otherwise qualified individuals with a disability as defined under the ADA and its implementing regulations, including 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) and § 12102(2). Plaintiffs and the class members have mental and/or physical impairments that
- 16 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 17 of 27
substantially limit one or more major life activities; or they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments.
66. Plaintiffs and the class members meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants.
67. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs and class members on the basis of their disabilities in the following ways:
a) Refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the class members with proper treatment for their serious mental illness despite knowledge of such serious mental illness;
b) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as placing them in administrative segregation or other isolated environments as punishment;
c) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as depriving them of clothes, heat, or sanitary surroundings;
d) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ disabilities by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs and some class members to mental health units and housing them in elevated security divisions or tiers, or general population divisions, which are especially chaotic, noisy, isolated and offer less or no mental health treatment, and also increase the likelihood of serious physical and mental harm due to the fact that the staff and guards in such divisions are not trained to interact with seriously mentally ill detainees.
- 17 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 18 of 27
68. In acting in the manner alleged above, Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of the ADA.
69. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury, including the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT V (Violation of Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
against Defendants Taylor, Fews, and Navarro) 70. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 69 as if alleged herein. 71. Upon information and belief, the IDOC receives federal financial assistance, thus making it subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and § 705(20). 72. Each Plaintiff and each class member is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability as defined in the Rehabilitation Act and implementing regulations. Plaintiffs and the class members have mental and/or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; or they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments. 73. Plaintiffs and the class members meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants. 74. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs and class members based upon their disabilities in the following ways:
- 18 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 19 of 27
a) Refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the class members with proper treatment for their serious mental illness despite knowledge of such serious mental illness;
b) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as placing them in administrative segregation or other isolated environments as punishment;
c) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ disabilities and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their illness by such methods as depriving them of clothes, heat, or sanitary surroundings;
d) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ disabilities by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs and some class members to mental health units and housing them in elevated security divisions or tiers, or general population divisions, which are especially chaotic, noisy, isolated and offer less or no mental health treatment, and also increase the likelihood of serious physical and mental harm due to the fact that the staff and guards in such divisions are not trained to interact with seriously mentally ill detainees.
75. In acting in the manner alleged above, the Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
76. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury, including the risk of death. Plaintiffs
- 19 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 20 of 27
and the class members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT VI (Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho for Compensatory and Punitive Damages against Defendants
Walker, Navarro, Mahone, Jones, Elyea, Garlic, and Massa) 77. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 76 as if alleged herein. 78. At all times relevant to this damage count, Defendant Roger E. Walker Jr. was the Director of the IDOC. He had overall responsibility for the administration of all correctional facilities with the State, as well as personal, first-hand knowledge of the operations of Pontiac Correctional Center. 79. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. Willard Elyea was the Medical Director of the IDOC and, as such, had overall responsibility for providing health care, including mental health care, to prisoners of Pontiac Correctional Center. 80. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. Wendy Navarro was the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC and as such had overall responsibility for providing mental health care to prisoners of Pontiac Correctional Center. 81. At all times relevant to this damage count, Defendant Dr. Sylvia Mahone was the medical director of Pontiac Correctional Center. 82. At all times relevant to this damage count, Eddie Jones was the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. As such, he had ultimate responsibility for the entire operation of the institution, including implementing all state law and the IDOC’s policies, practices and procedures affecting prisoners confined at Pontiac Correctional Center, its mental health unit and its segregation units.
- 20 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 21 of 27
83. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. John Garlic was the Supervising Clinical Psychologist at Pontiac Correctional Center. Garlic provided mental health services to prisoners at Pontiac Correctional Center and oversaw the mental health staff who serve as the prison mental health professionals.
84. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. Michael F. Massa was one of the psychiatrists at Pontiac Correctional Center. Dr. Massa provided mental health services to prisoners at Pontiac Mental Health Unit and administered psychotropic drugs to them.
85. Plaintiff Rasho has been incarcerated in the IDOC since 1996 and was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center in November 2003. Mr. Rasho arrived at Pontiac with a welldocumented history of serious mental illness, including self-mutilation, suicide attempts, and auditory hallucinations. He had been treated with a wide variety of psychotropic medications, including Sinequan, Wellbutrin, Prozac, Remeran, and BuSpar.
86. For some period of time at Pontiac, Mr. Rasho’s mental health was reasonably stable. However, in spring 2004, Mr. Rasho stopped taking his medication and began cutting himself again. He then was transferred to Pontiac’s mental health unit by then-Pontiac psychiatrist Dr. Kowalkowski. He resumed medication and stabilized. However, he then ceased taking medication, and resumed self-mutilating.
87. Between November 2004 and October 2005, Mr. Rasho cut himself on five occasions, requiring between 6 and 16 stitches on each occasion.
88. Despite Mr. Rasho’s history of mental illness and self-destructive behavior, reflected in his records and in his conduct at Pontiac under their watch, in 2006 Dr. Massa and the other members of the Pontiac psychiatric team, including Dr. Garlic, determined to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the mental health unit and into the “North Seg[regation]” unit, because he
- 21 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 22 of 27
complained about staff behavior in the mental health unit, and not for any legitimate medical or therapeutic reason. They did this although they were well aware of Mr. Rasho’s history of serious mental health problems and the fact that he still had serious mental illness and repeatedly harmed himself by cutting large, deep wounds on his arms.
89. As a result of this transfer, Mr. Rasho’s mental state deteriorated further. In August 2006, Mr. Rasho cut himself again and was transferred to first to the health care unit, where he was put on crisis watch. There, the staff told him to “call when he hit an artery” and left him alone as he was in the act of cutting himself. When he triggered the sprinkler head in the cells, he was removed, and received 15 stitches. Despite this incident, thereafter he was returned to North Seg per Dr. Massa’s and Dr. Garlic’s instructions.
90. Mr. Rasho repeatedly requested transfer back to the mental health unit, but his pleas were disregarded by Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlic. Despite refusing to place Mr. Rasho in the Pontiac mental health unit except in extreme circumstances, the Pontiac mental health staff, including Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlic, consistently prescribed powerful combinations of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs for Mr. Rasho. Thus they were aware of and acknowledged his serious mental illness even as they denied him treatment, denied him access to programs available in the mental health unit, and exacerbated his mental illness by placing him in a segregation environment.
91. Mr. Rasho’s grievances regarding his placement in North Seg, rather than the mental health unit, were disregarded by Warden Jones; despite the obvious risks of harm to this seriously mentally ill person from being placed in a segregation unit instead of a specialty mental health care unit, his grievances were denied, and he was told that the “nature of his grievance could not be determined.”
- 22 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 23 of 27
92. Mr. Rasho’s privacy was invaded by his treatment at Pontiac, in that he was
forced to have conversations with mental health staff within the hearing of non-mental-health
professionals, including correctional staff and other prisoners.
93. Finally, Defendant Jones repeatedly adjudicated disciplinary charges against Mr.
Rasho without making allowance for his mental illness, of which he is well aware, causing Mr.
Rasho’s sentence to be unjustly prolonged due to conduct that was the result of his serious
mental illness.
94. In so doing, defendants Walker, Navarro, Mahone, Jones, Elyea, Garlic, and
Massa have violated Mr. Rasho’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his liberty interests
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the class members request that this Court:
(a) Declare that Defendants’ actions and inactions are unlawful and unconstitutional
for the reasons specified above;
(b) Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Defendants to provide:
1. Mental health training for correctional staff as part of their initial training and as a required element of their annual training, including training on: signs of mental illness; treatments for mental illnesses; side-effects of medications used for the treatment of mental illness; effective interaction with mentally ill prisoners and defusing potentially escalating situations; suicide prevention training; safe use of physical and mechanical restraints for mentally ill offenders; how to distinguish between conduct that reflects a serious mental illness and conduct that deliberately breaks prison rules; and compassion for the mentally ill.
2. That all inmates shall receive (1) an initial mental health screening upon admission to an IDOC facility; (2) a detailed mental health screening by a mental health professional within two weeks of arrival at any IDOC facility (unless such inmate is already on the mental health caseload as a result of screenings at a prior facility); and (3) an appropriate mental health classification.
- 23 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 24 of 27
3. That initial and detailed mental health screenings must become part of an inmate’s permanent file.
4. That inmates identified as in need of evaluation through the screening process will receive a complete mental health evaluation by a mental health professional within 14 days.
5. That any institution employee may also refer an inmate for a mental health evaluation based upon observation of the inmate’s behavior.
6. That every inmate on the mental health caseload will receive an evaluation update at least once annually.
7. That each inmate with a mental illness classification shall have a written treatment plan, updated annually.
8. For any inmate with known/reported history of mental health treatment who is transferred, procedures to ensure that inmate’s complete mental health records are transferred to the new institution within 48 hours.
9. Procedures for removal from mental health caseload.
10. That inmates in segregation units or other isolation environments will be reviewed at least once per week by mental health professional.
11. That inmates entering segregation or other isolation environments will be promptly screened for suicide potential.
12. That no inmate with a mental illness classification shall be incarcerated at Tamms or placed in segregation for longer than 20 consecutive days and no more than 40 days total per year.
13. Procedures for identifying, monitoring and treating inmates with suicide potential, including provision of suicide-resistant gowns and blankets for inmates on suicide watch.
14. Protocols for administration and monitoring inmates on psychotropic medications, including protocols for involuntary administration.
15. Protocols for inmates on suicide watch.
16. Moving the supervision of mental health treatment from the director of programs to the medical director of the IDOC.
17. A qualified expert to supervise and report to Court on implementation of the procedures and programs included herein.
18. A documented external peer review program for mental health professionals.
- 24 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 25 of 27

19. A quality improvement program for inmate mental health care as part of any contract with a third-party contractor.

20. Regular performance evaluations of mental health services by independent qualified professionals.

21. Internal quality review mechanisms including independent reviews of any third-party contractors.

22. Requirements that independent contractors providing mental health services pay workers at levels comparable to community mental health settings.

23. Increased numbers of hospital beds and acute-care facilities for treatment of mental illness.

24. Increased numbers of intermediate care facilities for mental illness.

25. A presumption in any disciplinary hearing involving an inmate with a mental illness classification that the disciplinary incident was caused by mental illness.

(c) Award Plaintiffs and the class members their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

(d) Award Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho compensatory and punitive damages for the

violations of his constitutional and legal rights as to Count VI;

(e) Award any such further relief as the Court may deem just.

Respectf

ully submitted,

April 29, 2011

/s/ Harold C. Hirshman One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Harold C. Hirshman (ARDC #1226290) Camille E. Bennett (ARDC #6224457) SNR Denton US LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 (phone) (312) 876-7934 (fax) harold.hirshman@snrdenton.com camille.bennett@snrdenton.com

Marc R. Kadish Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com

- 25 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 26 of 27 Alan Mills Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmills@comcast.net Barry G. Lowy (ARDC #6196719) Equip for Equality 235 S. Fifth St. Springfield, IL 62705 (800) 758-0464 (phone) (217) 523-0720 (fax) contactus@equipforequality.org
- 26 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 27 of 27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on April 29, 2011, she caused
the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system,
which will send notice of electronic filing to:
Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-9029 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us
Theresa M. Powell David M. Walter Brian Michael Smith HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN National City Bank Building Suite 575 One N. Old State capitol Plaza P.O. Box 1687 Springfield, IL 62705 tpowell@heylroyster.com dwalter@heylroyster.com bsmith@heylroyster.com
/s/ Camille E. Bennett

 
 Part Description 1 20 pages 2 Part 2 3 Part 3 4 Part 4

Multiple Documents

Bloomberg Law·

© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6KOKPPPO2?documentName=1.xml

Q\ert_ ___ _ ________ ___ NOv, ~-~-,---------#-Q.-,.1 ,L,. {]7 1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 1 of 20

E-FILED

Thursday, 08 November, 2007 08:24:59 AM

,..._..,_ _ _

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

u t O!YI Q :\DQ(\\6\ l~ I ~~i ~ ~- Q

C'f\i-\ac____furT. _(\'..-=r.... DfYI .

___________ .,.,.. .\-1a.~ __La~ _L.tofOtr · _

. ~0~~~~~~-, \~~- ~

.. , ~~Q~ f\MrXM\j __

\. Q"--e<;:'LGL__+'rw~ _0u+

. "!0 ~ud~ Or \--~-e C~.­

0 . to maIL- X.S.. -------- ---------l-l ....

boC-r\' _ 61 rom _ ------H----4 _

_

~~ F__ocjj~

~ tl_}

-t~

-~~--------' _· Ccu. ~ ·hJtrJOvil - _.--

·r 0\n·hiT \~ Q \N211l.ol~ i/[ (i~~
Qt fJ'\-d3L C.onr: CJ\fj hC? f- Oo ~

~lS G ____ loW\ t . . lJ ,Y) i- ~ \na.\-~ ,_ ~

F~ _h ~
--------- - ---~
•

-------- ---------

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 2 of 20

LTlJO-Ur ~C~...O~\.~\r&,\\u~\~\'M:5Q\ \.\?}:,u\;~,\\QO\QG~:~'"~a\~\'l~r\\<o1.\~e\.\_ffOWxc.-\o.\s

J\~~~ ~~%)

-r--

NOvJ CME~ \ k ~\C\\1\\\\\, ~~'rca- \\~t~ o.f\d.
~\<i\~ o~~ ro\\~~ a.

fuse_.\.i)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 3 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 4 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 5 of 20
f<o..-s'no-v- 'DO!D.\a\ ~- ?:."t\yd~ 1,,. GG-S2~-DR\\.- ·
1:>\ 'Y\Q~\~ b\\eo\\as ~o\ \o\0~\ G~\\ .q~\v4\~~~~~ \\\ ~\a,\Q. C\- fede~\ ~Q.u.,\ ~\\\\~ \'{\CO.\'c.~\ed O.\ ~Ol\\\GC.- fuf. (\-,..1' ... \>U\\~\\n ~WJ~ ?':~G ~ E'X.\\f\\lZ\\Gt\ 0~ ~\~ ~\S\\~0\~~£~£11)\E~

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 6 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 7 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 8 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 9 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 10 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 11 of 20
PG8e.(to)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 12 of 20
3G).

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 13 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 14 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 15 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 16 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 17 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 18 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 19 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1 Page 20 of 20
c_)_ ~~t~~~~ ~~~Jt~\~\~\\\
---\-5-\-_~~~\~~\\\~fLr~~f~\Et\~~~\·\~at~~SE_~_\d_~_"_'t_.\\_\t\_\ _____
1)A

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 1 of 20

E-FILED

Thursday, 08 November, 2007 08:25:12 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 2 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 3 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 4 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 5 of 20
Y\).'i~2mt>.\\\\(c-'n,)x\-i.~ne.f\tl-\-"\\€Pd'\F\c~-e\n"s\\\O\~ti0-\::\,~C\tu\rl~~e\~ea~d\--\~9n.t\oo\.d\~\eL.t'nf\irnso\Qt1e\ heCi\m--c\\a\\\\~
~).'M~~\~\\""_\\ct'~a-_\(o~e..\.~.o"\\\\.o~ \<\\..\.\.~~\)~\1"~~\\\c\~\~0,e\.~\~s\a.a:Je\.~,'es.:te\\~.~t)€.~o\t~~:.lc~l:,n"~,.'(\\~o)\C~.~.<~\\\~\~~\\~~\aC1o\\\<\os.<\:\.,e''e.-J~.."..(0\)\~~~\~a'~~ ~\\2\~-\\Q.:e.)\\\.\\,\c~e\.\\'\.Q~'''r1t\-\-J.C\\.N~m(.<(:\)\-l\\Q.oV'."\.'\C\\o~~).\'\\\\FY
~~e·l~4)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 6 of 20
fhge.l~S)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 7 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 8 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 9 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 10 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 11 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 12 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 13 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 14 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 15 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 16 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 17 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 18 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 19 of 20
~-e..\€\-) 'ae_~~ G\ ~ ~e,\eu.~~ \'{\QJ\~\
c_~\~e.~ Q\ ~0(\\\(lt_ e • •
\-\"'\\A~~'\ a, Ov\\ ~cod C...a\\Q\\>.\\\ @J. C.\ed.\~~
'\Q_ \\Q~ \a~\ ~- \~ \~ '\~Q,~ "-a_\{\~
\J~QJ\ \'\\ 3. .\) .CJ .c_ .
R.-e':>~ee.Wu\\'-\ ~u"o~,\\€ clJ
~~~~~~~enG
"Q(\\\QQ... Q_O(y-. CJ-,· "J
~w~. ~-x9<i
~Q(\\,Q.c_ '3..~ L\l~L\-co:tq
l.l\1) s~~-o{~(k,

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-1 Page 20 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 1 of 20

E-FILED

Thursday, 08 November, 2007 08:25:32 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

~Sea_A~E~~nE\'~0.,b\\~-e"~1"

Ex. \}\) EJ\~bCt\C;'I> G'\\\E\JANC&
't>o.W.. ~e~'c~ \<:\, 9.C()L, '~·\Of\<.)
E~.\~) \'-\E\'AO~~~U~ t\o.\-e. ""So.{\\n"\ '-~CXJ1.

Ex.lC.) l'\t ~0 Kl\1'\\J\.).~ Oclt~ ~~ ~L~CY31.

E'X.\.\J) ~l(;.WJ~~W\J\0.V\ ~o.\e. ~0.\\\.r..C\~ '3\.~cx:n.
t.)(.l't.) t\tJ~Q,~~J'\\)\1~ 6o.\e. ~ebruo.rf~.,QCJJ\ •

[-x.lF) l'\t \'\(]\\ "~ \)\).~ o\t\\ ~e~ru.a...-'-1 \S. ~OCI.

i;)(.lG)

. A\.. \\t,~\.\\\ \<£0t1)~ ~~~.\.of<=\.

E')(. \\-\) ~().~\.W ~\\Q, ~~\Jr.\\~\:~~·

b~ l:L) ~\C:~ }\" 3.\\~tJ'~\)\~& ~trC\\\~\~\C
\h~~tE~ '-\-~-QOOLt ..

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 2 of 20

Present Fnclllty: ;) i !CQ]Ili C:...

NATURE OF GRIEVANCE:

0 Personal Property ~ Stuff Conduct
0 Tmnsfer Denial by Facility

0 0 Mail rtandlmg

Restoration of Good Time

0

0 Medical Treatment

0 Transfer Denial by Transfer Coordinator

0 DiHciplinary Report: ---=''---,Date of Repol!

Facil~y where issued

Note: Protective Custody Denials may be grioved immediately via the local administration on the protective custody status notification.

Complete Attach a copy of any pertinent docum11nt [ouch •• a Dlaclpllnol'f Report, Shokedown Record, etc.) and send to:

Counaetor, unless the issue involves discipline, is deemed an emergency, or is subject to direct review by the Administrative Review Board.

Grievance Officer, only it the issue involve.. dls<:ipline at the present facility or issue not resolved by Counselor. Chief Administrative Officer, only If EMERCIE~ICY grievance.

Aclmlnlatratlve Revl- Board, only If the is"ue involves transfer denial by the Transfer Coordinator, protective custody, involuntary

administration of psychotropic drugs, issues lrom another facility except parsonal property issues, or issues not resolved by the Chief

T l'tO'\ evooc. co Ad'Tllnistrative Officer.
BrlefSumm:o!Grlevance:'

hi~ (~)\a;ot,[f t:S [j

tbi~ Gri

l.
e.. +1\.Q...

~Fj~~tn\\k;~;~jb;±~fl~~llccn

sh.+~~;=etr'!'1t~:~~~~hac

Frcm 1-4c"y·-Jro.3 Hru Nwem\;er Cfth JO()[.p. ·1he tpllow~oq

~sao t.s) noroed hereiO thi~ Ccmela,n\: bos.vidcle ±his

Th · .

' · · · o r-a:elve.

~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~.~~~~~~~-

. . ~·~., _.,~.~--,-;;;;;;;~QJ~·:;z"

Committed Person'& Signature

lOt

Date

(Continue on 111vorue side llneceooery)

Date Received:

\
I

0 Outside jurladlction 01 this facility. Send to
Administrative Review Board, P.O. Box 19277,
Sprl I ld, IL 62794-9277
')

EMERGENCY REVIEW

M

0 Is this determined to be of an emergency nature?

Yes; expedite emergency grievance

7Ql' No: an emergency is not substantiated.

_.--F'FE~B,....-::2='21l17_-=±-c~~~=--~~-- I RECEIVED

Committed person should submit this grievance In the normal manner.
•

Pnmed M Rr<yclcd P~

DOC 00461Efl.1012001) (Replaces IX S6S7)

.

~

1:07-cv-01298-MMcoMMMt-rJrAe:Go'Pe'#Rs1oN-"2;G'RPiea~Ag'eNcv3e(ocofn2ti0nued) ( ,9)

..-~..:-:-----...,....---..,-

D!stilbuuon: Masler File; CommiHed Person

DOC 0046 (Efl.1012001) (Replaces DC S6S7)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 4 of 20

Distribullon: !.laster File; Committed Person

Ptinu~d en

DOC 0046 (EI!.I0/2001) (Replae<• DC $657)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 5 of 20

Distribution; Master F~e: Cotnmllled Person

4 OFFICE OF
Page INMATE ISSUES
Print~d on Recytled Piper

DOC 0046 (EH. !MOOt) (Replaoes OC SbS1)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 6 of 20

Olstrlbutlon: Master F~e: Commuted Person

FEB 2 1 2007

Pag~.

.
PnootdooRf l

ATFEICIESSOUFES

--~
DOC 0046 (EH.1M!OOI) 1Replam DC S6m

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 7 of 20
COMMITTE~DPERSoN":SG'fiiE'vANCE~continued) ( 7 )

Distribution: Master File; CommiHed Person

Page{, FEB 2 1'IJJfl
"''"'"'"."''.k<!"'<qt=FiC_E; 9F_

-~
DOC 0046 (Eff.t012001) (Replaces OC ~6$7)

6) 1:07-cv-01298-MMcMOMM-iJrAreG:o'Pe#'R1so-t2.~G'RPieavgA'eNC8'"eo(cfo2nt0inued) \_

Distribution: Master File; Commined Person

Pag&7
Prime-d c" R«ydcd P'ilpcr

DOC 0046 (Eif.1012001) (Repl><es DC 5&51)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAGu.L.#rnvl1~u-ct2"""'MI:Phlaugr VeVHHc9.~ttovnf::.20

/ q)

COMMilTEoD PERSON'S GRIEVANCE (Continued) \.

Oistt1bution: Master File; Committed Person

8 Paga fEB 2 12007
2 •""""" ...,.ttd "OFFIc.~ a;.,., o

DOC 0046 (Eft f012001) (Replaces DC S6Sl)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 10 of 20

Olslri!)ulion: Master Fila; Commillad Person

DOC 0046 (Eif.I0/2001) (Replaces OC 5657)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 11 of 20

Distribution: Master FUe; Committed Person

DOC 0046 (Eit1012001) (Reploccs OC 5657)

1:07-cv-01298-MMCMOM-MJAilTGti:DPE#RS1O-2N":"SGPRatEgVeAN1C2"Eo(cfon2tin0ued) C._\ l)

DistributiOn: Master F~e; Committed Person

~NMAO"FF"E(BFT'I2&dC12.00d7~L.S

DOC 0048 (EH.1 012001) (1\epla«s OC S6S7)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 13 of 20
l \ j ) COMMITTED PERSON'S GRIEVANCE (Continued)
.-r-co-·-rr--1..--~-A~f~h~.&~;k~.~k~a4{~U~.n~i~t~--·------------

Ol$ltlbullon: Masin Ale; Cornmllted Persiln

Servi'ces
~ DOC0046(Elf.1012001) ~ tReplo<.. DC S657J

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 14 of 20
COMMITTit:D PERSON'S GRIEVANCE (Continued)

Olllribllllon: Masw File; COmmiHod Person

DOC 0046 (Elf. 10/2001) ~ (Repl~<•• DC 5657)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 15 of 20
(t "S) COMMITTED PERSON'S GRIEVANCE (Continued)

QOOdbutl!>n: Mast" File, COmmitlod Person

DOC 0046 (Elf. 1012001) (R<pil<.. DC 5657)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 16 of 20 Uoolt.H'fVI::t UCI"'AntWM::nl Vr VUtitU::.t,;tJVN::t COMMilTED PERSON'S GRIEVANCE (Continued)
DOC 004!1 (Eff.1012001)
(Replaces DC S6:S7)

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 17 of 20

1Po0nte'.c.\QNoCo.rr"~~c_

£,,dd~le. rJo(n)e~,~~.
teno.l C.enter-

... ··-..... ···---·

~co-~ ~-'\£>He ~-.3%'llo Nc,\h_~4 ~ bf'"ta'oterv_);: :_S...'\cs:f"\v..at-y :)oat.

SLJ.8 "-'!,[f •

Sv~ed< do~e.. <L~oot... Hr. '3one~; EIYle.r£t%(y Grievonc.e..

Dec..e.l<\b.er I

~ ~~~~lf\q QYh

llOt.r Offic.e.. Of1 t-he rnc.tkr cf C\ .12

~+e ~s E lne..rq G() cy Gr\'€vqllc:.e.

IC't, QocG,J +ha 1--

_.S. 'Pi-

Q~ \-c. )lt4r- Offfce... Ch \.-k

clQAe_ "Dec.. l, · C<..,

% a. cy E:M er-q€.r' C:.r \ e.VGr'"lc.e_ • • ':::;It- :C l-lc...lcJ li\.-e.

kf\~ k

h.<\ve. ya. r-ec e ,\red {. h i"' Gn-evana:.e.. o. f\cA

~lei ~e. \\~ ~ li l.c,

Wb Wi 1{. be N?dres.J , .

~~ Nq~vr-~ Of Gr,evunc.e. WQ.-s \\.:S\-Qfr CortJucJJ

~o.6 ~ ~~h 'Di i 11\-t L\flc)€("AD-"\ c..n.c1 II"Qn.sFerre.cJ 0-.1-- F

~(). . .'; w~ wot~ M.e.ntc,.0t U11, V'. ::t Wa...\cl \'1\.€. -\Q,

:::c

he_~\ ~~ Mo.~ •c~ 1\ \.Y\

C\'1'\c,l elicl )let-.• Clff \ec-e 1v-e_..

c; th I !'J. I i -evc,"lQ...Q. _ . :t f' )/0-t ho,V 0")' j-. "\"ece vecJ \-. :U hAve,

re'l~.s>i- Qflcl~ ~i q Ccfy Which ::c 1-.Ji \1

1 ffd\!Y).

Lqc~ L-,~~~ ~ r<lL~f-- I~ ~. fo,h4c..

o.nd_ ho.ve.. ,\- SE?f\\- \.o

off,ce..

PLC)~.) tb·-.~:xe..: _ tl.~e- -e.a_l. '1l-h. I Gr i-evo.<J<!e_. 1

re.al .rc:.;·;·s 3QCln '1

WC~I"'d-WJ ~~s. ~ ~S~'} 2.c.

E:claA, Q.

''"'nSt"v'yt_og...,k_ A.<::.ho0;;- JP\IL'\t.!o\, 0

o

':s ·A 7 o·

[x . t

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 18 of 20

.~ CrY~·">.~ I(', · Ca.._'-''\:S-t\o.;;- C\(\ o\-e1\ t='\eJC Nor+ hs -<'(l!

kc

~'~'' ~ ~'~\c. ~-3~ ~" '. ,1\ \..-,t_,- (Z

97c• N"' §;E't'l S '-1 ke II .

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 19 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-2 Page 20 of 20
1
<
Illinois
Department of
Corrections

Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor
Roger E. Walker, Jr.
Director

Pontiac Correctional Center 1100 W. Lmcoln Street 1 P.O. Box 99 I Pont1ac, IL 61764 I Telephone. (815) 842-2816 I TOO. (800) 526-0844

MEMORANDUM

DATE: TO:

Cell N$4f

FROM: Grievance Officer

Pontiac Correctional Center

SUBJECT:

~W Attached Grievance:

(f'lrfq.q)

Date Received: ;) · :J•ol

The attached is being returned for the reason(s) listed below:

Contact your Correctional Counselor

Use proper Committed Person's Grievance (DOC 0046)

Provide date(s) of disciplinary reports(s)and facility where incident(s) occurred

Forward grievance directly to the Administrative Review Board (protective custody, enforced medication, disciplinary reports from other facilities, decisions by the Transfer Coordinator's Office, decisions rendered by the Director)

Not submitted in the timeframe outlined in Department Rule 504; therefore, issue will not be addressed further

Unable to determine nature of grievance/correspondence. Submit additional specific

i
(

information.

/

-\o-~,~~

Illegible copy submitted- submit legible copy for consideration.
Request restoration of GCC, segregation time cut, grade restoration to the Adjustment Committee. If request is denied, utilize the grievance process for further consideration.

~1i ~ ~

Issue has been previously addressed on _ _ _ _. Nor justification for further consideration

~~ ~ ~ Contact the Record Office with you request and/or additional information (sentence

\n''' ~ \,1>~ calculations, jail credits, etc.)

___ t~

d Address concerns to the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 319 East Madison Street, Suite A,

\ X :x•c::: :~:~~fi~;·,~:::~:~;~ cl:,:·::~~;: v:~~:~ri:es~e~c~c)&

['f. t.

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 1 of 20

E-FILED

~ \C~\t. c_

\\,)\a\:~

L, v

Cent\-}/ uT\chuers~d<aSty1,..\08

November, Clerk, U.S.

2007 08:25:45 AM District Court, ILCD

: "\")C.\\\,O.C C(!~\e"'Ct\C•,'tG.\ C~.'ltQ:_- l_'\)C;'\~\Q(t.) '.

.
.·¥v·J\.9i.'?ax 1(),:~ :

l ':~~c=· () e.r'

e 1fl.-. v' tv1 \·- '1 ::."· _· ,
el, . c~\Y) I rl'\ +~ \-C\ \- \\1 e, ~ v I Q..L} Bc)ol\
19d77, Sfnr4helol JL, ~~?'N-

frcm: ;k~oo, A~s"o b3'6cno f\c,\\ts·4 Sctyc,~eu.

~al-e; ~b'"~.-~o.,y.-~.s j tlocT._

. .

:::iL~jec+,; ~C:{\~tO,<:.. G\t€VCnce Depc.•~n'IQn\- L~t \l Not-

. redress S.-~~q:{)cy G,levc-J1C:e. l)ec._n -~ia

r-cr_ C;J S-\Qr \- C.c~nc:lclct) \)) . ~\sc~:n\,\y .AP)\

·Ac/ / Kehoib kt) Gnc4 C)~ h-cnsfet-\-e(J

:OAt cf ~c;..A~h \vletl-\cJ Ut\i~:

:l)EC\\ ~\lss/S~·,,

.-

?' ·-~ C\V1 C\. \YlQ-t'l~c \lei ,\\ 152e;oo_-_o~ PctH·tOG

U\-''f"ec~-t·\C/lc~ l ( e:lf· i c~ c:_ ~ ?a1 t l DL _L \ lu'lc tS) .

\
).
,~)

.1 ~l£\fvC\;e~\~m'q=t':_N-ncDct~G\dX,n~eLgv\,ct;\.1n"~c'~A--:\,L\CJ:Ae,Ac~~.·\,~1-.e1\.00~f.-xk:,h,.f.bcl,.·teu.,:_ns,q:.

·r 1
3), ~\·e0'\o,anc1Lttn\ c: (,\\E.V('Itf1c G'fft'cer-

l{).:i.c_;\~ft)'e-\1·Q3\0Y~(OlU\OC\ifC;'td5L1-1\(J\)C;!'~\'C?~\'Y\C(f"lJd,·le.VCd/c

.
(t'fft ce\

: \)or\~lCLc~ (~Cirfec.:J-'1 G1c.\ Cerl\~- Do\ e.. Feb .o.07

:t)c~\e~ \ece\y/~/cl -~ Feb-~·· c·7 . ,

,1\9 .H~ reC-ic<>C/1LS) Rr tn.Q_ s(?.nd }'0-' ~ h€se.

t \.).::)ci._;fYlR.tl \-(~.) C:.\e_ i\\c~\- ~k t>crd-coc_

f:x. 1 L)e~o-~·\ \0/10\ ~'~ e"1c~ (e... \ 'S\q;,ctq· fr'Q_ f\-z}tYJ

E \aF3 ~ l

-=--;

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 2 of 20

G, cl ,J•\,l1O\t,(~ILtrr1e..\Y

\(._
CJr

'evc::llc G o
\~lQ_~ Grt€vGr1Ce_

1
,

HLL

a. .As y:u COfl see en -~h.Q... ilfefYlo . dot '8 C7

+k Cit-\evC~nce offtc&" JEh+- Cdl DoC\.J{~W,k s)

, bc;c:.l 'S·l c~-~~ n9 C\). Ur~ cbl e 1c, ol e+-~r-P')d)

'l~c;·hAIE... Ot'Cf1tE:..VCif7c"z!~res£c:;Jder7c

,

~lAb j'V), t Gdo/1 i-t mod Sf-E-CIt i C I nfo.-rYlQ f- i C/l Cif!d

C~t\lk\--- : 7_ju \c)f\'1 1'~+-e d Cls q cJ Q~ s C; c.J- 1c/ I

I (\ -----,·. G,.- . 'k- l I. ('"' f\ ~ c:~ ("1 I J ..D
, · ,;:;. \,.,<!:

,I \j

~·

-'4 t

I

.£~ L
'--

4v/'"'.t

~

'£"-:) ·

:l-o1th 0.\1 do respec~ if ycu S~e C!l

: ~e«1o l.Mlcie. Subject· ~{-of: ~}~due~ .
: .J,o t\'\\'S i :s Cit G.\IEVDillCe 0{1 Stqy~ ccncluc~

•Dts<;;cb\ \1 ~~ )~-DA.k.+/ lehcb Aac...

[,;leA ['r--c~ (7SFe\reci CLt·l- () F Sc..J..AJh l'LQilfn/

Uo, f. So th~se C\(e.. ~\--e. na\t.(e. of f)Y

1 Cjne,f~~{e_ q(\cJ -thz_ qrr-evotr?~-e o((tce;

n'L Ol Ls c S+c ~·es ' n i \'\Q.r-e_ {Yt ..e.f'? 0 Sf-qff Cc()c}tJc!-

( l:l- 19-tG)- As Fe!\

gne.vance be,'Yt9

b.eefl . Q C\os·s G\ c..t ton t-\tc~\-- t~ no,\- { \L{..e. \ .+-~

'Ort ~ G\'Y :::c ho,ve..

\~ec\t- i t- Wh.i le

\(\ for\t.\C;_c_ (~ncJ het·~ fcx\-\LQL l\c~ve Vt'o lck
l+ ,rn~ 1191\k:;,J . L~h.Q,--e~e- ~~ cJeccr ~he.~

· tlort\-tQc C1r--tevC?,Qe.. Depc.\~.\-c,[ ~-kttf

+ '\~ 0\~i'I\\.\~{YI 'e)<: ho,us fy'. stc.;t-e_ .
; \eMec.\y lJY\tc~' ~~ S ~ \.ltotaA-~enc~J
+ 'c' f ::r I/,Y1c 1,:> S\c\\ e.. CcY1'S4-t \Cf1CSJ ~ o~

i

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 3 of 20
lt~ I~:. ~e.9.s ft!e.Ju?l.1 ~c~ }~nhetc De~ G~7ci ~ hCL~'¥·? f,~, ;1:!::.•..;''.!..:/··•J.~G.~h'!f~UfAP5\(4A~l1lchc0)rte~w-k;rIc~an~Qe:s2.•0;<~.So~nhr,ws~.k7tc\-\,ct+cj(.-l:t_rV1{n7,/rauh-fY~oce':1~c.·uC.>k:('!_{:ibmcv.r\'e-:;;c.J;-c:';.kk<c.MrtFyo..escc.Gs..e-QC.,..c-c(euf.fcwJLnGtc.hlM(Yso~lnc/i'c;c,.Cen~,eGoe:HSde,s§AsrAtt._cfl-\D.Fhs?o.rhNs-~to:rt.re/-:t0opefIir,l)',fchd~,cft~o~o,e?c,,d)\oelrRL/d,ec~d\.C,.rn.L.'.l.Yoke.S-72-;Av1hUtse,({'lSGilo'v;:-ur3r-h,doeJC,vvucekeo;"o·S:.·r2,/~.f/.1tA1SQ+<.."woc"!/-crar.d'~.1l)l.r/Q,tcYk<.oe/:0accccsOCJI,Y./.:,e;i,Ul-lU:..h4.o-I;-)hs-ttn{,;L3tcJ.ftch-~e.e.b(2.CK·._,te~c(llk.~_~1/mcd_s)'_e'4..sCt.h-,,e.wL,,.,at.'M)eiryf~4vSl.'9Ae.rJ.y-FoC11iJa:e.;.c:eC-dfn>-2-7oe,h:LrnCf:IeoeC~]Sl/F,l/b·,_ertJltke~c;Cso/erbG?l:o-hc.cd/--;i~"nbee-r.sr1O"P:kf-;eG_/Ir~0Nne,::rU0lS,:rlbrruJte+stq,,c0Aq.:·s'dl..v9bhOl+hh10oejy€c,10s-ke1e0)--Jer2h1::.ooes1,,1tcs,l!e-k7,,~2i,fh/e-oIlsfJl-~l:cp,i-'<lldtl7cflUcSc.~fe",ye\ujoo-eff~'eos'r?eU71-2.Tc~.n:J._J;...k_IS.5fsa'cd;;Cv;'oc.cer·

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 4 of 20

I ,

I

154. Mr. Rasho continued to experience grave difficulties on the STU. Nevertheless,

I

in November 2003, while he was on enforced medis;ation, mental health staff determined that he

had "gained as much as he will from STU programs," and transferred him to Pontiac

Correctional Center. See outpatient progress notes for November 6 and 7, 2003, attached hereto

as Ex. PP.

155. Mr. Rasho was transferred to a regular unit at Pontiac, not to a mental health unit

; See medical notes from Pontiac Correctional Center dated November 11 and 12, 2003, attached

\hereto as Ex. QQ. See also ChandraDep. 142-143.
l
156. According to Dr. Burns, Mr. Rasho's case particularly illustrates the failure of
' t
\
famms mental health staff to ascertain and treat serious mental illness in a timely fashion. Burns ' \
Rpt. 19-20.

ARGUMENT

This case is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment. The standard for

granting such a motion is well established. Unless the affidavits and other supporting materials

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendants are entitled to

judgment as a matter oflaw, this motion must be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view the facts in

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and to give that party the benefit of all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts disclosed in the pleadings,

depositions and affidavits filed in the case. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).

Thus, some courts have gone so far as to say that "summary judgment is an extreme remedy and

one which is not to be entered unless the movant has established its right to a judgment with such

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 5 of 20

TREATMENT REVIEW COMMJTTEE HEARING NOTICE

Instimtion: Tamms Correctional Center- Specialized Treatment UnH

Inmate's Name: Ashoor Rasho

Numoer: lB8970

In accordance with Department Rule 415.70, on Friday, June 27 at 10:30 am in

the Health Care Unit Interview Room a hearing shall be conducted by the Treatment

Review Committee giving you the opportunity tocontest the administration of

psychotropic medication against your v.rill. Dr. Chandra has diagnosed you as having

Borderline Personality Disorder, Severe and ordered that involuntaiy psychotropic

medication is necessary as you are gravely disabled, posing a risk of selious harm to

yourself and others. Your history indicates that you are greatly helped when taking

psychotropic medications but that you are non-compliant with the medications

prescribed

You have the right to appear at this heruing unless your attendance would likely

pose a substantial risk of serious harm to you or a thteat to the safety of others. Leslie .
Markel has been appomted as a Staff Assistant to assist you as may be necessary. The

Staff Assistant shall appear at the heanng whether or not your appear.

--A~~ d~3Jl~~c

Committed Person's Signature

·

D

Committed Person Refused

To Sign

ru,cr (Dctacll submit-totl~e TreatmentRevi-ew Committee in a·d~ance-oTthe hearing) - -·- -

Hearing

Number:_ _~---

request the following witnesses be mterviewed (you may submit wtitten questions for

witnesses.)

.

.

1. Nan1e of Witness ~----------- _ _ _ Number:-~---~ Question:---~------------~-------------

2. Name of Witness:

Question:

----------------------~------
--------------------------------------------

Di~ttibution:
DC 7046 lL 426·13239

1) Medic.> I File

3) Tr~unent Review Committee

:2) C1mmittcd P..:rscln

4) Sta fC AsSi$tant

5) Treating P;:ychialli>t

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 PHaEgAeR6INoGf 2SU0MMARY

Conunitted Person: A.shoor R~s"-o

StatT Assistant: ~, \i (. MOK kt,(... H~ngDate: rt·ij-~~ Time:. lO'.~~~m.

Factlity :fCLtnf!\'i> (..(....

Locauon:

1H q

Number:_B_?_f_9lO

@.-K. Witnesses Requested:
No_ Witnesses Interviewed: Yes
No:J....

__ Request Not Timely:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

v;;:t Mcl.v\ONc.. JL

Cumulat Irrelevant:

ive:--
t.QJ\.(L

:

--:

-

ro-f--'Y-r=-.

.,

..

-

,.

-

---.

-

. ,0. .(. -2, -i-~- - -

-

-

-

__

:

.-

-

Summary of Proceedings & Evidence: (see attacbed)

Basis for DeciSion:

All of the follo~ing factors are present:
· a. .1::::..The committed person suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder.

b. _.6... The medication is in the. medical interest of !he committed person.

c. _'/-.._The committed person is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious hann to himself or

others because, as a result of a mental illness or mental disorder, one or more of the following

:i.,... determinations has been made: . The committed person is in danger of serious physical h.arm resulting from his

--

...; failure to provide for his essential human needs of health or safety.

-.0..._The committed person manifestS'serious deterioration in routine functionjng

evidenced by repeated and escalating loss of cognitive or volitional control
v over his actions which is likely to jeopardize his health or safety.

_"-.._A substantial risk exists that physical harm will be inflicted by the committed

person upon his own self as evidenced by, among other things, threats, or

. l

attempted to commit suicide or inflict physical harm. on himself. A substantial risk exists that physical harm will be inflicted by the committed

person as evidenced by, among other lhings., behavior which has caused such

harm or which places another petson or persons in reasonable fear of

sustaining such h.arm.

_ _ A substantial risk exists that physical h.aim will be inti.icted by the committed

· person upon the property of others as eVidenced by, among other things,

beb.avior which has caused substanJialloss or damage to the property of ·

others.

Action:_·_._ C'..oncur with Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic Medication. __ Do Not Crmcur with Involuntary Ad.'lli.r~tion of Psychotropic

medication.

'Dr. Chairperson: Kt\}JJ~~Jdes

.lc [27{ 03

Printed e

Date

Member: ,·11 1 p_oweR5 Printed Nam.e

:J.'1~JJ
Da

NOTICE: The committed.person has the right to appeal this decision to the Agency Medical Director by filing a

J l 4 , t~, ~., ~c..LL 1/o /fJ. wri/en appeal with the Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee within five days sveipt of this report.

. r/o --s . /

tvr.__ .

Employ Servin py to Commi Person

Date/Time Serve

'

Distribution:

l) Medical ile 2) Committed Person

3) Treatment Review Committee 4) StatT Assistant

5) Warden 6) Treating Physician

DC 7047 IL 426-13240

~·

..,1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 7 of 20
Illinois
Department of
Corrections

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH
Governor
Roger E. Walker Jr.
Director

James R. Thompson Center 1100 W. Randolph Street I Suite 4-200 I Chicago, IL 606011 Telephone: (312) 814-3017 I TOO: (800) 526·0844

Date:

July 8, 2003

To: From:

Offender AshoorRasho, #B-38970 Tamms Correctional Center
Willard 0. Elyea, M.D. !I1~//
Agency Medical Direct0r ~·

Subject:

Treatment Review Committee Appeal

Thank you for your concern over the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication which was approved for you by the Treatment Review Committee at Tamms Correctional Center on 6/27/03. I personally reviewed the entire packet that was sent to me including your letter of appeal with exhibit A as well as a number of Emergency Enforced Medication Reports and the minutes of the Treatment Review Committee meeting. The process of ordering psychotropic medication to be administered on an involuntary basis was followed and was appropriate in your case. Following review of the medical records as well as the other documents mentioned, I concur with the findings of the Treatment Review Lommittee. Your appeal is hereby denied.

WOE: dva
cc: Dr. Kelly Rhodes File

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAGTHl#E1A-T3MEH!PE~aATgeRRI8ENVoGfIE2N0WOTCIOCME !VHTTEE

lnstltuttOn: ___ J.,amms. tnr:r~p.;W-Ce.o.tal:---~rnmate's Name: _Asbru.lr_Ra.s..ho___ .

. Number: 638970

In accordance with DcpartmentRule4!5.70,on.9.LlL98 at __} __ pm in the HC1L
(Date, ·rime, Pine-c)
a hearing shall be conducted by the Treatment Review Committee giving you the

opporttmity to contest the adminrstration of psychotropic medication against your wilL

:Dr _ ___Er_aok_ w Hay£:s__· ___

_has diagnosed you as:

(N,,.nc)

.At}'.pi.c.a.J._p.5.¥-cbosi s ,_pr:..o.vJ.siona1: mE.'d i cati en compl.i.a.nLP~.Jlor'derl i ne Per son a 11 ty

·

. IOm£nomlDisor:der; Antisocial Personality Disorder

and ordered !hat mvoluntary psychotropic mea1caHon IS necessary

___·_ _ __

,__a_s__y.o.u are a dangeL.J:JL.¥D.ut:s.e.U wit ho11t ID.f'.dicilti..Gill...___
(Rationale)

You have the right to appear at thi.s hearing unless your attendance would likely

pose a substantia! nsk of serious harm to you or a threat to the safety of others.

. Angel a l.Ji nc:or

has been appointed as a StaffAssistant l.o

assist you as may he necessary. The Staff Assistant shaH appear at the hearing whether

or not your appear.

TimeSuved

-

------------- _________ ,___ ___ _

(Detach and submit to the Treatment Review Committee in advance of the hearing.)

Hearing Date:

I,

, Number:_-_ _ _ __

CN<~rne)

request the following witnesses be interviewed (yo may svbmit wri1ten questions for

witnesses.) ~ /JL-#f

~

I.

Name of Witness: --~--------------------------

Number: --------------

Question: -----------~----------------------

2. NQaumesetioonf:W-i-tn-e-s-s:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - -----------------------------------~·--·-

Distribution
DC 7046
IL 426-1 LD9

~IJ)fCMocr~id~f,i~lailiFT~~l~~<'Jf;r...~'lsiio\o!l-it;-_,~

3) Treatment Review Co1mniHee 4) Staff Assistant

S) Treating f'>ychintrist

~;/

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 9 of 20

HEARING SUlVfMARY

CommilledPe~so·no:_ \<u~ho -------.__ Number:_~:!O

St;]tt Asststant:

nSo(

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Heanng Date:

Timc:___3_prn a.m:'p.:riY.

Facthty~ Locatjon: t\:Ct.l Infirmu.~

Wttnesses Requested Yes__
No.1;_ Witnesses Interviewed: Yes_·-·
No X

--·Request Not Tunely:_ __

Summary of Proceedings & Evidence: (see attached)

Basis for Decision:

All ofthe following factors are present:

a. _The conunmed person suffers from a mental illness or mental rusordcr.

b. _The medication is in the medical interest of the commuted person.

c. .--X_ The committed persoo is either gravely rusabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to himself or

others because. as a reS'...:lt of.:: mental illness oi mental disorder, one or more of the foHowing

determinations has been made:

_The committed person is in danger of serious physical hann resulting from his

. failure to provide for his essential hW11an needs of health or safety.
L The committed person manifests serious deterioration i.n routine functioning

evidenced by .repeated and escalating loss of cognitive or volitional control

• over his actions which is likely to jeopardize his health or safety.

·

_'X__A substantial risk ex.ists"that physical harm will be inflicted by the committed

person upon his own self as evidenced by, arnong other things, threats, or

attempted to commit suicide or int1ict physical harm on himself.

__. A substantial risk ex.ists that physical hann will be innicted by the committed

·· '

person as evidenced by, among other things, behavior which has caused such

hann or which places another person or persons in reas,onable fear of

sustaining such harm.

__ A substantial risk ex.ists that physical harm will be inflicted by the committed

person upon the property of others as evidenced by, among other things,

behavior which has caused substantial loss or damage to the property of

others.

X Actton:

Concur with Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic Medication. Do Not Concur with Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic

medication.

1
.

~

.

Chairperson: A1ti-RVIN 'fpwST?> /r!_l;(J, DtRI?CiCJ ·

~~~

Printed Name.

Title

. ~~lUre . .

Date

Membec ~e.\~ R1od6,rht> Sv~li~clinio..l ~,ll.tJ q/dqf

Printed arne

Title

~tho/Qjis\' Si ure

Date

NOTICE: The committed person has the right to appeal this decision to the Agency Medical Director by filing a

wrin~ a peal/}~ the.Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee within tive days of receipt of this repon.

,~ PhD

1/2~S' i2-·.sopm

Employee Se ing Copy to ommiued Person

Date/I e Serve

Distnbution:

I) Medical File

3) Treatment Review Committee

5) Warden

2) Commiued Person

4) Staff Assistant

6) Treating Physician

DC 7047

!L 426-13240

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 10 of 20

Emergency Involuntary Administration of Psychotropic Medication

Name:

_J;~Q,>-::.s-"-'h""-o.,__'1

'-~'2->L.:...h...w. ""-r!...-...-_._

Number:

_

~30L1l 0

0 ate Administered: _8~/Z.wctyj-Jqi.Ll?-'---

I,

fhr., H IZ h'.

a. '{c > ..11l?a physician licensed by the State of Illinois to practice medicine in all

of its branches. have determirled that all of the following factors are present:

/;_pc a.
b.

~(l]

The The

inm~te ~ult~rs_ from
r:nedtcallon 1s 1n the

a m~ntal. illness or me~tal disorder:
med1calmterest of the 1nmate: and

and

(Jd

'J;,~;{' K~~'"';l'f.:'! . c"''"' ,..._,~-~ , /1-tP

:~~Mc...f'; /'CI"~''"*

c. ~ The inmate is either gravely djsabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others be- 1 ' ){<

cause. as a result of a mental illness or mental disorder, one or more ofthe following determinations

has been made:

.,

0 The inmate is in danger of serious physical harm resulting from his failure to provide for his essen-

tial human needs of health or safety.

~ The inmate manifests serious deterioration in routine functioning evidenced by repeated and esca-

!ating !oss of cognitive or volitional control over his actions which is likely to seriously jeopardize his

. health or safety.

~ A substantial risk exists that physical harm will be inflicted by the inmate upon his own person as

evidenced by, among other things, threats or attempts to commit suicide or inflict physical harm on

himself.

(kl A substantial risk exists that physical harm will be inflicted by the inmate as evidenced by, among

other things, behavior whi1~h has caused such harm upon another person or which places another

person or persons in reasonable fear of sustaining such harm.

fi1 Asubstantial risk exists that physical harm will be inflicted by the inmate upon the property of others as evidenced by, among other things. behavior which has caused substantial loss or damage to the

property of others; and

d. B3- The inmate poses an imminent threat at serious physical harm to himself or others.

Factual basis for the above determinations: ...._8-''l'--u.LJ·"'-'r<...:;__......ax.v.~...t_..s...:.v:.:.f...:.v:...:.r_.:-...::.s::.....,;.--..t....:.:....~~'-rc=---"'(1-:-'v_r_·_..:;..v_e_~_t_+:__f:....:,_.._...::Jl::..._
h l>and4;(> r aHee-jf..-.1 h lu--<"'K d.t..-/v~-h,;,... hli~"~,J,;...; _; cla;~ ('"t! & b-<-

I,

· ~~:-It :R_\wd.ts, Pb\)

Illinois Licensed P ician J a mental health professional, met with the above-named inmate on

S/ki_S.B at \ ·~ prn..

to discuss the reasons why the medication was administered

and to give the inmate an opportunity to express any concerns he may have regarding the medication.
Notes: :r:4VY\ s~ ~ ~JI-. ~s=!oo~ ~ ~ ~~ VKA.L b0n~ -~~he!-- ~r- ~4orn~ ~ ~ ~ CttnbnN-d- ~
h()/\~ ~(]('". ·---:----------C.,L..~ .-.,~-D---------

lth Professional

Distribution:

I} Medical Fila 2) Committed Person

oc 996 ( 10192)
1l426-lfl114

3) Agency Medical Director 4) Warden

6 I/

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 11 of 20

Summary of Proceedings and Evidence:

Present:

Kelly Rhodes, PhD- Chairperson Marvin Powers, MD Dr. Frank Hayes, Recommending Psychiatrist Angela Winsor, Staff Assistant Ashoor Rasho, B38970

Inmate Rasho stated that he knew all of the individuals present and knew that the hearing was to decide whether or not he would be placed on enforced medications. He indicated that he did not want to be placed on enforced medications because of his blurred vision and the way he feels when taking this medication. He stated that he did not remember telling Dr. Hayes that he would be more 1ikely to take the medication voluntarily if he were under an enforced medication order.

Inmate Rasho initially stated that he cuts himself because his "mind" tells him to but later stated that the voices tell him to do so, especially when he is angered and feels provoked. When asked, he acknowledged some emotional benefit to the cutting. He acknowledged that the feces smearing and self-removal of his stitches are often out of anger and trying to get the staff to give him something that he is wanting. He reported that since be bas been taking the anti-psychotic medication, he bas not heard the voices, also stating that he has been asleep the majority of the time and bas no energy to act, even if he was hearing voices. Initially, when asked, he claimed that he could not recallthe incidents of acting out within the past week or his self-report that he wa5 hearing voices. However, when asked about a specific incident that occurred six days prior, he did recall being angry and feeling provoked; -frrst stating that he did not bear voices at the time, then stating that he did hear voices. Yet, he did not recall smearing feces 'in his cell or cleaning it up. Presently, he believes that the medication helps to keep him from cutting but stated that, "If I get something sharp, I will cut myself if I am on enforced medications or not on enforced medications ... because that's how I am."

A review of the medical record reveal.ed the following:

Inmate Rasho was transferred to Tamms C-Max on March 26, 1998. He complained of having mental health problems and asked for sinequan. He presented with a psychiatric history including previous hospitalizations, self-mutilation, suicide attempts, and selfreported visual and auditory hallucinations. Diagnoses focused on mood instability, adjustment disorders, impulse control disorders, and personality disorders. This history has generally been characterized as transient and manipulative. There have been. indications of some head trauma, but this has largely been unsubstantiated. However, his history consistently demonstrates low tolerance for frustration, unwillingness to accept responsibility for his behaviors, need for stimulation, and aggressiveness.

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 12 of 20

September 16, 1998

To: Marvin Powers. MD Medical Director

From: fracl: Hay~. , MJ) ~

Psy~:;hiatrut

~

Re: Need for Enfo~.d Medication for Ashoor R.asho

As you lcriow. the Treatmtmt RevieW Committee did not concur with my previous request for enforced medications for this inmate, llfld ~mmeodod that more data be collected relative to his prim~ ruagnosis and the need for me>dic.atit>n. i am resubtDiuing what will be rny fin;J ~q:.:e:t fer thi!: in.m:!te, ~ I wi!! be leaving the Illinois Department of Corrections in two weeks.

The factuaJ material presented in my fim submission to the committee is still valid and relevant. I bave continued to consider the matter of this inmate's di!lgllosis. It is indeed complex aod confusio&. a.s a
review of the charting on this patient will an~. First and foremost is the patient's personality structure. He clearly meets diagnostic; criteria for Borderline Penonality Dison:kT as well as Ant:U.ocw Penonality DisQrder.. What has been mon conl'\aiog about his pn:$ef\tatlOD has been the matter of bow to interpret
. cenain behaviors. such as.. c:uttiog on him~lhnd throwing r~s
. it is well es~bti~h~ thar a common fearure of~rdcilii\ef_~n~..it}COiJOtdtr il '~ior.
s~ng. Mr. Rasbo has demonstrated thiS for us oo qwt.e numerous OCGI.SIODS. At tunes he has attributed these <>e<:urreni:es to the influences of hallucinations or demons. Other observers have noted
clear instances of apparent secondary gain, such u~n a certain conceuion from staff, lO
build a lawsuit. or to exp~eu retribution. These conflicting interpretations have sown much confusion about what is reaJly goin?. with this person. It is also, by the way, typical of Borderlines to engender much
conflict and disagreement amona the staff who c.a.re for thc:m.

Certainly, with the additional diagnosis of Antisocial PenonaJity Di;order, ooe can expect that ·

manipulation and second.ary gain wiJIIenter the pkture at some point, and that the patimt will offer self-

serving interpretations ofhis behaviors in retrospect. It is also trUe that another common feature of

Borderline Personality Disorder is the propensity to have mini-pf)'chotic episodes. This patient has had at
least one episode of cutting which fits this description. He. bas related experiencing a transition to a

different state of mind at times prior to cuttine on himself. He dcscri~ this state u "stranae. weird,

funny, different." and feds as if he is losing control. While it may be debatable what to e:all these mini-

psychotic episodes (Psychosis NOS vs Brief Psychotic Disorders). it is would be clinically unacceptable to

deny the~ ex.istence. Fu,Ferno.re, ~is inmlfe tw ~ clai:ming_to ~ear voi~ for a number of years, and
hts psycluatnc recordTjtlfe>c:ttlm. Sunply because h1s retrospectave urterpretattons may appear

sociopathic. or he may embellish his descriptions, docs not mean that s:ucb core pathology is absent. His

nonchalance in relating lili symptoms i!l not proof of their factitious nature, but rather is not infrequmtJy

seen in pen.Ons with chronic psychotic symptoms.
I
+

_ _ _ __
.' - - - - -

\"-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 13 of 20

A certain p11ttern in th..is pati:nt's behavior hAs emerged He does well while on bis mo<IK:ations, then stopJ W:lng his Haldol, cuts hims.elf af\er mis.sing two or th.r~ doses, then requests the me·dtcaticms be resumed. lt is quite clear !hat when th'b patient i' toetuaUy lakin& a neuroleptic (e.g., H.a.ldol) he neither cuts oo himself nor even spea.U of experiencing haJiud.oatioru or altered 1tau::s of miod.. He says that be is more in
control ofhi.J impulses oo his medicationa, and ca.n refra.irt from such be.h..aviors u throwia& feces. The · be:nef~e~ effect~ on reducmg anaer a.od impulsivity io BOrderlines are well docwnented, .., well u their obviou.s ne~5ity in treating !he mini-psychotic epi~. Since the patient himself' acknoWledges their benefdJ in his cas.c. and since it is impossible while 1 cutting epi50de is in progress to put an accurate interpretation as to its etioloaY (manipulation, acting out.. or. at tim~. psychosis) it woold seem most prudent to maintain a constant level ofmedic.t.tioru on board.

l therefore leave this matter in the lands of tho eommitte-o, havina fulfilled the prcviou.s recommendation

of the committee for additional informatioo. II remajns my considered professional opinion that this

patient requi.re'.S enforced medications.

·

. cc:

Kelly Rhodes, PhD

Supervising Clink.al Psychologist

//

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 14 of 20
mentally ill transferees are not represented. B. Plaintiffs Rasho, ~ The parties disagree on the proper diagnosis for plaintiffs Rasho, Fields and Nelson.
Utilizing the records defmition, this Court finds that Rasho and Nelson fall within the class defmition, but not Fields.
···-- Even Dr. Hopkins (Chief of l'vlental Health Services .fur the State of..illinois and a named
de:_fen~-~~!) finds that Rash~ is severely ~tall~ R~~~as been placed..i.n..tbeJ~!Jl!J:lli._ "Sp~C(Doc. 41, exhibit B, p. 5), which further indicates that he fits the records .definition.
. -.....--·__,...
It appears that Nelson falls under the records definition, in that he was diagnosed with and bas been treated for a listed Axis I disorder within the last two years. (See Doc. 41, Exhibit 1, pp. S-6). party Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); see also Tobin for Governor v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 2001 WL 1173227, *9 (7111 Cir. Oct. 5, 2001).
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 15 of 20

NOTICE OF AN IMPENDING PSYCHIATRIC TRANSFER

To

: _

~/6':--'-:r_A_o_o _--'A?'--'-i.t..;:_S-:-h_o-r-'

_r _

_

_

_

_

_

-~b~J_S-:-:-9_7_0_

Jnmaie's Name

Register Number

On the date of

oJ , t.,

the institutional psychiatrist interviewed you and bas recommended that

you be transferred 1 the ot1tiac Meutalllealth Unit for further evaluation and treatment. Before that

happens you have the right to request a hearing before lhe Placement Review Board, consisting of two

members of the institutional staff and one person not employed by the agency. At this hearing, you will be

present and may have your personal psychiatrist or other professional persons appear in your behalf, at your

expense, and present verbal or wrillen leMimony. Further you may specify institutional employee(!. or other

inniates you desire to appear at this hearing in your behalf.

Please indicate below whether or not you desire this bearing, sign your name, and return the white and the yellow copies of this fonn to your counselor within 24 hours. You should retain the pink copy for your own records. lf you desire a bearing, one will be held within five working days of your returning this form. You may request an additional two working days delay by specifying below the reason why you are
requesting this delay.

If you do not desire to receive a hearing, please indicate this below and sign your name. Your proposed transfer will be reviewed in the General Office in Springfield prior 10 the transfer.·

~ftt5(L-cPC J)iYet;';Signature and Title

Check where appropriate.
I have read lhe above and:
X I do not want to receive a hearing regarding my being transferred to the Pontiac Mental Health Unil
1want to receive a hearing to decide whether or not I should be transferred to the Pontiac Mental Health Unit.
_ _ 1 request an additional two days for preparation prior to the bearing for the following reasons:

DCA 7122 (Rev. 9/87)

If- 'b~~CJ7o ~15~ 7 -eq

Register Number

Date

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 16 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 17 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 18 of 20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 19 of 20
~~QJ\tE Of Fll1N~

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 1-3 Page 20 of 20

Rasho et al v. Walker et al, Docket No. 1:07-cv-01298 (C.D. Ill. Nov 07, 2007), Court Docket
General Information

Case Name Docket Number Court Nature of Suit

Rasho et al v. Walker et al 1:07-cv-01298 United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Prisoner Petitions: Habeus Corpus - Civil Rights

© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6KOKPPPO2?documentName=1.xml

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 1 of 9

E-FILED
Monday, 28 April, 2008 08:54:54 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

: 07-l

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 2 of 9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 3 of 9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 4 of 9
-------+1--+~~ote. I+ CLp-e'MaoQf\:LiDpO__cfrC/1 .••

-~··-·--·-·~

~~-------

"ma

_;)a:g

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 5 of 9

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

)SS

COUNTY OF

)

Ltv in~;)\«\

AFFIDAVIT

do hereby declare and affi:rrn that the following informatwn within this affidavit 1s true and correct in substance and m facts:

Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, 18 USC 1621 or 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I declare, unde.r penalty of perjury, that everything contained herein 1s true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief I do declare and affirm that the matter at hand js not taken either frivolously or maliciously and that I believe the foregoing matter is taken in good faith.

2S ~Q-/ , Signed on this

day of

200_8

(f~ ~-~
Affiant

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 6 of 9

l
Illinois
Department of
Corrections

Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor
Roger E. Walker Jr.
Director

DOC Legal Services I Pontiac Correctional Center 1 700 West Lincoln Street, P.O. Box 99 I Pontiac, IL 61764 I Telephone: (815) 842.0947

Fax: (815) 842-0946

TOO: (800) 526.()844

DATE:

April 17, 2008

TO: FROM:

6 - Offender Ashoor Rasho 838970 N-751
Michelle Clark, DOC Legal Services

RE:

Attached Legal Documents

The attached legal documents pertaining to case #07-1298 will not be e-filed at this time. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not include provisions for you to file a reply to the defendants' response to your complaint.
Further, since the docket indicates that the Court is in the process of appointing counsel for you in case #07-1298, please be advised that, once you are represented by counsel, you can no longer e-file pro se pleadings in that case.

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 7 of 9

"Illinois
Department of
Corrections

Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor
Roger E. Walker Jr.
Director

DOC Legal Services I Pontiac Coll'eCtional Center I 700 West Lincoln Street, P.O. Box 991 Pontiac , IL 617641 Telephone: (815) 842-0947

Fax: (815) 842-0946

TOO: (800) 526-0844

DATE:

April 17, 2008

TO: FROM:

d - Offender Ashoor Rasho 838970 N-751
Michelle Clark, .DOC Legal f,ervlces

RE:

Attached Legal Documents

The attached legal documents pertaining to case #07-1298 will not be e-filed at this time. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not include provisions for you to file a reply to the defendants' response to your complaint.
Further, since the docket Indicates that the Court Is in the process of appointing counsel for you in case #07-1298, please be advised that; once you are represented by counsel, you .can no longer e-file pro se pleadings in that case.

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 8 of 9
0 i (S)J Ex.hl b,1 i.S:S . -~---
\<-e . ' ' ' .\-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 43 Page 9 of 9
.j

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 97 Page 1 of 2

E-FILED
Friday, 06 May, 2011 04:26:17 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS, )

GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH, )

LATERIAL STINSON, KEITH

)

WALKER, PHILIP A. ABRAHAM, OTIS )

ARRINGTON, KENNETH BAKALIK, )

DONALD COLLINS, JOSEPH

)

HERMAN, HENRY HERSMAN, and

)

RASHEED MCGEE

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., )

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, )

DR. WENDY NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA )

MAHONE, EDDIE JONES, DR.

)

WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN

)

GARLIC, and DR. MICHAEL F.

)

MASSA,

)

)

Defendants

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG Judge Michael M. Mihm Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
This matter coming to be heard on the Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes and the Court having reviewed the motion and being duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The following class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes:
All persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and who, while incarcerated, have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (hereafter "DSM-IV"), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 97 Page 2 of 2

addiction or any form of sexual disorder shall not by itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of this class definition.
2. Plaintiffs Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker, Philip A. Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, and Rasheed McGee are appointed as Class Representatives;
3. Plaintiffs’ counsel Marc R. Kadish of Mayer Brown LLP, Alan Mills of the Uptown People’s Law Center, Harold C. Hirshman and Camille Bennett of SNR Denton US LLP, and Barry Lowy of Equip for Equality, are appointed as Class Counsel;
4. The case is stayed pending the completion of the expert consultant review described in the Case Management Order.
SO ORDERED

Dated: May 6, 2011
14919673

s/Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

- 2 -

 
 Multiple Documents
Part Description 1 5 pages 2 Exhibit A - Agreed Scheduling Order with Respect to Severed Count VI 3 Exhibit 1 to the Agreed Scheduling Order - Severed Complaint
© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6KOKPPPO2?documentName=147.xml

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112 Page 1 of 5

E-FILED
Tuesday, 09 August, 2011 11:33:47 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, Plaintiff, vs.
ROGER WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

)

)

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO SEVERED COUNT VI

Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho (“Plaintiff Rasho”), by and through his undersigned counsel,

hereby submits this motion (the “Motion”), pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, seeking entry of an agreed scheduling order solely with respect to Count VI of the

Class Action Complaint (defined below) substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A

(the “Agreed Scheduling Order”). In support hereof, Plaintiff Rasho respectfully states as

follows:

BACKGROUND

1. On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff Rasho and certain other named plaintiffs filed their

Second Amended Class Action Complaint [Dkt. No. 95] (the “Class Action Complaint”). Count

VI of the Class Action Complaint asserts claims on behalf of Plaintiff Rasho pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against certain of the Defendants.

2. On April 28, 2011, the Court entered an order (the “4/28 Order”) severing Count

VI from the Complaint (the “Count VI Claims”) and requesting that the clerk establish a separate

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112 Page 2 of 5
case number for the Count VI Claims. As of the date hereof, a new case number has not yet been assigned to the Count VI Claims.
3. On May 18, 2011, Defendants Sylvia Mahone and Michael F. Massa (collectively, “Mahone/Massa”) filed their Motion to Dismiss and Strike Portions of the Complaint [Dkt. No. 99] (the “Mahone/Massa Motion”) in connection with the Count VI Claims.
4. On May 18, 2011, Defendant Sylvia Mahone filed a Motion to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim under Section 1983 [Dkt. No. 100] (the “Mahone MTD”).
5. On May 19, 2011, Defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, and Wendy Navarro filed their Motion to Dismiss Count VI [Dkt. No. 105] (the “IDOC Motion” together with the Mahone/Massa Motion and the Mahone MTD the “Pending Motions”). The current deadline to respond to the pending motions is August 15, 2011.
RELIEF REQUESTED 6. By this motion, Plaintiff Rasho respectfully requests entry of the Agreed Scheduling Order. Entry of the Agreed Scheduling Order will allow the parties to move forward on the Count VI Claims in a completely separate action as intended by the Court’s 4/28 Order and thus mitigate any confusion between the severed Count VI Claims and the Class Action Complaint. 7. The proposed terms of the Agreed Scheduling Order are as follows:
(a) The Count VI Claims asserted against Defendant Sylvia Mahone, shall be dismissed with prejudice; the Count VI claims asserted against Defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, John Garlick and Michael F. Massa (the “Remaining Defendants”) will be dismissed without prejudice (with the right to re-file).
(b) Plaintiff Rasho will be authorized to file a new complaint with respect to the Count VI Claims (the “Severed Complaint”) in the 2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112 Page 3 of 5
form attached as Exhibit 1 to the Agreed Scheduling Order. The Severed Complaint will be deemed to state cognizable claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and no further review of the Severed Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A shall be required.
(c) The Clerk’s Office will be directed to establish a separate case number for the Count VI Claims under which the Severed Complaint can be filed. In the event the Clerk’s Office does not establish a separate case number on or before August 31, 2011, Plaintiff Rasho will be authorized to file the Severed Complaint and have a new case number assigned in connection therewith.
(d) Any filing fees due with respect to the Severed Complaint will be waived.
(e) The Remaining Defendants will waive service of process with respect to the Severed Complaint and will waive any defenses thereto that are based on or related to the dismissal of the Count VI Claims and the re-filing of such claims (via the Severed Complaint) pursuant to the terms of the Agreed Scheduling Order.
(f) The Mahone/Massa Motion and the IDOC Motion will be denied without prejudice.
(g) The Remaining Defendants will have sixty (60) days from the filing of the Severed Complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the Severed Complaint.
(h) Plaintiff Rasho will be authorized and directed to file a copy of the Agreed Scheduling Order in the new case established for the Severed Complaint.
(i) Plaintiff Rasho and the Remaining Defendants will be authorized to move forward with discovery with respect to the Count VI Claims.
8. As noted above, Plaintiff Rasho requests that the Agreed Scheduling Order
provide that any filing fees that may be due with respect to the re-filing of the Count VI Claims
via the Severed Complaint be waived. Filing fees with respect to the Count VI Claims have
already been assessed in connection with the Class Action Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Rasho submits that waiver of any such fees with respect to the Severed Complaint is appropriate
as any additional fees would be duplicative.
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112 Page 4 of 5

9. Plaintiff Rasho also requests that the Agreed Scheduling Order provide that the Severed Complaint be deemed to state cognizable claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff Rasho submits that such a finding is appropriate given that the allegations in the Severed Complaint and the claims asserted therein are based on the allegations and claims asserted in the Class Action Complaint, which was previously determined by the Court to state cognizable claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rasho respectfully requests that this Motion be granted and that the Court enter the Agreed Scheduling Order.

August 8, 2011
Marc R. Kadish Matthew V. Wargin William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com mwargin@mayerbrown.com wstone@mayerbrown.com
Alan Mills UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 N. Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmill@aol.com

/s/Matthew V. Wargin One of his attorneys

4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on August 9, 2011, he caused the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to:

Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S Second St Springfield , IL 62706 217-782-9029 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us

Theresa M Powell David M Walter HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN National City Bank Bldg Ste 575 One N Old State Capitol Plaza PO Box 1687 Springfield , IL 62705 217-522-8822 Email: tpowell@heylroyster.com Email: dwalter@heylroyster.com

Counsel for Defendants

Counsel for Michael Massa and Sylvia Mahone

Dated: August 9, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Matthew V. Wargin_____________
Matthew V. Wargin MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
Counsel to Ashoor Rasho

5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-1 Page 1 of 4

E-FILED

Tuesday, 09 August, 2011 11:33:47 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, Plaintiff, vs.
ROGER WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

)

)

AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO SEVERED COUNT VI

This matter coming to be heard on Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho’s Motion for Entry of an

Agreed Scheduling Order Solely With Respect to Severed Count VI (the “Motion”), it is hereby

ordered that

1. The claims asserted in Count VI (the “Count VI Claims”) of the Second Amended

Class Action Complaint [Dkt. No. 95] (the “Class Action Complaint”) against Defendant Sylvia

Mahone are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

2. The Count VI Claims asserted against Defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones,

Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, John Garlick and Michael F. Massa (the “Remaining

Defendants”) are hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to re-file for a period of 180

days.

3. Plaintiff Rasho is hereby authorized to file a new complaint with respect to the

Count VI Claims asserted against the Remaining Defendants in the form attached hereto as

Exhibit 1 (the “Severed Complaint”). Plaintiff Rasho and the Remaining Defendants hereby

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-1 Page 2 of 4
stipulate that this case and any case filed with respect to the Severed Complaint are “related cases” as such term is used in Local Rule 42.1.
4. The Severed Complaint is hereby deemed to state cognizable claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
5. The Clerk’s Office is hereby directed to establish a separate case number for the Count VI Claims under which the Severed Complaint shall be filed. If the Clerk’s Office does not establish a separate case number on or before August 31, 2011, Plaintiff Rasho is hereby authorized to file the Severed Complaint and have a new case number assigned in connection therewith.
6. Any filing fees due with respect to the Severed Complaint shall be waived. 7. The Remaining Defendants hereby waive (a) service of process with respect to the Severed Complaint and (b) any defenses thereto that are based on or related to the dismissal of the Count VI Claims and the re-filing of such claims (via the Severed Complaint) pursuant to the terms of this Order. 8. The following motions are hereby dismissed without prejudice: (a) Defendants Sylvia Mahone and Michael F. Massa’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Portions of the Complaint [Dkt. No. 99] and (b) Defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, and Wendy Navarro’s Motion to Dismiss Count VI [Dkt. No. 105]. 9. The Remaining Defendants shall have sixty (60) days from the filing of the Severed Complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the Severed Complaint. 10. Plaintiff Rasho is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this Order in the new case established for the Severed Complaint.
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-1 Page 3 of 4
11. The Plaintiff and Remaining Defendants are hereby authorized to move forward with discovery with respect to the Count VI Claims.

SO ORDERED Dated:

Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

AGREED TO August 8, 2011
/s/Matthew V. Wargin Counsel for Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho
Marc R. Kadish Matthew V. Wargin William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com mwargin@mayerbrown.com wstone@mayerbrown.com
Alan Mills UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 N. Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmill@aol.com

3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-1 Page 4 of 4
/s/Christopher L. Higgerson Counsel for Defendants Roger E. Walker, Eddie Jones, Dr. Willard Elyea, Dr. Wendy Navarro, and Dr. John Garlick Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson Illinois Attorney General 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-9029 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us /s/Theresa M. Powell Counsel for Defendants Michael Massa and Sylvia Mahone Theresa M Powell David M Walter HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN National City Bank Bldg Ste 575 One N Old State Capitol Plaza PO Box 1687 Springfield , IL 62705 217-522-8822 Email: tpowell@heylroyster.com Email: dwalter@heylroyster.com
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 1 of 13

E-FILED

Tuesday, 09 August, 2011 11:33:47 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 2011-cv-_____________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FIRST SEVERED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of

Corrections (the “IDOC”) and currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center

(“Stateville”), hereby complains as follows:

1. Mr. Rasho brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations

of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to

be free of cruel and unusual punishment that occurred while Mr. Rasho was incarcerated at

Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”).

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho is currently incarcerated at Stateville. He was previously

incarcerated at Pontiac and, before that, Tamms Correctional Center (“Tamms”). Mr. Rasho has

a history of auditory hallucinations, suicide attempts, and self-mutilation.

3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Roger E. Walker Jr. was the

Director of the IDOC. As such, he had overall responsibility for IDOC’s policies and procedures

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 2 of 13
and the administration of all correctional facilities within the State, as well as personal, first-hand knowledge of the operations of Pontiac.
4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Dr. Willard Elyea was the Medical Director of the IDOC. As such, he had overall responsibility for providing health care, including mental health care, to inmates in the custody of the IDOC, including inmates at Pontiac.
5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Dr. Wendy Navarro was the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC. As such, she had immediate and overall responsibility for the mental health and psychiatric care of inmates in the custody of the IDOC, including inmates at Pontiac.
6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Eddie Jones was the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. As such, he had ultimate responsibility for the entire operation of the institution, including implementing all state laws and the IDOC’s policies, practices, and procedures affecting prisoners confined at Pontiac, its mental health unit, and its segregation units.
7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dr. John Garlick was the Supervising Clinical Psychologist at Pontiac. Dr. Garlick provided mental health services to prisoners at Pontiac and oversaw the mental health staff who serve as the prison mental health professionals.
8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dr. Michael F. Massa was one of the psychiatrists at Pontiac. Dr. Massa provided mental health services to prisoners at Pontiac’s mental health unit and administered psychotropic drugs to them.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4).
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 3 of 13
10. Venue is proper in the Central District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least one of the Defendants resides in the District and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District.
FACTS I. The Failure to Provide Constitutionally-Required Mental Health Care to Inmates in
IDOC’s Custody Generally 11. Mentally ill inmates in IDOC facilities are chronically underdiagnosed and undertreated. Even for those prisoners identified as needing mental health care, such as Mr. Rasho, the care is grossly substandard. 12. One measure of the deficiency in treatment is how few of IDOC’s adult correctional centers provide any sort of specialized mental health services at all. The State of Illinois currently has only four adult correctional facilities (out of a total of 28) which contain a specialized mental health unit: Dixon Correctional Center (“Dixon”), Pontiac, Tamms (the state’s “super-max” facility), and Dwight Correctional Center. 13. Access to the limited number of specialty mental health units is difficult, as there are not enough beds in those units to accommodate all of the seriously mentally ill prisoners in the prisons operated by the IDOC. As a result, prisoners with obvious mental health needs are not transferred to specialized mental health units, and prisoners are refused transfers to these specialized units for reasons that have nothing to do with mental health treatment considerations (e.g., in retaliation for complaints about staff behavior). 14. Grievances by inmates as to the quality of care provided in the mental health units are treated not as complaints about care, but as challenges to being assigned there. Prisoners are transferred out of mental health units in retaliation for filing a grievance, assisting other inmates in grieving, or other reasons having nothing to do with psychiatric care. Within the mental
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 4 of 13
health treatment units, patients with a wide variety of problems are grouped together and treated by the same methods without regard for their differing diagnoses, symptoms, or treatment needs.
15. What limited and erratic care there is, is provided chiefly by medication. A prisoner with serious mental illness may see a psychiatrist once a month, to “re-up” his medications, and a social worker once a month. It can be very easy to get off medications: just ask, or stop taking the medications. There are no adequate mechanisms in place to monitor whether mentally ill inmates are really taking the medications they are prescribed, or to encourage them, through therapeutic contact, to stick with their medication regimes.
16. When prisoners have consultations with mental health professionals, they are often forced to do so in the form of conversations at the cell door, where not only correctional staff but other prisoners can eavesdrop. This severely compromises the ability to treat any mental illness, since it requires a prisoner to identify his symptoms in a setting where other prisoners can readily hear. This gives prisoners an incentive to minimize problems, and thus gives the IDOC a reason not to provide treatment.
17. The diagnosis of – or failure to diagnose – inmates’ mental health problems by mental health professionals in IDOC facilities, and the day-to-day treatment of mentally ill prisoners by staff, is routinely poisoned by the notion of “offender manipulation,” and mentally ill inmates are routinely categorized as uncooperative malingerers. Both regular staff and supposed mental health “professionals” fail to recognize the “uncooperative” and “manipulative” conduct as the symptoms of mental illness that they are.
18. Correctional staff often do not respond to prisoners’ threats to harm themselves. Prisoners on suicide and/or crisis watch are neglected, abused, or both.
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 5 of 13
19. Inmates who engage in conduct due to their mental illnesses are punished in absurd and irrational ways.
20. Mentally ill inmates accumulate large amounts of segregation time for disciplinary infractions caused by their mental illness, but their mental illness is not considered or taken into account in the hearings about their infractions. Prisoners are housed in segregation and given little or no mental health care. It is well-known that placing mentally ill inmates in segregation or isolation is highly likely to exacerbate their mental illness. Even without mental illness, many prisoners in isolation experience mental deterioration; isolation is especially dangerous to those who are already mentally ill. Studies have found that the effects of isolation include: paranoid psychosis and uncontrolled rage, including increased homicidal and suicidal impulses; frequent schizophrenia; and impairment of the ability to socially reconnect with others once released. Yet mentally ill prisoners still accumulate years upon years of “seg” time in the IDOC.
21. Likewise, prisoners who were originally incarcerated for comparatively minor offenses (e.g., burglary) can end up spending more time in prison due only to their mental illness than those convicted of much more serious offenses.
22. The units in which mentally ill prisoners are housed – both the mental health units themselves and other locations where they may be placed – are often filthy, vermin-ridden, and filled with human waste. This is true of individual cells and of common areas, such as showers. Staff do not clean them, and inmates are not able to clean them.
23. In the Pontiac “North Segregation” Unit, where Mr. Rasho was housed for much of the time relevant to this Complaint, inmates were given a half cup of green soap once a week
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 6 of 13
to clean their cells. In the beginning, they are also given a sponge, but once the sponge wears out they are not given a new one.
24. The failure to provide constitutionally-required mental health care to mentally ill inmates such as Mr. Rasho is the result of policies, practices, protocols, and/or customs enacted, implemented, and/or carried out by Defendants Walker, Elyea, Navarro, and Jones. II. The Failure to Provide Mr. Rasho with Constitutionally-Required Mental Health
Care While at Pontiac 25. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho has been incarcerated in the IDOC since 1996 and was transferred to Pontiac on November 7, 2003, where he remained until March 22, 2011, when Mr. Rasho was transferred to Stateville. 26. Mr. Rasho arrived at Pontiac with a well-documented history of serious mental illness, which manifested itself through self-mutilation, suicide attempts, and auditory hallucinations. 27. Prior to arriving at Pontiac, Mr. Rasho had been treated with a wide variety of psychotropic medications, including Sinequan, Wellbutrin, Prozac, Remeran, and BuSpar. At various times, Mr. Rasho had been deemed so mentally ill that doctors took the extreme step of forcing him to take some or all of these medications against his will. 28. For some period of time after he was first transferred to Pontiac, Mr. Rasho’s mental health was reasonably stable. 29. However, in spring 2004, Mr. Rasho stopped taking his medication and began cutting himself again. 30. When Mr. Rasho stopped taking his medication and began cutting himself again in spring 2004, he was transferred to Pontiac’s mental health unit by then-Pontiac psychiatrist Dr. Kowalkowski.
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 7 of 13
31. After being transferred to Pontiac’s mental health unit by Dr. Kowalkowski, Mr. Rasho resumed medication and stabilized. However, he later stopped taking his medication again, and resumed self-mutilating.
32. Between November 2004 and October 2005, Mr. Rasho cut himself on at least five occasions, requiring between 6 and 16 stitches on each occasion.
33. Despite Mr. Rasho’s history of mental illness and self-destructive behavior, reflected in his records and in his conduct at Pontiac under their watch, and despite his ongoing self-harm behaviors, in 2006 Dr. Massa and the other members of the Pontiac psychiatric team, including Dr. Garlick, determined to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the mental health unit and into the “North Seg[regation]” unit.
34. Drs. Massa and Garlick determined to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the mental health unit and into the “North Segregation” unit not because Mr. Rasho would no longer benefit from placement in that unit, but because Mr. Rasho complained about staff behavior in the mental health unit.
35. Drs. Massa and Garlick did not determine to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the mental health unit and into the “North Segregation” unit for any legitimate medical or therapeutic reason.
36. Drs. Massa and Garlick transferred Mr. Rasho out of the Pontiac mental health unit although they were well aware of Mr. Rasho’s history of serious mental health problems and the fact that he still had serious mental illness and repeatedly harmed himself by cutting large, deep wounds on his arms.
37. As a result of the transfer out of the Pontiac mental health unit, Mr. Rasho’s mental state deteriorated further.
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 8 of 13
38. In August 2006, Mr. Rasho cut himself again and was transferred first to the health care unit, where he was put on crisis watch.
39. While on crisis watch at the health care unit, the staff told Mr. Rasho to “call when he hit an artery” and left him alone as he was in the act of cutting himself. When he triggered the sprinkler head in the cells, he was removed, and received 15 stitches. Despite this incident, Mr. Rasho was thereafter returned to North Segregation per Dr. Massa’s and Dr. Garlick’s instructions.
40. Mr. Rasho repeatedly requested transfer back to the mental health unit, but his pleas were disregarded by Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick.
41. Despite refusing to place Mr. Rasho in the Pontiac mental health unit, the Pontiac mental health staff, including Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick, consistently prescribed powerful combinations of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs for Mr. Rasho.
42. The Pontiac mental health staff, including Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick, were aware of and acknowledged Mr. Rasho’s serious mental illness even as they denied him treatment, denied him access to programs available in the mental health unit, and exacerbated his mental illness by placing him in a segregation environment. III. Failure To Establish Policies and Protocols
43. While mentally ill prisoners such as Mr. Rasho are treated by on-site medical personnel such as Drs. Massa and Garlick, the treatment provided is determined by protocols developed or approved by Drs. Elyea and Navarro.
44. Upon information and belief, the protocols developed by Drs. Elyea and Navarro failed to provide an effective mechanism for the diagnosis and treatment of mentally ill prisoners such as Mr. Rasho, and to ensure continuity of treatment as they were transferred between prisons.
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 9 of 13
45. Upon information and belief, the protocols developed or approved by Drs. Elyea and Navarro for the treatment of mentally ill prisoners did not provide for placement of such prisoners in specialized mental health treatment units, and instead allowed them to be placed in highly restrictive environments such as Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit.
46. Drs. Elyea and Navarro developed or approved these protocols with actual knowledge that environments such as Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit were toxic to the mental health of prisoners suffering from serious mental illness such as Mr. Rasho. IV. Placement of Mr. Rasho In An Environment Toxic to His Mental Health
47. Defendants Jones and Walker were responsible for the assignment of prisoners, and for establishing the rules, policies and procedures governing the operation of the various housing units, including the North Segregation Unit at Pontiac.
48. Once Mr. Rasho was removed from the Pontiac mental health unit, he was assigned to Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit.
49. Prisoners placed in Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit had virtually no movement out of their cells, minimal contact with other prisoners, and were provided with virtually no access to mental health professionals on an on-going basis.
50. Conditions in the Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit were toxic to the mental health of prisoners such as Mr. Rasho who suffered from severe mental illness.
51. Mr. Rasho filed numerous grievances regarding his deteriorating mental health once he was placed in Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit.
52. Mr. Rasho’s grievances regarding his placement in North Segregation, rather than the mental health unit, were either ignored or denied by Warden Jones.
53. Despite the obvious risks of harm to Mr. Rasho, a seriously mentally ill person, caused by being placed in a segregation unit instead of a specialty mental health care unit, his
9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 10 of 13
grievances were denied, and he was told by Warden Jones that the “nature of his grievance could not be determined.”
54. Mr. Rasho’s privacy was invaded by his treatment at Pontiac, in that he was forced to have conversations with mental health staff within the hearing of non-mental-health professionals, including correctional staff and other prisoners.
COUNT I (For Compensatory and Punitive Damages Against Defendants Walker, Elyea, Navarro,
and Jones) 55. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 54 as if alleged herein. 56. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho had serious medical conditions. Specifically, Mr. Rasho suffered from serious mental illnesses. 57. Defendants Walker, Elyea, Navarro, and Jones (the “Count I Defendants”) knew that Mr. Rasho and other inmates in the custody of the IDOC suffered from serious mental illnesses but they disregarded the risks posed by these serious mental illnesses. 58. The Count I Defendants’ knowledge and disregard of the serious mental illnesses that inmates in the custody of the IDOC, including Mr. Rasho, suffer from and the risks posed by such illnesses constitutes deliberate indifference. 59. In so doing, Defendants Walker, Elyea, Navarro, and Jones have violated Mr. Rasho’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 60. The Count I Defendants’ violations of Mr. Rasho’s constitutional rights placed Mr. Rasho at an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of developing or exacerbating serious medical and mental health problems.
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 11 of 13
61. The Count I Defendants’ violations of Mr. Rasho’s constitutional rights inflicted both physical and mental harm and injury to Mr. Rasho, including by causing avoidable pain, mental suffering, and deterioration of his health.
COUNT II (For Compensatory and Punitive Damages against Defendants Jones and Walker)
62. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 61 as if alleged herein
63. Conditions in Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit, at least as to prisoners such as Mr. Rasho, failed to meet the minimal standards required by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
64. Defendants Jones and Walker (the “Count II Defendants”) placed Mr. Rasho in these conditions, and maintained these conditions, with actual knowledge of the toxic effect those conditions would have on prisoners with serious mental illness.
65. The Count II Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to protect Mr. Rasho from the toxic effect of the conditions of the North Segregation Unit with actual knowledge of the dangers that the conditions in Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit posed to mentally ill prisoners such as Mr. Rasho.
COUNT III (For Compensatory and Punitive Damages against Defendants Garlick and Massa)
66. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10 and 25 to 42 as if alleged herein.
67. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho had serious medical conditions. Specifically, Mr. Rasho suffered from serious mental illnesses.
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 12 of 13
68. Defendants Garlick and Massa (the “Count III Defendants”) knew of and disregarded Mr. Rasho’s serious mental illnesses and the risks posed by such illnesses.
69. The Count III Defendants’ knowledge and disregard of Mr. Rasho’s serious mental illnesses and the risks posed by such illnesses constitutes deliberate indifference.
70. In so doing, Defendants Garlick and Massa have violated Mr. Rasho’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
71. The Count III Defendants’ violations of Mr. Rasho’s constitutional rights placed Mr. Rasho at an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of developing or exacerbating serious medical and mental health problems.
72. The Count III Defendants’ violations of Mr. Rasho’s constitutional rights inflicted both physical and mental harm and injury to Mr. Rasho, including by causing avoidable pain, mental suffering, and deterioration of his health.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and: (a) Award Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho compensatory and punitive damages for the violations of his constitutional and legal rights; (b) Award Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (c) Award any such further relief as the Court may deem just.
12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JAG # 112-2 Page 13 of 13

August ___, 2011
Marc R. Kadish Matthew V. Wargin William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com mwargin@mayerbrown.com wstone@mayerbrown.com
Alan Mills UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 N. Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmill@aol.com

One of his attorneys

13

Rasho et al v. Walker et al, Docket No. 1:07-cv-01298 (C.D. Ill. Nov 07, 2007), Court Docket
General Information

Case Name Docket Number Court Nature of Suit

Rasho et al v. Walker et al 1:07-cv-01298 United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Prisoner Petitions: Habeus Corpus - Civil Rights

© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6KOKPPPO2?documentName=147.xml

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 1 of 7

E-FILED
Wednesday, 08 May, 2013 04:10:04 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS,

)

GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH,

)

LATERIAL STINSON, and KEITH WALKER,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DEPUTY )

DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, DR. WENDY

)

NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA MAHONE, EDDIE

)

JONES, DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN

)

GARLIC, DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA, and

)

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.

)

)

Defenda

nts

)

)

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG Judge Michael M. Mihm Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

AGREED ORDER

The parties have agreed to the entry of th is interim order to facilitate a cons ent

decree in this matter. Th is order requires ce rtain actions by the Illinois Department of

Corrections (IDOC) and inc ludes selecti on of a monitor. The order

addresses

definitions applicable to this Order and the issues of addit ional mental health staff,

bed/treatment space, segregation for the seriously mentally ill, discipline of the seriously

mentally ill, monitoring of the obligati ons in this order, and a dispute resolution

mechanism as to the matters addressed by this order.

I. DEFINITIONS

a) Serious Mental Illnes s: As used herein, an offender in the (IDOC) is “serious ly mentally ill” (“SMI”) if he or she, as a result of a mental disorder as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical M anual of Mental Disorders (“D SM”) of th e American Psychiatric Association, exhibits impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes se riously with his or her ability to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. Thes e individuals also must either currentl y have, or have had within the past year, a diagn osed mental dis order, or must currentl y exhibit significant signs and sym ptoms of a m ental disorder. A di agnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, dev elopmental disorders, or any form of sexual dis order shall not, by

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 2 of 7

itself, render an individual seriou sly mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis

or significant signs and sym ptoms of a mental dis order and an impair ed level of

functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be considered Seriously Mentally

Ill. Whether a person meets the criteria of Seriously Mentally Ill is initially determined by

a comprehensive, professional clinical assessment by an IDOC mental hea

lth

professional in order to 1) determine if the indiv idual has a diagnosable mental disorder

as defined by the current DSM and 2) to

establish the person’s over all level of

functioning. The appropriate threshold to es tablish level of functioning that equates to a

Serious Mental Illnes s includes serious impairm ents in capac ity to re cognize reality, in

work envir onments, school or learning environments, freq uent problems with the

authority/rules, occasional co mbative behavior, serious impair ments in relations hips

with friends and family, serious impairment s in judgment, thinking, and mood, and

serious im pairment due to anxiety. T hese aforementioned disturbances must be

observed in at least one of the areas listed above.

b) Crisis Beds: Beds that are available within t he prison for short-term, aggressive mental health intervention des igned to r educe the acute, presenting sy mptoms and stabilize the inmate prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102 (Eff. 6/1/2012), § II(F)(2).

c) Mental He alth Un it (“MHU”) : A housing unit with in t he prison for inmates wit h mental illness who do not then need inpatient treatment but who do r equire the therapeutic milieu and the full range of services and variable se curity available in the MHU, as required by IDOC Administrati ve Directive 04.04.100 (Eff. 6/1 /2012), § II(F)(1)(a)(5) and “IDOC Mental Health Units,” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101 (Eff. 6/1/2012), § II(E)(2)), at pp. 2-3.

d) Outpatient Mental Health Servic es: The provision of appropriate mental health care and s upportive s ervices for those inmate s with mental illnes s who are able to be housed and function in th e general prison population, as required by IDO C Administrative Directive 04.04.100 (Eff. 6/1/2012), passim.

e) Inpatient Mental Health Services : Intensive, inpatient hospitalization during the period when an offender’s mental health n eeds exc eed the treatment capabilities of IDOC. In such instances, offenders shall be returned to a les s intensive treatment environment at the earliest clinically appropriate time.

f) Mental Health Professional : A mental health professi onal is: a board-certified and licens ed psychiatrist; a psychologist wit h a Ph.D. or Psy.D. and lic ensed as a clinical psychologist; a licensed psychiatric nurse (i.e., a nurse with an R.N. and training as a psychiatric nurse practitioner); a licens ed clinical social wor ker; or an indiv idual with clinical training and a Masters degree in Psychology or Social Work who is licensed
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 3 of 7

to provide mental health services . “Licensed ” means currently lic ensed by t he State of Illinois.
g) Segregation Unit: A special housing area within a prison in which offenders are placed for disciplinary, investigative, or administrative reasons.

II. ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF

a)

By May 10, 2013, the IDOC wil l create a list of all uns taffed mental he alth

positions, both State and contractual. By June 1, 2013, ID OC will create a plan to fill

these posit ions. IDOC and its vendor shall make intensive ef forts to implement the

hiring plan, and the positions shall be filled no later than Decem ber 1, 2013. Once the

positions a re fille d, IDOC sha ll thereafter be required to main tain staffing at not le ss

than 90 percent of those mental health po sitions enumerated in the current healt h

services contract. If staffing falls below 90 percent for two consecutive weeks, IDOC

shall use t emporary or short-te rm contract employees to raise the level to at least 90

percent.

b) IDOC will conduct an assessm ent of its current mental health st affing levels at each facility. The goal of the as sessment will be to identify staffing levels that satisfy IDOC’s constitutional responsibility for provid ing mental health care to SMI inmates. Factors to be considered include the current provision of mental health services and the staffing necessary to provide care for each SM I inmate at the facility in accordance wit h individualized treatment plans. Defendants shall prov ide t he monitor and c ounsel for plaintiffs with IDOC’s assess ment proc ess no later than thirty (30) days after appointment of the m onitor by the Court. The monitor will review and approve the assessment process. The asses sment shall be completed no lat er than six (6) months after the approval of the assessment process by the monitor.

c) The parties will negotia te additional m ental heal th positions, or propos e modifications to existing mental health positions based on the results of the assessment completed in paragraph (b) above.

d) Once the parties have agreed on the number of staff to be added, those positions will be listed in the consent decree.

III. BED/TREATMENT SPACE

a) IDOC will c onduct an assessment of its current ment al health bed and treatment space at each prison. The goal of the asse ssment will be to iden tify bed and treatment space allocations that satisfy IDOC’s constitutional duty to provide mental health care to SMI inmates. Factor s to be considered include t he c urrent provision of mental health services and the bed and trea tment space necessar y to provide care for each SMI
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 4 of 7

inmate at the prison in accordance with individualized treatmen t plans. Defendants shall provide the monit or and counsel for plai ntiffs with I DOC’s assessment process no later than thirty (30) days after appointment of the monitor by the Court. The monitor will review and approv e the ass essment process. The assessment shall be completed no later than six (6) months after the approv al of the assess ment process by the monitor.

b) The assessment will address the following issues:

i) the residential space required for crisis beds and MHUs;

ii) the provision of inpatient care;

iii) the use of an entity already li providing such inpatient care;

censed, accredited and experienced in

iv) the space required for space for c onfidential consult ations with MHPs, individual and group activities, dayrooms, programs related to mental health treatment, and the required office space and equipment needed for staff;

v) a detailed plan on where such space identified in subparagraph (iv) is or may be located and whether such spac e may be available by renovation, construction, modular units, or in any other fashion; and

vi) a detailed plan which addresses target dates for the implementation of all bed/treatment space identified in the assessment.

c) Once the assessment is complete the parties will negotiate te rms to be included in the consent decree related to bed and treatment space.

IV. SEGREGATION/PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

a) IDOC shall, by May 15, 2013, assure that:

i)

At least o nce every seven (7 ) calen dar day s, a MHP shall visit every sectio n of ea ch

segregated housing unit.

ii)

MHP screening of a n SM I offender in segregation shall foll ow the three stage me ntal

health triage process outlined in the current edition of the Mental Health Protocol Manual

beginning wi th screeni ng and follo wed by assessment a nd evaluation, if clinically

indicated.

iii)

Security personnel shall be notified tha t they have a responsibility for being attentive to

the mental h ealth of those SMI offenders i n segregation and, to fulfill this respon sibility,

- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 5 of 7

IDOC security personnel shall re port a ny decompensation they have ide ntified thro ugh the chain of command for referral to mental health professionals.

b) Any decis ion regarding an SMI offender ’s placement in, continuation or termination of Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement, Disciplinary Segregation or Administrative Detention may be reviewed by the IDOC Mental Health Services Director or his/her designee(s) to determine if the decision properly considered the mental health needs of the SMI offender. Such a request can be initiated by the recommending MHP or the CAO or Assistant CAO. Defendants shall report to the Court every forty-five (45) days as to progress in implementing this paragraph.

c)

No late r than May 15, 20 13, IDO C sh all initia te th e develo pment of a proce ss to review SMI

offenders placed in segregation prior to ratification who are serving segregation terms of sixty (60) days

or lon ger. Th e purpo se of the revie w will be to determine if the SMI offende r’s m ental h ealth co ndition

both at the ti me of the o riginal and any subsequent offense requires a reduction in the offender’s current

segregation term. The re view sh all be perform ed a t the facility l evel, and sh all involve a committe e

(“Review Co mmittee”), appointed by the Chi ef Ad ministrative Officer, that shall i nclude se curity an d

mental health professionals. The Review Committee shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief

Administrative Officer tha t an SMI offende r’s segregation time be redu ced (or eliminat ed altogethe r)

based upon (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person

(including the offender at issue); (3) th e offender’ s behavioral, medical, men tal health an d disciplina ry

history; (4) reports a nd recom mendations concerning the offender; an d (5) ot her l egitimate penol ogical

interests. Absent overridi ng security concerns, the Review Commi ttee shall ad opt the reco mmendations

of the Comm ittee’s MHP member(s). The de cision for redu ction or elimin ation of an SMI offender’s

segregation term ultimatel y rests with t he CAO who, absent ove rriding security concerns documented in

writing, shall ado pt the Committee’s re commendations to re duce o r eli minate a n S MI offende r’s

segregation t erm.Defendants shall rep ort to th e Court every f orty-five (45) days a s to progress i n

implementing this paragraph. The review shall be completed by IDOC no later than December 31, 2013,

but this date may be extended by the Court for good cause shown.

V. DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL INMATES

a) No later than May 15, 2013, IDO C will commence developing and implementing system-wide polic ies and procedur es to take into account serious mental illness in disciplinary proceedings and dis positions of those proceedings. IDOC acknowledge s that this will require reform in the nature of disciplinary proceedings as they are currently conducted, and agrees to reform those proceedi ngs so that the policies and procedures with respect to serious mental illness can be implemented.

b)

The reforms shall include that, when an SMI offend er is the subject of a di sciplinary report for a

major offense as define d in 20 Ill. Admin. Code 50 4.50(d)(3), the Hea ring Investigator shall consult with

the offende r’s treatin g MHP as p art of the investi gation requi red by 20 Ill. Admin. Cod e 504.60. In

addition to any other i nformation derived from thi s consultation, the Hea ring Investigator shall obtain the

following opinions from the MHP: (i) whether the offender’s mental illness caused or contri buted in any

way to the b ehavior at i ssue in the disciplin ary process, and if so, how; and (ii) whether confinement in

segregation i s li kely to i mpact the offender’s mental health, and if so, h ow. Ad ditionally, the SMI

offender’s treating MHP, or one of his or her superiors, shall provide testimony as to the offender’s mental

- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 6 of 7

condition at any Adju stment Committee h earing. Su ch testim ony, in a ddition to any ot her te stimony permitted by 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504.80(h), shall be considered by the Adjustment Com mittee in maki ng its determi nations. If the SMI offender’s treatin g M HP re commends that the offender’s m ental health needs require a specific segregation term, specific treatment during segregation or no segregation at all, the MHP’s recommendations shall be adopted by th e Adjustment Committee or Program Unit unless the CAO or Assi stant CAO overrules the MHP’s opi nions in writing. Such documentation shall become part of the offen der’s di sciplinary re cord. By July 1, 2013, IDO C shall provid e the monitor an d counsel fo r plaintiffs with draft s of a ny and all reg ulatory changes needed t o implem ent t his paragraph. Any such regulatory changes that need to be submitted to JCAR shall be submitted by IDOC no later than A ugust 1, 2013.

VI. MONITORING

a)

The Court shall appoint an independent and imp artial Monitor who is kno wledgeable concerning

the man agement an d ov ersight of correctional p rograms and t he d elivery o f mental h ealthcare. Th e

Parties shall endeavor to agree on a single candidate for Monitor. Within forty-five (45) days after entry of

this Order, the parties shall exchange names and qualifications of proposed monitors. T he parties shall

agree upo n a monitor from the propo sed can didates with in forty five (45) day s thereafter. If the parties

cannot agree upon a monitor within this time frame, either party may move the Court for additional time.

b)

The parties recognize that issues of staffing and budget will be worked out with the monitor, and

IDOC will pay the monitor and hi s/her staff. In th e event the Monitor resi gns or otherwi se becom es

unavailable, and the Parti es cann ot ag ree on a repl acement Mo nitor to re commend to th e Cou rt, the

process described above will be used to select a replacement Monitor.

c)

The monitor shall have access to the expert team report (the “Cohen report”).

d) After the assessments of mental health staffing and bed/treatment space described in sections II and III above have been completed, the monitor shall ass ess any proposals receiv ed from IDOC as to the mental health staff and bed/treatment space. Contemporaneously with submission to the monitor, IDOC shall provide such proposals to plaintiffs’ counsel. The monitor shall review any proposals it has received within 60 days. If ID OC’s proposals are unacceptable to t he monitor, the monitor may give IDOC an additional 60 days to make acc eptable proposals. IDOC may dispute the monitor’s determination pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of section VII.

VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In the event a dispute arises as to whether Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of this Order, counsel for the parties shall proceed as follows:

a)

Counsel for t he parties shall make a good faith effort to re solve any difference which may arise

between them over matte rs of compliance. Prio r to t he initiation of any pro ceeding before the Court to

enforce the provisions of t his Order, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify Defendants’ counsel in writing of a ny

claim that Defendants are in violation of any provision of this O rder. Within fifteen (15 ) business days of

the re ceipt of this n otice, counsel for P laintiffs and Defendants shall me et in an attempt to arrive at a n

amicable resolution of the claim. Either party may request the attendance and involvement of the monitor

at such m eeting. If, after fifteen (15) business days following such meeting, the matter has not been

- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM-JEH # 132 Page 7 of 7

resolved, Defendants and the monitor shall be so informed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, in writing, and Plaintiffs may then have due recourse to the Court.

b)

If legal actio n is pu rsued, it shall b e brought in the form of a m otion to enfo rce any terms of this

Order.

SO ORDERED Dated: May 8, 2013

s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

- 7 -

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 1 of 32

E-FILED
Thursday, 21 January, 2016 04:44:03 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants

) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) ) Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. ) Hawley ) ) )

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
a) This is a class action brought under the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the Americans with Disabilities Act or “ADA”), and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants are John Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and Dr. Melvin Hinton, Chief of Mental Health Services for IDOC.1
b) The Plaintiff class challenges the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to mentally ill adult offenders in the physical custody and control of the IDOC. Defendants expressly deny that they have violated any such constitutional or statutory rights.
c) On August 14, 2015, this Court certified this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The representative Plaintiffs are Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Keith Walker, Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Fredricka Lyles, Clara Plair, Desiree Hollis, and Crystal Stoneburner
d) Plaintiffs, through class counsel, have conducted a thorough investigation of the conditions of confinement for such mentally ill offenders and have obtained many policies, directives, offender medical and disciplinary records, and other pertinent materials.

1 Substituted automatically for the original defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 2 of 32
e) Defendants, through counsel, have provided numerous documents in response to requests by Plaintiffs, produced relevant witnesses for depositions, and afforded opportunities for Plaintiffs’ experts to conduct on-site tours of several IDOC correctional facilities and interview offenders about their treatment and care. The parties have used this information to reach this agreement regarding the definition of “serious mental illness,” appropriate staffing ratios, bed and treatment space needs, therapeutic programming, policies governing segregation and discipline of mentally ill offenders, and other relevant factors for establishing a constitutionally adequate system for mentally ill IDOC offenders. Since the initiation of the litigation, the IDOC has commenced significant initiatives to enhance the delivery of mental health services. To date, those include the following: implementation of a definition of serious mental illness (SMI); development of an evaluation and referral process; increased staffing of licensed mental health professionals and behavioral technicians; construction and space retrofits to create four (4) residential treatment units; revised mental health protocols and policies including incorporation of clinical mental health input into the disciplinary system; central committee review of SMI inmates who are segregated more than sixty (60) days; and enhanced clinical contacts, programming and out-of-cell time for the most seriously mentally ill offenders.
f) Without conceding any infirmity in their claims or defenses, after extensive discovery, the parties have engaged in arms length settlement negotiations to resolve the claims raised by this action as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement for settling this litigation that the parties believe is fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the interests of all parties. The parties believe that this Settlement Agreement will benefit mentally ill offenders who are confined in correctional facilities under Defendants’ control.
g) The terms of this Settlement Agreement shall be applicable to and binding upon the Plaintiff class as certified by the Court and the Defendants in their official capacities, and their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and successors. This Settlement Agreement applies to all of IDOC’s existing correctional facilities housing adult male and female offenders, as well as any new facilities where adult offenders are confined during the life of this Settlement Agreement.
h) By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the Defendants do not admit to any liability regarding the allegations made in this action. Moreover, this Settlement Agreement may not be used as evidence of liability or lack of liability in any other legal proceeding.
i) The parties will file this Settlement Agreement with the Court, and ask that the Court approve it, which approval is a condition precedent to the Agreement’s effectiveness.
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 3 of 32
II. DEFINITIONS
a) Administrative Detention: A non-disciplinary status of confinement which removes an offender from general population or restricts the individual's access to general population.
b) Approval Date: The date on which the Court approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement, except for the specific obligations designated as “budget contingent.”
c) Approved Remedial Plan: The remedial plan submitted by the Defendants on April 17, 2014, as conditionally approved by Dr. Raymond Patterson on July 28, 2014.
d) Budget Contingent Approval Date: The date on which the Court approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement or the date the State of Illinois passes a budget, whichever is later.
e) Crisis Beds: Beds that are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2). Crisis placement should not take place in a segregation setting, absent exigent circumstances and only on a case-by-case basis for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. Examples of circumstances in which crisis placement is permissible include when a facility lacks non-segregation crisis beds in either its infirmary or general population and when a transfer is not possible (e.g., after business hours, weather emergency).
f) Crisis Intervention Services: Prompt and adequate response to any mental health emergency with access to a full range of mental health services, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(3) and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102 .
g) Control (or segregation) Unit: An area within a correctional facility for housing offenders on segregation status. Segregation status includes temporary confinement pending a disciplinary hearing or investigation, disciplinary segregation resulting from a hearing or investigation, and Administrative Detention. Segregation status does not include offenders in protective custody. Segregation areas include the segregation unit or any cell, living area, or other area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer to house offenders who are in segregation status.
h) Disciplinary Segregation: Offenders housed in a Control Unit as a result of a disciplinary hearing.
i) Inpatient Mental Health Services: Intensive, inpatient care and treatment at an appropriate facility, one equivalent to an inpatient accredited mental health treatment
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 4 of 32
facility, during the period of an offender’s acute crisis, in order to return the offender to a less intensive treatment environment at the earliest clinically appropriate time, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(4).
j) Medication Non-Compliance: An offender will be deemed to be in medication non-compliance with his or her medication when he or she (i) misses three (3) consecutive days of medication rounds; (ii) misses 50% of the medication distributed within a seven (7) day period; or (iii) exhibits a clinically significant pattern of missing medication, as determined by an MHP.
k) Mental Health Professional (“MHP”): A mental health professional is: a physician who is licensed to practice medicine and is board-certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“ABPN”) or the American Osteopathic Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“AOBPN”), or has completed four (4) years of an accredited post-graduate training program in psychiatry; a psychologist with a Ph.D/ Psy.D and licensed as a clinical psychologist; a licensed psychiatric nurse (i.e., a nurse licensed as an R.N. and certified in psychiatric-mental health); a licensed clinical social worker; or an individual licensed to provide mental health services with a Ph.D/Psy.D or Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program. “Licensed” means currently licensed by the State of Illinois.
l) Mentally Ill Offenders: Persons now or in the future in the custody of IDOC who are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism, drug addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purposes of this class definition.
m) Monitor: The individual identified in Section XXVII, below, together with the Monitor’s staff to the extent the Monitor designates his staff to perform any monitoring function in this Settlement Agreement, and any successor(s) to the Monitor.
n) Outpatient Mental Health Services: The provision of appropriate mental health care and supportive services for those offenders with mental illness who are able to be housed and function in the general prison population, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100.
o) Protective Custody: A status requested by the offender and approved by IDOC aimed at preventing the offender from coming into contact or intermingling with offenders in general population or disciplinary segregation. Units designated for use as protective custody are not physically located on the same gallery as disciplinary segregation facilities. Neither general population nor disciplinary segregation individuals are permitted to have access to these areas except as approved by the Chief Administrative Officers. Housing accommodations and essential services in protective custody are comparable to those provided for the general population.
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 5 of 32
p) Residential Treatment Unit (“RTU”): A housing unit within the prison system for offenders with mental illness who do not need inpatient treatment (see subsection (g), below) but who do require the therapeutic milieu and full range of services and variable security available in the RTU, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(2) and “IDOC Mental Health Units,” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)).
q) Segregation Rounds: Weekly screenings, done by a mental health professional, to identify those offenders who may be experiencing the onset of and/or ongoing mental health symptons/concerns for the purpose of addressing those symptons/concerns.
r) Serious Mental Illness: As used herein, an IDOC offender is “seriously mentally ill” (“SMI”) if he or she, as a result of a mental disorder as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) of the American Psychiatric Association, exhibits impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes seriously with his or her ability to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. These individuals also must either currently have, or have had within the past year, a diagnosed mental disorder, or must currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, of developmental disorders, or of any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual seriously mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis or significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder and an impaired level of functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be considered seriously mentally ill. Whether a person meets the criteria of seriously mentally ill is initially determined by a comprehensive, professional clinical assessment by an IDOC Mental Health Professional in order to 1) determine if the individual has a diagnosable mental disorder as defined by the current DSM and 2) to establish the person’s overall level of functioning. The appropriate threshold to establish level of functioning that equates to a serious mental illness includes serious impairments in capacity to recognize reality, in work environments, school or learning environments, frequent problems with the authority/rules, occasional combative behavior, serious impairments in relationships with friends and family, serious impairments in judgment, thinking, and mood, and serious impairment due to anxiety. These aforementioned disturbances must be observed in at least one of the areas listed above.
s) Specialized treatment setting: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
t) Substantial Compliance: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOC-wide or at specific facilities.
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 6 of 32
u) Temporary Confinement/Investigative Status: Offenders housed in segregation pending a disciplinary hearing or investigation.
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS
a) References in this Settlement Agreement to IDOC’s Administrative Directives, the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (“Manual”), and forms are to the specific versions of those Administrative Directives, the Manual, and forms that have been finalized and adopted by IDOC by the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. IDOC’s creation and promulgation of any subsequent versions of those Administrative Directives, manual, and forms will not change or void any provision of this Settlement Agreement unless the parties specifically agree in writing to a modification of the Settlement Agreement’s terms incorporating the changed or new Administrative Directive, Manual, and/or forms.
b) Wherever IDOC has agreed to adopt new policies, procedures, or Administrative Directives in this Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise specified, the time frame for the submission of such proposed policies, procedures, or Administrative Directives to counsel for Plaintiffs and the Monitor shall not exceed six (6) months from the approval date. The adoption of new, or revision to existing, Administrative Directives which are not anticipated by this Settlement Agreement but serve to effectuate the terms of this Settlement Agreement shall occur within a “reasonable time” as agreed to by the parties.
c) IDOC agrees to provide counsel for Plaintiffs and the Monitor with the proposed new or revised items specified in Sections III(a)-(b) above sufficiently in advance of the various target dates established here (including those subject to subsection (a), above) to allow for study and comment, but in no event less than thirty (30) days before a specific target date. Counsel shall comment in writing to the Monitor within seven (7) days of the receipt of this material.
d) Where a particular time frame or deadline is specified in the various paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement, those provisions are not subject to subsections (a) and (b), above.
e) Whenever a specific time for the achievement of a particular goal is not specified, the time to achieve that particular goal shall be a “reasonable time” as agreed to by the parties.
f) Any dispute which may arise under this section shall be resolved in accordance with Section XXIX governing Dispute Resolution.
IV. INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
a) All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 7 of 32
acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at p. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101,§ II(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
b) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b), such screening shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this settlement.
c) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b), offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
d) In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
e) IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
f) Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist, and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
g) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(a), screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 8 of 32
be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). The screening process shall also include review of the records which accompany the offender.
V. MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
a) Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.
b) Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
c) IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
d) In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
e) IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
f) Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral (see IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 § II(G)(2)(b) and 04.04.101 §II(F)(2)(c)).
g) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.
h) The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(3).
i) Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by Mental Health Professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D/Psy. D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 9 of 32

applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.

j) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

VI.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION

a) In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.

b) IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

VII. TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW

a) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.

b) The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent, and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on Form 0284 or its equivalent.

c) Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes). Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than once every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated. Reviews shall assess the progress of the documented treatment goals and be documented

9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 10 of 32

on the DOC 0284 or its equivalent and shall include the date of the review and the date on which the next review will be performed.

d) Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:

(i) For offenders at an outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.

(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.

(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, with no extension of the follow-up appointments.

e) Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.

VIII.

TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS

a) SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team.

b) The following shall also apply to offenders transitioning from specialized treatment settings:

i) For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor. This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for Crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from Crisis Watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 11 of 32

ii) Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within thirty (30) days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, §(F)(2)(c)(4)(c).

IX.

ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF

a) The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates:

i) Dixon Correctional Center (“CC”) – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date;

ii) Pontiac CC – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date;

iii) Logan CC – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date.

b) The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

c) Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.

d) To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.

e) In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.

11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 12 of 32

f) In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX, below.

X.

BED/TREATMENT SPACE

a) The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.

b) RTU beds for male offenders:

i) Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.

ii) IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:

A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately625 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;

B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and

C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.

c) RTU beds for female offenders:

i) IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108 female offenders at Logan CC.

ii) IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:

12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 13 of 32
A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
d) The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains a RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
e) Inpatient beds: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget contingent approval date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
f) IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of this Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 14 of 32

g) IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own Administrative Directives, forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.

h) The treatment and other space required by subsections (d) – (g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.

i) Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.

XI.

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING

a) Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.

b) IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

c) Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 15 of 32
d) IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facility-specific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XII. MEDICATION
a) In accordance with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.100 § II(E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
b) Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
c) In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:
i) The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
ii) The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskenesia, high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
iii) Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
iv) The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
v) That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanations from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 16 of 32
the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
vi) That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience Medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by a MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
XIII. OFFENDER FORCED MEDICATION
IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70.
XIV. HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
a) Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
b) For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII(a)(v)(F), below.
c) If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation.
XV. SEGREGATION
a) As to mentally ill offenders in Administrative Detention and Disciplinary Segregation:
i) Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally
16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 17 of 32
ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
ii) Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670.
iii) Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
iv) An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
v) As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
vi) IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by a MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380);
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);
D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP;
E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established;
F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing;
G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record; and
17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 18 of 32
H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
vi) IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.
vii) If, at any time, it is determined by a MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
i) IDOC will organize Review Committees (“Committees”) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this settlement agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
ii) The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
iii) With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
iv) The Committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 19 of 32
segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
v) The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
vi) These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
i) With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
ii) An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
iii) IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP;
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380;
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);
D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP;
E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings, once teams have been established;
F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing;
19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 20 of 32
G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record; and
H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
iv) IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.
v) If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
c) Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i) For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-of-cell time per week.
ii) For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-of-cell time per week.
iii) For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours out-of-cell time per week.
iv) For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours out-of-cell time per week.
20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 21 of 32
d) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XVI. SUICIDE PREVENTION
a) IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
b) IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XVII. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
a) IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
b) IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60; and Administrative Directive 05.01.126.
c) Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.
d) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XVIII. MEDICAL RECORDS
a) In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of
21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 22 of 32
Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
b) No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
XIX. CONFIDENTIALITY
a) No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records. Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services.
b) Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
c) Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
d) In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
XX. CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
The determination that an offender, who once met the criteria of seriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender’s mental health treatment
22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 23 of 32
team and documented in the offender’s mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
XXI. STAFF TRAINING
a) Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
b) Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII(a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas:
i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population;
ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal;
iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication;
iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability;
v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises;
vi) Suicide prevention;
vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and
viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
c) Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement
23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 24 of 32
Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
XXII. PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
a) Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
XXIII. TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY-TO-FACILITY
a) To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
b) When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
c) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XXIV. USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108 (B), and 20 Ill. Admin. Code 501.30.
XXV. DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
a) IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
b) No later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and
24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 25 of 32
procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
c) For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period, but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
d) No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
XXVI. CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
a) IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), § II(E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility and throughout IDOC.
b) The statewide QI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
XXVII. MONITORING
a) The parties will agree on a monitor within ninety (90) days of the Court’s tentative approval of the Settlement Agreement. In the event they are unable to agree, within 30 days each side will submit a proposal to the Court, which will designate a monitor who has not already served as an expert consultant in this matter.
b) The Monitor may retain such appropriate staff with the approval of IDOC including clinical and administrative experts as are necessary to conduct the requisite monitoring. IDOC agrees to pay for all agreed upon costs associated with said monitoring pursuant to a reasonable budget to be agreed upon by and between the IDOC and the Monitor.
25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 26 of 32
c) The Monitor shall submit to counsel for the parties the curriculum vitae of any proposed clinical and administrative experts and shall seek the advice and consent of counsel prior to retaining experts.
d) Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
e) The Monitor and any experts or other staff retained hereunder in connection with the monitoring function shall contract for their services directly with IDOC and shall be governed by existing IDOC rules and regulations regarding their employment, especially relating to compensation and expenses.
f) The general principles for monitoring shall include:
i) The reporting and on-site aspects of the monitoring shall be more intensive at the outset and likely decrease as compliance is achieved;
ii) Monitoring may consist of specifying what empirical data IDOC should collect, including written reports from IDOC and its vendors; on-site inspections; oral and written reports from the Monitor; and appropriate consultation in aid of compliance;
iii) The Monitor’s role shall include: gathering of appropriate data and statistics; conducting on-site inspections; assessing whether required policies and procedures are adequate; assessing and reporting to the parties on whether the objectives of the Settlement Agreement are being met; and, where disputes between the parties occur or where there appears to be non-compliance, assisting to resolve such matters in the most expeditious and non-adversarial fashion possible;
iv) The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies, and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation;
v) The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced on-site tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel. The Monitor and his staff will be limited to five (5) days of onsite inspection time up to four (4) times per year during the life of the Settlement Agreement per staff member. The Monitor shall provide IDOC’s legal
26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 27 of 32
office with at least forty-eight (48) hours’ notice prior to any visit to any IDOC facility.
g) Statements in any section of this Settlement Agreement that require the Monitor to take action are not to be construed as a limitation upon the Monitor’s ability to review and report upon all matters contained within this Agreement.
h) Reports, documents, data, and other information provided by IDOC to the Monitor will also be available to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a confidential basis and for use in this matter only.
i) A review of records by the Monitor or his staff shall not constitute a waiver of IDOC’s quality assurance privilege. Moreover, any such disclosures shall not constitute a waiver or serve as precedent in other legal proceedings with respect to the aforementioned quality assurance privilege. In addition, Plaintiffs and the Monitor and his staff agree to keep said documentation confidential, if the documentation is confidential, and not to disclose, publish or use for public consumption any of the records reviewed by Plaintiffs, the Monitor or his staff.
j) In addition to the quality assurance privileges described above, other records or information the disclosure of which is objected to by either party based upon a claim of privilege, confidentiality, or relevance to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement shall not be disclosed by the Monitor to the other party or to the public. Such material shall be made available for inspection by the Court, along with a precise statement of the objection or objections to disclosure prepared by the objecting party, and the Court shall render a decision on the disclosure.
k) Within three (3) months of the adoption of the policies and procedures referenced throughout this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor may prepare report forms for use by the institutions and central office, which shall be submitted to counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants for prior approval before being put into use. Such report forms will require the submission of specified data relevant to the Settlement Agreement for evaluation by the Monitor. IDOC shall prepare the reports quarterly during the first two years of this Settlement Agreement, and twice per year thereafter, unless the Monitor determines that the interim goals have not been met or the Monitor determines that less frequent reports are sufficient. The Monitor will specify the dates for all such submissions upon the approval of the forms described in this specific paragraph.
l) The Monitor shall prepare and submit an annual report to be submitted to the parties and the Court every twelve (12) months as to IDOC’s substantial compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The first report shall be issued one year after Court approval of the settlement. Subsequent reports shall be issued annually after that date.
m) In his annual report, the Monitor shall evaluate the status of IDOC compliance with the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement using the following standards: Substantial Compliance and Non-Compliance. In order to assess compliance,
27

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 28 of 32
the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents, interview necessary staff, and interview a sufficient number of offenders to accurately gauge current conditions.
n) The Monitor shall also prepare and submit to the parties a status update six (6) months after the filing of each annual report on IDOC progress as to this Settlement Agreement.
o) If, during a period of Substantial Compliance, the Monitor identifies a material violation of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall still be considered to be in Substantial Compliance throughout the pertinent period if it promptly develops and implements a timely and appropriate remedy that, in the Monitor’s view, results in compliance within a reasonable period of time.
p) In the event that the designated monitor is no longer able or willing to serve as the Monitor, the parties shall select another Monitor using the same method as the initial selection.
q) The Monitor shall not be subject to dismissal except upon good cause and the agreement of both parties, subject to Court approval, or by the Court upon motion of one of the parties and a showing of good cause, as determined after a hearing before the Court. The moving party must establish good cause by clear and convincing evidence.
r) Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be entitled to tour those portions of each facility where mentally ill prisoners are housed and treated, and to talk to class members at their cells, after providing a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours notice to IDOC. Counsel shall also be permitted to have confidential legal visits with members of the plaintiff class identified during such cell front visits. All such visits will be subject to reasonable security measures and the subject facility’s legal visit scheduling process so that they will not interfere with either the confidentiality of such visits or the operations of the IDOC facility in which the offender is housed. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any right of access Plaintiffs’ counsel may otherwise have pursuant to statute or otherwise.
XXVIII. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
28

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 29 of 32
XXIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a) If Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with any provision of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendants, in writing, specific reasons why they believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions, referencing the specific provision or provisions. Plaintiffs may not allege that the Defendants are not in Substantial Compliance based on minor or isolated delays in compliance. To the extent Plaintiffs rely on observations or opinions of the Monitor to support an allegation that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make a reference to the written reports of the Monitor and to portions thereof which support Plaintiff’s belief. To the extent Plaintiffs rely upon documents provided by Defendants to support an allegation that Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make reference to the specific performance measures which support Plaintiffs’ belief.
b) Defendants shall have the opportunity to consult their designated expert with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions. The Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a written response to the notification within thirty (30) days of its receipt. The Defendants’ response shall contain a description of the steps they took to investigate the issues addressed in the Plaintiffs’ notice, the results of the investigation, and, where the Defendants propose corrective action, a specific plan for addressing the described issues. If no corrective action is proposed by reason of legal considerations or for other reasons, the Defendants’ response shall specifically state those reasons and any statutes, regulations, expert opinion, or technical bases upon which they are relying in reaching such conclusion.
c) Plaintiffs agree to advise Defendants of their acceptance or rejection of Defendants’ response within seven (7) business days of its receipt. The parties shall meet to discuss and attempt to resolve any disputes addressed in the written submissions. The Defendants and Plaintiffs shall meet within fourteen (14) business days of Plaintiffs’ rejection of Defendants’ response, unless a later meeting is agreed by both sides. The Monitor will participate in these meetings to offer evaluations of the disputed conditions and recommendations for resolution.
d) If Defendants and Plaintiffs are not successful in their efforts to resolve their dispute, they may jointly or individually seek relief from the Court to effect substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement, but not through a petition for contempt. For all obligations within this Settlement Agreement that are “budget contingent,” after engaging in the dispute resolution outlined in (a)-(c), Plaintiffs may request that the Court return this case to the active docket if a necessary appropriation is not made within fifteen (15) months of the start of the Fiscal Year for 2016 and within six (6) months of the start of the Fiscal Year for all subsequent fiscal years.
e) The Court’s jurisdiction shall terminate three (3) years after the Approval Date or the Budget Contingent Approval Date, whichever is later, with respect to any provisions of this Settlement Agreement for which there is no outstanding determination that Defendants are not in substantial compliance. If the Court determines that Defendants
29

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 30 of 32
are not in substantial compliance, with any provisions of this Settlement Agreement at any time during the three (3) year period of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to such provisions shall continue for the remainder of the three (3) year period or for a period to be ordered by the Court of not more than two (2) years from the date of the Court’s finding that Defendants are not in substantial compliance.
f) If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to achieve compliance.
g) To permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court, the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court’s assistance as to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding that the relief sought is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so.
h) The parties acknowledge that no provision of this Settlement Agreement has an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
i) If Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with an order entered under the preceding paragraphs, they may, after reasonable notice and a meeting with Defendants, move for further relief from the Court to obtain compliance with the Court’s prior order. The Court may apply equitable principles and may use any appropriate equitable or remedial power available to it. This may include returning the case to the active docket and setting a trial date. The information gathered by the Monitor during the life of this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor’s reports, including all reports and materials supplied by Defendants, may be used in Plaintiffs’ case at such a trial, along with the testimony of the Monitor, which testimony may address ultimate issues in this case.
j) Three years after the approval date of this Settlement Agreement or the budget contingent approval date, whichever is later, Plaintiffs may move to abrogate this agreement except XXIX(g)-(i) and XXXIII will continue in effect.
XXX. FORCE MAJEURE
a) Force majeure events are earthquakes, floods, fire, plague, Acts of God (as defined in applicable law), and other natural disasters; terrorism, riots or civil disturbances; war, whether declared or not; strikes; nuclear or chemical contamination; and failure of public infrastructure.
b) If any force majeure event occurs which causes or may cause a delay in or impediment to performance in complying with any provision of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor in writing within fifteen (15) business days of when IDOC first knew that the event might cause a delay. This notice shall specifically reference this Section XXX of the Settlement Agreement. Within seven (7) days thereafter, IDOC shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor with a written
30

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 31 of 32
description of the anticipated length of time the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, and the measures taken or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and the schedule on which those measures shall be implemented.
c) Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor shall respond, in writing, to IDOC’s claim of a delay or impediment to performance within thirty (30) days of receipt of the force majeure notice provided under this Section XXX. If the Monitor agrees that the delay has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, and Plaintiffs’ counsel accepts the Monitor’s position, the parties shall stipulate to an extension of the deadline(s) for all requirement(s) affected by the delay for a period equivalent to the delay actually caused by such circumstances. The stipulation shall be filed as a modification to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section XXXI (Modification), below, and shall be subject to approval by the Court as therein provided.
d) If IDOC’s claim of force majeure delay is not resolved pursuant to subsection (c), either Plaintiffs or Defendants may submit this matter to the Court for resolution. If the Court determines that the delay or impediment to performance has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, IDOC shall be excused as to that event(s) and delay, for a period of time equivalent to the delay caused by such circumstances.
e) When IDOC asserts a claim of force majeure, IDOC shall bear the burden of proving that any delay of any requirement(s) of this Settlement Agreement was caused by or will be caused by a force majeure event. IDOC shall also bear the burden of proving the duration and extent of any delay(s) attributable to such circumstances.
f) Absent compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) - (e), above, no claim of force majeure or emergency may be made to excuse performance under any provision of this Settlement Agreement after the fact.
XXXI. MODIFICATION
a) The parties recognize that the change of some conditions or practices may reduce the necessity of change to other conditions or practices. Therefore, the parties agree that it may be appropriate that the Settlement Agreement be modified from time to time. After six (6) months of operation under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants may ask Plaintiffs’ counsel to review a proposed modification to any portion of the Settlement Agreement.
b) If Plaintiffs’ counsel agree with the proposed modification, the parties will seek Court approval of the modification.
c) If Plaintiffs’ counsel disagree with the proposed modification, the parties will meet and confer as to whether they can reach agreement. If the parties cannot agree, within thirty (30) days, the parties will seek the assistance of the magistrate judge assigned to this case to mediate the dispute.
31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 32 of 32
d) If mediation is not successful, then appropriate relief may be sought from the Court in the form of a motion for modification.
XXXII. SCOPE; COURT APPROVAL; FUNDING
a) Scope -
The parties hereby memorialize the terms of their agreement in this Settlement Agreement.
This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and except for any Protective Order entered by the Court, supersedes all prior agreements, representations, negotiations and undertakings in this litigation not set forth or incorporated herein.
b) Court Approval
i) The Settlement Agreement is not effective absent approval by the Court. All Parties and their counsel will use their best efforts to obtain Court approval of this Agreement.
ii) Unless otherwise indicated, the term of this Settlement Agreement shall commence upon the date of approval by the Court.
c) Funding
i) The IDOC agrees to make all possible good faith efforts to seek all necessary funding to implement fully the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
ii) In the event that the parties are unable to agree as to whether there is sufficient funding to implement fully this Settlement Agreement, the parties shall meet and confer. In the event that the parties continue to be unable to agree, the parties may invoke the dispute resolution procedures of this Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Section XXXIII.
XXXIII. ATTORNEY FEES
The parties agree that an award of fees is appropriate in this matter. The Court shall determine the amount of fees and costs due to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Fees are to be determined as if the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. One half of this sum shall be payable one hundred twenty (120) days after the Court determines that amount. The remaining half of the fees will become immediately due if the Court enters an order pursuant to Section XXIX(g). In no event will the award be more than six million dollars.
32

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 1 of 33

E-FILED
Monday, 23 May, 2016 10:40:32 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et at.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et at.,
Defendants

) ) No.l:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) ) Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. ) Hawley ) ) )

AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
a) This is a class action brought under the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the Americans with Disabilities Act or "ADA"), and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants are John Baldwin, Acting Director of the 111inois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") and Dr. Melvin Hinton, Chief of Mental Health Services for IDOC.1
b) The Plaintiff class challenges the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to mentally ill adult offenders in the physical custody and control of the !DOC. Defendants expressly deny that they have violated any such constitutional or statutory rights.
c) On August 14, 2015, this Court certified this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The representative Plaintiffs are Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Keith Walker, Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Fredricka Lyles, Clara Plair, Desiree Hollis, and Crystal Stoneburner
d) Plaintiffs, through class counsel, have conducted a thorough investigation of the conditions of confinement for such mentally ill offenders and have obtained many policies, directives, offender medical and disciplinary records, and other pertinent materials.

1 Substituted automatically for the original defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 2 of 33
e) Defendants, through counsel, have provided numerous documents in response to requests by Plaintiffs, produced relevant witnesses for depositions, and afforded opportunities for Plaintiffs' experts to conduct on-site tours of several !DOC correctional facilities and interview offenders about their treatment and care. The parties have used this information to reach this agreement regarding the definition of "serious mental illness," appropriate staffing ratios, bed and treatment space needs, therapeutic programming, policies governing segregation and discipline of mentally ill offenders, and other relevant factors for establishing a constitutionally adequate system for mentally ill !DOC offenders. Since the initiation of the litigation, the !DOC has commenced significant initiatives to enhance the delivery of mental health services. To date, those include the following: implementation of a definition of serious mental illness (SMI); development of an evaluation and referral process; increased staffing of licensed mental health professionals and behavioral technicians; construction and space retrofits to create four (4) residential treatment units; revised mental health protocols and policies including incorporation of clinical mental health input into the disciplinary system; central committee review of SMI inmates who are segregated more than sixty (60) days; and enhanced clinical contacts, programming and out-of-cell time for the most seriously mentally ill offenders.
t) Without conceding any infirmity in their claims or defenses, after extensive discovery, the parties have engaged in arms length settlement negotiations to resolve the claims raised by this action as set forth in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement for settling this litigation that the parties believe is fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the interests of all parties. The parties believe that this Settlement Agreement wi II benefit mentally ill offenders who are confined in correctional facilities under Defendants' control.
g) The terms of this Settlement Agreement shall be applicable to and binding upon the Plaintiff class as certified by the Court and the Defendants in their official capacities, and their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and successors. This Settlement Agreement applies to all of !DOC's existing correctional facilities housing adult male and female offenders, as well as any new facilities where adult offenders are confined during the life oflhis Settlement Agreement.
h) By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the Defendants do not admit to any liability regarding the allegations made in this action. Moreover, this Settlement Agreement may not be used as evidence of liability or lack of liability in any other legal proceeding.
i) The parties will file this Settlement Agreement with the Court, and ask that the Court approve it, which approval is a condition precedent to the Agreement's effectiveness.
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 3 of 33
II. DEFINITIONS
a) Administrative Detention: A non-disciplinary status of confinement which removes an offender from general population or restricts the individual's access to general population.
b) Approval Date: The date on which the Court approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement, except for the specific obligations designated as "budget
contingent."
c) Approved Remedial Plan: The remedial plan submitted by the Defendants on April17, 2014, as conditionally approved by Dr. Raymond Patterson on July 28, 2014.
d) Budget Comingent Approval Date: The date on which the Court approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement or the date the State of Illinois passes a budget, whichever is later.
e) Crisis Beds: Beds that are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (I 0) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 02, § II(F)(2). Crisis placement should not take place in a segregation setting, absent exigent circumstances and only on a case-by-case basis for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. Examples of circumstances in which crisis placement is permissible include when a facility lacks non-segregation crisis beds in either its infirmary or general population and when a transfer is not possible (e.g., after business hours, weather emergency).
f) Crisis Intervention Services: Prompt and adequate response to any mental health emergency with access to a full range of mental health services, as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(3) and !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102.
g) Control (or segregation) Unit: An area within a correctional facility for housing offenders on segregation status. Segregation status includes temporary confinement pending a disciplinary hearing or investigation, disciplinary segregation resulting from a hearing or investigation, and Administrative Detention. Segregation status does not include offenders in protective custody. Segregation areas include the segregation unit or any cell, living area, or other area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer to house offenders who are in segregation status.
h) Disciplinary Segregation: Offenders housed in a Control Unit as a result of a disciplinary hearing.
i) inpatient.Mental Health Services: Intensive, inpatient care and treatment at an appropriate facility, one equivalent to an inpatient accredited mental health treatment
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 4 of 33
facility, during the period of an offender's acute crisis, in order to return the offender to a less intensive treatment environment at the earliest clinically appropriate time, as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(4).
j} Medication Non-Compliance: An offender will be deemed to be in medication non-compliance with his or her medication when he or she (i) misses three (3) consecutive days of medication rounds; {ii) misses 50% of the medication distributed within a seven (7) day period; or (iii) exhibits a clinically significant pattern of missing medication, as determined by an MHP.
k) Mental Health Professional ("MHP"): A mental health professional is: a physician who is licensed to practice medicine and is board-certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology {"ABPN"} or the American Osteopathic Board of Psychiatry and Neurology ("AOBPN"), or has completed four (4) years of an accredited post-graduate training program in psychiatry; a psychologist with a Ph.D/ Psy.D and licensed as a clinical psychologist; a licensed psychiatric nurse (i.e., a nurse licensed as an R.N. and certified in psychiatric-mental health); a licensed clinical social worker; or an individual licensed to provide mental health services with a Ph.D/Psy.D or Master's degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program. "Licensed" means currently licensed by the State of Illinois.
I) Mentally Ill Offenders: Persons now or in the future in the custody of !DOC who are identified or should have been identified by the !DOC's mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism, drug addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purposes of this class definition.
m) Monitor: The individual identified in Section XXVII, below, together with the Monitor's staffto the extent the Monitor designates his staff to perform any monitoring function in this Settlement Agreement, and any successor(s) to the Monitor.
n) Outpatient Mental Health Services: The provision of appropriate mental health care and supportive services for those offenders with mental illness who are able to be housed and function in the general prison population, as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 00.
o) Protective Custody: A status requested by the offender and approved by !DOC aimed at preventing the offender from coming into contact or intermingling with offenders in general population or disciplinary segregation. Units designated for use as protective custody are not physically located on the same gallery as disciplinary segregation facilities. Neither general population nor disciplinary segregation individuals are permitted to have access to these areas except as approved by the Chief Administrative Officers. Housing accommodations and essential services in protective custody are comparable to those provided for the general population.
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 5 of 33
p) Residential Treatment Unit ("RTU''): A housing unit within the prison system for offenders with mental illness who do not need inpatient treatment (see subsection (g), below) but who do require the therapeutic milieu and full range of services and variable security available in the RTU, as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 00, § II(E)(2) and "!DOC Mental Health Units," in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)).
q) Segregation Rounds: Weekly screenings, done by a mental health professional, to identif'y those offenders who may be experiencing the onset of and/or ongoing mental health symptons/concems for the purpose of addressing those symptons/concems.
r) Serious Mental Illness: As used herein, an !DOC offender is "seriously mentally ill" ("SMl") if he or she, as a result of a mental disorder as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM") of the American Psychiatric Association, exhibits impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes seriously with his or her ability to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. These individuals also must either currently have, or have had within the past year, a diagnosed mental disorder, or must currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, of developmental disorders, or ofany form ofsexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual seriously mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis or significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder and an impaired level of functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be considered seriously mentally ill. Whether a person meets the criteria of seriously mentally ill is initially determined by a comprehensive, professional clinical assessment by an !DOC Mental Health Professional in order to I) determine if the individual has a diagnosable mental disorder as defined by the current DSM and 2) to establish the person's overall level of functioning. The appropriate threshold to establish level of functioning that equates to a serious mental illness includes serious impairments in capacity to recognize reality, in work environments, school or learning environments, frequent problems with the authority/rules, occasional combative behavior, serious impairments in relationships with friends and family, serious impairments in judgment, thinking, and mood, and serious impairment due to anxiety. These aforementioned disturbances must be observed in at least one of the areas listed above.
s) Specialized treatment setting: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
t) Substantial Compliance: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence ofstrict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either lDOCcwide .or at specific facilities.
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 6 of 33
u) Temporary Confinement/Investigative Status: Offenders housed in segregation pending a disciplinary hearing or investigation.
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS
a) References in this Settlement Agreement to IDOC's Administrative Directives, the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual ("Manual"), and forms are to the specific versions of those Administrative Directives, the Manual, and forms that have been finalized and adopted by !DOC by the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. IDOC's creation and promulgation of any subsequent versions of those Administrative Directives, manual, and forms will not change or void any provision of this Settlement Agreement unless the parties specifically agree in writing to a modification of the Settlement Agreement's terms incorporating the changed or new Administrative Directive, Manual, and/or forms.
b) Wherever !DOC has agreed to adopt new policies, procedures, or Administrative Directives in this Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise specified, the time frame for the submission of such proposed policies, procedures, or Administrative Directives to counsel for Plaintiffs and the Monitor shall not exceed six (6) months from the approval date. The adoption of new, or revision to existing, Administrative Directives which are not anticipated by this Settlement Agreement but serve to effectuate the tenns of this Settlement Agreement shall occur within a "reasonable time" as agreed to by the parties.
c) !DOC agrees to provide counsel for Plaintiffs and the Monitor with the proposed new or revised items specified in Sections III(a)-(b) above sufficiently in advance of the various target dates established here (including those subject to subsection (a), above) to allow for study and comment, but in no event less than thirty (30) days before a specific target date. Counsel shall comment in writing to the Monitor within seven (7) days ofthe receipt of this materiaL
d) Where a particular time frame or deadline is specified in the various paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement, those provisions are not subject to subsections (a) and (b), above.
e) Whenever a specific time for the achievement of a particular goal is not specified, the time to achieve that particular goal shall be a "reasonable time" as agreed to by the parties.
f) Any dispute which may arise under this section shall be resolved in accordance with Section XXIX governing Dispute Resolution.
IV. INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
a) All persons sentenced to the custody of !DOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 7 of 33
acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see "Components ofMental Health Services" at p. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101 ,§ II(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b) (see also !DOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
b) As required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 00, § II(G)(2)(b), such screening shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional and shall use !DOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in !DOC and grandfathered in prior to this settlement.
c) As required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b), offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, !DOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
d) In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
e) IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to !DOC custody.
f) Following transfer to !DOC custody, an offender's prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist, and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender's medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender's chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the renson for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
g) As required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 00, § li(G)(2)(a), screening will include identifYing neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 8 of 33

be documented on !DOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). The screening process shall also include review of the records which accompany the offender.

V.

MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS

a) Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by !DOC Administrative Directives 04.04.1 00 and 04.04.10I.

b) Referral may be made by staff and documented on !DOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.

c) !DOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § Il(G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.

d) In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of !DOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender's medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.

e) !DOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.

f) Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral (see !DOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 § II(G)(2)(b) and 04.04.101 §II(F)(2)(c)).

g) As required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.

h) The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on !DOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender's mental health record as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § 11(0)(3).

i) Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by Mental Health Professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master's degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D/Psy. D. and said mental.health employee wHl be supervised by alicensedMHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 9 of 33

applies only to those mental health employees currently working in !DOC and grandfathered in prior to this settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.

j) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

VI.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION

a) In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 00, § II(G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender's initial reception and orientation to !DOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.

b) !DOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (I) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

VII.

TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINillNG REVIEW

a) As required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender's treating mental health team.

b) The plan shall be recorded on !DOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent, and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews ofthe treatment plan shall also be recorded on Form 0284 or its equivalent.

c) Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes). Where the !DOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than once every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated. Reviews shall assess the progress of the documented treatment goals and be documented

9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 10 of 33

on the DOC 0284 or its equivalent and shall include the date of the review and the date on which the next review will be performed.

d) Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:

(i) For offenders at an outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender's medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.

(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender's medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension offollow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.

(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, with no extension of the follow-up appointments.

e) Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender's mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP's observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.

VIII.

TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS

a) SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team.

b) The following shall also apply to offenders transitioning from specialized treatment settings:

i) For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender's stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form which will be specifically designed for this purpose by !DOC and approved by the Monitor. This five-day assessment process will be in addition to !DOC's current procedure for Crisis transition, which !DOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (!DOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven {7) calendar days of discontinuation from Crisis Watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender's medical record.
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 11 of 33

ii) Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within thirty (30) days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The !DOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, §(F)(2)(c)(4)(c).

IX.

ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF

a) The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of !DOC's outpatient and R1lJ settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, !DOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates:

i) Dixon Correctional Center ("CC") - 6 months from the budget contingent approval date;

ii) Pontiac CC- 12 months from the budget contingent approval date;

iii) Logan CC - 6 months from the budget contingent approval date.

b) The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff !DOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. !DOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

c) Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor's and/or Plaintiffs' suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.

d) To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.

e) In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, ilifra, !DOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.

11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 12 of 33

f) In the event that !DOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX, below.

X.

BEDtrREATMENT SPACE

a) The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which !DOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.

b) RTU beds for male offenders:

i) Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.

ii) !DOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:

A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately625 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;

B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve ( 12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and

C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.

c) RTU beds for female offenders:

i) !DOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for l 08 female -offenders at Logan CC.

ii) !DOC will perform the necessary construction to make these I08 RTU beds available on the following schedule:

12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 13 of 33
A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
d) The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled "!DOC Mental Health Units," subsections 2 and 3, in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum often (I 0) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that !DOC maintains a RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
e) Inpatient beds: Within three (3) months ofthe approval date ofthis Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the Illinois Department of Human Services ("DHS") to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, !DOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget contingent approval date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of mate and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, !DOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and !DOC's own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, !DOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
f) !DOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § ll(F)(2), !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 00, § II(G)(4)(b), and !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.1 02. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of this Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if.no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 14 of 33

g) IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC's own Administrative Directives, forms, and policies and procedures. JDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.

h) The treatment and other space required by subsections (d)- (g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.

i) Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs' counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor's concerns.

XI.

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING

a) Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, JDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.

b) IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigoed to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the Ql Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance ofany vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

c) Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall also desigoate at least one qualified state employee at each !DOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery ofmental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-SK, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the desigoated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of !DOC or vendor staff.
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 15 of 33
d) !DOC shall hire ten (I 0) central office staff (i.e., non-facility-specific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XII. MEDICATION
a) In accordance with the provisions of !DOC Administrative Directive 04.03.100 § II(E)(4)(d)(l), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, "contemporaneously" means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time ofdelivery.
b) Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall also comply with the provisions of!DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two {2) times within the first sixty {60) days after the offender has started on the new medication{s).
c) In addition to these requirements, within ninety {90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall accomplish the following:
i) The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
ii) The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskenesia, high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
iii) Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
iv) The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
v) That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanations from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 16 of 33
the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
vi) That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience Medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by a MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender's Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
XIII. OFFENDER FORCED MEDICATION
moe shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of
psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code§ 415.70.
XIV. HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
a) Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations
of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender's mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender
on their caseload. moe will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns
regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender's housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
b) For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender's mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII(a)(v)(F), below.
c) If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation.
XV. SEGREGATION
a) As to mentally ill offenders in Administrative Detention and Disciplinary Segregation:
i) Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.1 07 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; pr<)jected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staffshall consult with the mentally
16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 17 of 33

ill offender's treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.

ii) Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670.

iii) Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a m1mmum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.

iv) An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.

v) As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.

vi) !DOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:

A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.

B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by a MHP, documented on !DOC Form 0380);

C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);

D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP;

E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established;

F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing;

G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record;

and

I

l

I

17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 18 of 33
H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender's ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender's mental health treatment team.
vi) !DOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection {c), below.
vii) If, at any time, it is determined by a MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP's recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP's professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
i) !DOC will organize Review Committees ("Committees") to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this settlement agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
ii) The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender's disciplinary record.
iii) With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (I) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender's behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender's current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
iv) The Committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender's remaining
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 19 of 33
segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
v) The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender's segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees' recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender's segregation term.
vi) These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement
c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
i) With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement, !DOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
ii) An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
iii) !DOC will ensure that mentally iii offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (I) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender's individual level of care and ITP;
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on !DOC Form 0380;
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);
D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP;
E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings, once teams have been established;
F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing;
19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 20 of 33

G) and

Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record;

H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender's ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender's mental health treatment team.

iv) !DOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.

v) If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Statusffemporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP's recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP's professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless ofhis or her physical location.
c) Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:

i) For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-of-cell time per week.

ii) For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-of-cell time per week.

iii) For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours out-of-cell time per week.

iv) For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (I 0) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours out-of-cell time per week.

20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 21 of 33

d) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

XVI. SUICIDE PREVENTION

a) !DOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled "Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders" in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). !DOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 ("Evaluation of Suicide Potential"); 0377 ("Crisis Watch Record"); and 0378 ("Crisis Watch Observation Log") are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.

b) !DOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (I) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

XVII.

PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES

a) !DOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 ("Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes"). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.

b) !DOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60; and Administrative Directive 05.01.126.

c) Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.

d) The provisions ofthis Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (I) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

XVIII. MEDICAL RECORDS

a) In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it bas developed
to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender's mental health
file, including !DOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); Q3~7 (Mental Healtl1 ~'Lervic.es Eeferral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order far Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of
21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 22 of 33

Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).

b) No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.1 00, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender's medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.

XIX. CONFIDENTIALITY

a) No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the !DOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § Il(E)(lO) as to the confidentiality of mental health records. Additionally, !DOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services.

b) Within six (6) months after the approval ofthis Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.

c) Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled "Medical/Legal Issues: !. Confidentiality" in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.

d) In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in "Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent" in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional's position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender's disclosures.

XX.

CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION

The determination thatan offender, who once met the criteria ofseriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender's mental health treatment
22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 23 of 33
team and documented in the offender's mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
XXI. STAFFTRAINING
a) Within one (I) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement
Agreement, moe shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided
in subsection (b), below.
b) Within two (2) years following the approval ofthis Settlement Agreement, all
moe and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing
education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the
section titled "Training" in the moe Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into moe Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall
include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII(a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas:
i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population;
ii) The recognition of signs ofchemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal;
iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication;
iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability;
v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises;
vi) Suicide prevention;
vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and
viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
c) Within one (I) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental. Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section Xl(d) of this Settlement
23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 24 of 33
Agreement, !DOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
XXII. PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
. a) Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, !DOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because oftheir illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the !DOC's current policies and procedures.
XXIII. TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY-TO-FACILITY
a) To ensure continuity oftreatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, !DOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender's treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. Ifsuch a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender's treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender's mental health file.
b) When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
c) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (l) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XXIV. USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
!DOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108 (B), and 20 Ill. Admin. Code 501.30.
XXV. DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
a) moe has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the
disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in Administrative Directive 05.12.1 03.
b) No later than one (I) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and
24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 25 of 33
procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to !DOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
c) For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period, but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
d) No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, !DOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the !DOC's designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program ("BTP") at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. !DOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
XXVI. CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM !COl)
a) !DOC shall fully implement the requirements of !DOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled "Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program" in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into !DOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101 (EfT. 8/l/2014), § II(E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled "Peer Review Process" in the !DOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility and throughout !DOC.
b) The statewide QI Manager (Section Xl(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
XXVII. MONITORING
a) The parties have agreed to hire Doctor Pablo Stewart as the monitor.
b) The Monitor may retain such appropriate staff with the approval of !DOC including clinical and administrative experts as are necessary to conduct the requisite monitoring. !DOC agrees to pay for all agreed upon costs associated with said monitoring pursuant to a reasonable budget to be agreed upon by and between the !DOC and the Monitor.
25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 26 of 33
c) The Monitor shall submit to counsel for the parties the curriculum vitae of any proposed clinical and administrative experts and shall seek the advice and consent of counsel prior to retaining experts.
d) Should JDOC, during the life ofthis Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel of the denial.
e) The Monitor and any experts or other staff retained hereunder in connection with the monitoring function shall contract for their services directly with !DOC and shall be governed by existing IDOC rules and regulations regarding their employment, especially relating to compensation and expenses.
f) The general principles for monitoring shall include:
i) The reporting and on-site aspects of the monitoring shall be more intensive at the outset and likely decrease as compliance is achieved;
ii) Monitoring may consist of specifying what empirical data !DOC should collect, including written reports from !DOC and its vendors; on-site inspections; oral and written reports from the Monitor; and appropriate consultation in aid of compliance;
iii) The Monitor's role shall include: gathering of appropriate data and statistics; conducting on-site inspections; assessing whether required policies and procedures are adequate; assessing and reporting to the parties on whether the objectives of the Settlement Agreement are being met; and, where disputes between the parties occur or where there appears to be non-compliance, assisting to resolve such matters in the most expeditious and non-adversarial fashion possible;
iv) The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies, and procedures related to the provision ofadequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. !DOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation;
v) The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of!DOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of !DOC or subject to access by !DOC; having unobstructed access during announced on-site tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel. The Monitor and his staff will be limited to five (5) days of onsite inspection time up to four (4) times per year during the life of the Settlement Agreement per staff member unless they obtain approval from !DOC for additional onsite inspection time, which !DOC will not unreasonably withhold.
26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 27 of 33
The Monitor shall provide !DOC's legal office with at least forty-eight (48) hours' notice prior to any visit to any !DOC facility.
g) Statements in any section of this Settlement Agreement that require the Monitor to take action are not to be construed as a limitation upon the Monitor's ability to review and report upon all matters contained within this Agreement.
h) Reports, documents, data, and other information provided by !DOC to the Monitor will also be available to Plaintiffs' counsel on a confidential basis and for use in this matter only.
i) A review of records by the Monitor or his staffshall not constitute a waiver of !DOC's quality assurance privilege. Moreover, any such disclosures shall not constitute a waiver or serve as precedent in other legal proceedings with respect to the aforementioned quality assurance privilege. In addition, Plaintiffs and the Monitor and his staff agree to keep said documentation confidential, if the documentation is confidential, and not to disclose, publish or use for public consumption any of the records reviewed by Plaintiffs, the Monitor or his staff.
j) In addition to the quality assurance privileges described above, other records or information the disclosure of which is objected to by either party based upon a claim of privilege, confidentiality, or relevance to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement shall not be disclosed by the Monitor to the other party or to the public. Such material shall be made available for inspection by the Court, along with a precise statement of the objection or objections to disclosure prepared by the objecting party, and the Court shall render a decision on the disclosure.
k) Within three (3) months of the adoption of the policies and procedures referenced throughout this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor may prepare report forms for use by the institutions and centml office, which shall be submitted to counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants for prior approval before being put into use. Such report forms will require the submission of specified data relevant to the Settlement Agreement for evaluation by the Monitor. !DOC shall prepare the reports quarterly during the first two years of this Settlement Agreement, and twice per year thereafter, unless the Monitor determines that the interim goals have not been met or the Monitor determines that less frequent reports are sufficient. The Monitor will specify the dates for all such submissions upon the approval of the forms described in this specific paragraph.
I) The Monitor shall prepare and submit an annual report to be submitted to the parties and the Court every twelve (12) months as to !DOC's substantial compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The first report shall be issued one year after Court approval of the settlement. Subsequent reports shall be issued annually after that date.
m) In his annual report, the Monitor shall evaluate the status of !DOC compliance with the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement using the following standards: Substantial Compliance and Non-Compliance. In order to assess compliance,
27

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 28 of 33
the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents, interview necessary staff, and interview a sufficient number of offenders to accurately gauge current conditions.
n) The Monitor shall also prepare and submit to the parties a status update six (6) months after the filing of each annual report on !DOC progress as to this Settlement Agreement.
o) If, during a period of Substantial Compliance, the Monitor identifies a material violation of the Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall still be considered to be in Substantial Compliance throughout the pertinent period if it promptly develops and implements a timely and appropriate remedy that, in the Monitor's view, results in compliance within a reasonable period oftime.
p) In the event that the designated monitor is no longer able or willing to serve as the Monitor, the parties shall select another Monitor using the same method as the initial selection.
q) The Monitor shall not be subject to dismissal except upon good cause and the agreement of both parties, subject to Court approval, or by the Court upon motion ofone of the parties and a showing of good cause, as determined after a hearing before the Court. The moving party must establish good cause by clear and convincing evidence.
r) Plaintiffs' counsel shall be entitled to tour those portions of each facility where mentally ill prisoners are housed and treated, and to talk to class members at their cells, after providing a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours notice to !DOC. Counsel shall also be permitted to have confidential legal visits with members of the plaintiff class identified during such cell front visits. All such visits will be subject to reasonable security measures and the subject facility's legal visit scheduling process so that they will not interfere with either the confidentiality of such visits or the operations of the !DOC facility in which the offender is housed. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any right of access Plaintiffs' counsel may otherwise have pursuant to statute or otherwise.
XXVIII. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall submit to Plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report ("quarterly report") covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following; a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters !DOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
28

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 29 of 33
XXIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a) If Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with any provision of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendants, in writing, specific reasons why they believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions, referencing the specific provision or provisions. Plaintiffs may not allege that the Defendants are not in Substantial Compliance based on minor or isolated delays in compliance. To the extent Plaintiffs rely on observations or opinions of the Monitor to support an allegation that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make a reference to the written reports ofthe Monitor and to portions thereof which support Plaintiff's belief. To the extent Plaintiffs rely upon documents provided by Defendants to support an allegation that Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make reference to the specific performance measures which support Plaintiffs' belief.
b) Defendants shall have the opportunity to consult their designated expert with respect to Plaintiff's allegations tbat the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions. The Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a written response to the notification within thirty (30) days of its receipt. The Defendants' response shall contain a description of the steps they took to investigate the issues addressed in the Plaintiffs' notice, the results of the investigation, and, where the Defendants propose corrective action, a specific plan for addressing the described issues. If no corrective action is proposed by reason of legal considerations or for other reasons, the Defendants' response shall specifically state those reasons and any statutes, regulations, expert opinion, or technical bases upon which they are relying in reaching such conclusion.
c) Plaintiffs agree to advise Defendants of their acceptance or rejection of Defendants' response within seven (7) business days of its receipt. The parties shall meet to discuss and attempt to resolve any disputes addressed in the written submissions. The Defendants and Plaintiffs shall meet within fourteen (14) business days of Plaintiffs' rejection of Defendants' response, unless a later meeting is agreed by both sides. The Monitor will participate in these meetings to offer evaluations of the disputed conditions and recommendations for resolution.
d) If Defendants and Plaintiffs are not successful in their efforts to resolve their dispute, they may jointly or individually seek relief from the Court to effect substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement, but not through a petition for contempt. For all obligations within this Settlement Agreement that are "budget contingent," after engaging in the dispute resolution outlined in (a)-(c), Plaintiffs may request that the Court return this case to the active docket if a necessary appropriation is not made within fifteen (15) months of the start ofthe Fiscal Year for 2016 and within six (6) months ofthe start of the Fiscal Year for all subsequent fiscal years.
e) The Court's jurisdiction shall terminate three (3) years after the Approval Date or the Budget Contingent Approval Date, whichever is later, with respect to any provisions of~this Settlement Agreement for which there is no outstanding determination that Defendants are not in substantial compliance. 1fthe Court determines that Defendants
29

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 30 of 33
are not in substantial compliance, with any provisions of this Settlement Agreement at any time during the three (3) year period of the Settlement Agreement, the Court's jurisdiction with respect to such provisions shall continue for the remainder ofthe three (3) year period or for a period to be ordered by the Court of not more than two (2) years from the date of the Court's finding that Defendants are not in substantial compliance.
f) If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to achieve compliance.
g) To permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court, the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court's assistance as to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding that the reliefsought is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so.
h) The parties acknowledge that no provision ofthis Settlement Agreement has an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
i) If Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with an order entered under the preceding paragraphs, they may, after reasonable notice and a meeting with Defendants, move for further relief from the Court to obtain compliance with the Court's prior order. The Court may apply equitable principles and may use any appropriate equitable or remedial power available to it. This may include returning the case to the active docket and setting a trial date. The information gathered by the Monitor during the life ofthis Settlement Agreement, the Monitor's reports, including all reports and materials supplied by Defendants, may be used in Plaintiffs' case at such a trial, along with the testimony of the Monitor, which testimony may address ultimate issues in this case.
j) Three years after the approval date of this Settlement Agreement or the budget contingent approval date, whichever is later, Plaintiffs may move to abrogate this agreement except XXIX(g)-(i) and XXXIII will continue in effect.
XXX. FORCE MAJEURE
a) Force majeure events are earthquakes, floods, fire, plague, Acts of God (as defined in applicable law), and other natural disasters; terrorism, riots or civil disturbances; war, whether declared or not; strikes; nuclear or chemical contamination; and failure of public infrastructure.
b) If any force majeure event occurs which causes or may cause a delay in or impediment to performance in complying with any provision ofthe Settlement Agreement, !DOC shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor in writing within fifteen (15) business days of when !DOC first knew that the event might cause a delay. This notice shall specifically reference this Section XXX of the Settlement Agreement. Within seven (7) days thereafter, !DOC shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor with a written
30

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 31 of 33
description of the anticipated length of time the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, and the measures taken or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and the schedule on which those measures shall be implemented.
c) Plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor shall respond, in writing, to !DOC's claim of a delay or impediment to perfonnance within thirty (30) days of receipt of the force majeure notice provided under this Section XXX. If the Monitor agrees that the delay has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, and Plaintiffs' counsel accepts the Monitor's position, the parties shall stipulate to an extension of the deadline(s) for all requirement(s) affected by the delay for a period equivalent to the delay actually caused by such circumstances. The stipulation shall be filed as a modification to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section XXXI (Modification), below, and shall be subject to approval by the Court as therein provided.
d) If!DOC's claim afforce majeure delay is not resolved pursuant to subsection (c), either Plaintiffs or Defendants may submit this matter to the Court for resolution. Ifthe Court detennines that the delay or impediment to perfonnance has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, !DOC shall be excused as to that event(s) and delay, for a period of time equivalent to the delay caused by such circumstances.
e) When IDOC asserts a claim afforce majeure, !DOC shall bear the burden of proving that any delay of any requirement(s) of this Settlement Agreement was caused by or will be caused by aforce majeure event. !DOC shall also bear the burden of proving the duration and extent of any delay(s) attributable to such circumstances.
f) Absent compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) - (e), above, no claim of force majeure or emergency may be made to excuse perfonnance under any provision of this Settlement Agreement after the fact.
XXXI. MODIFICATION
a) The parties recognize that the change of some conditions or practices may reduce the necessity ofchange to other conditions or practices. Therefore, the parties agree that it may be appropriate that the Settlement Agreement be modified from time to time. After six (6) months of operation under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants may ask Plaintiffs' counsel to review a proposed modification to any portion of the Settlement Agreement.
b) If Plaintiffs' counsel agree with the proposed modification, the parties will seek Court approval of the modification.
c) If Plaintiffs' counsel disagree with the proposed modification, the parties will meet and confer as to whether they can reach agreement. Ifthe parties cannot agree, within thirty (30) days, the parties will seek the assistance of the magistrate judge assigned to this case to mediate the dispute.
31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 32 of 33
d) If mediation is not successful, then appropriate relief may be sought from the Court in the form of a motion for modification.
XXXII. SCOPE; COURT APPROVAL; FUNDING a) ScopeThe parties hereby memorialize the terms of their agreement in this Settlement Agreement.
This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and except for any Protective Order entered by the Court, supersedes all prior agreements, representations, negotiations and undertakings in this litigation not set forth or incorporated herein.
b) Court Approval i) The Settlement Agreement is not effective absent approval by the Court.
All Parties and their counsel will use their best efforts to obtain Court approval of this Agreement.
ii) Unless otherwise indicated, the term of this Settlement Agreement shall commence upon the date of approval by the Court.
c) Funding i) The !DOC agrees to make all possible good faith efforts to seek all
necessary funding to implement fully the terms of this Settlement Agreement. ii) In the event that the parties are unable to agree as to whether there is
sufficient funding to implement fully this Settlement Agreement, the parties shall meet and confer. In the event that the parties continue to be unable to agree, the parties may invoke the dispute resolution procedures ofthis Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Section XXIX.
XXXIII. ATTORNEY FEES The parties agree that an award of fees is appropriate in this matter. The Court shall determine the amount of fees and costs due to Plaintiffs' counsel. Fees are to be determined as ifthe Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. One halfofthis sum shall be payable one hundred twenty (120) days after the Court determines that amount. The remaining half of the fees will become immediately due if the Court enters an order pursuant to Section XXIX(g). In no event will the award be more than six million dollars.
32

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 708-1 Page 33 of 33
Signed and approved Amended Settlement Agreement consisting of thirty-two (32) pages for Plaintiff's Class.
HAROLD c':1URSHMAN Signed and approved Amended Settlement Agreement consisting of thirty-two (32) pages for Defendants.
Dated: 2 ~ I'-1.Ji.'{ \ b
33

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 1 of 32

E-FILED
Thursday, 21 January, 2016 04:44:03 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants

) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) ) Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. ) Hawley ) ) )

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
a) This is a class action brought under the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the Americans with Disabilities Act or “ADA”), and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants are John Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and Dr. Melvin Hinton, Chief of Mental Health Services for IDOC.1
b) The Plaintiff class challenges the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to mentally ill adult offenders in the physical custody and control of the IDOC. Defendants expressly deny that they have violated any such constitutional or statutory rights.
c) On August 14, 2015, this Court certified this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The representative Plaintiffs are Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Keith Walker, Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Fredricka Lyles, Clara Plair, Desiree Hollis, and Crystal Stoneburner
d) Plaintiffs, through class counsel, have conducted a thorough investigation of the conditions of confinement for such mentally ill offenders and have obtained many policies, directives, offender medical and disciplinary records, and other pertinent materials.

1 Substituted automatically for the original defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 2 of 32
e) Defendants, through counsel, have provided numerous documents in response to requests by Plaintiffs, produced relevant witnesses for depositions, and afforded opportunities for Plaintiffs’ experts to conduct on-site tours of several IDOC correctional facilities and interview offenders about their treatment and care. The parties have used this information to reach this agreement regarding the definition of “serious mental illness,” appropriate staffing ratios, bed and treatment space needs, therapeutic programming, policies governing segregation and discipline of mentally ill offenders, and other relevant factors for establishing a constitutionally adequate system for mentally ill IDOC offenders. Since the initiation of the litigation, the IDOC has commenced significant initiatives to enhance the delivery of mental health services. To date, those include the following: implementation of a definition of serious mental illness (SMI); development of an evaluation and referral process; increased staffing of licensed mental health professionals and behavioral technicians; construction and space retrofits to create four (4) residential treatment units; revised mental health protocols and policies including incorporation of clinical mental health input into the disciplinary system; central committee review of SMI inmates who are segregated more than sixty (60) days; and enhanced clinical contacts, programming and out-of-cell time for the most seriously mentally ill offenders.
f) Without conceding any infirmity in their claims or defenses, after extensive discovery, the parties have engaged in arms length settlement negotiations to resolve the claims raised by this action as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached an agreement for settling this litigation that the parties believe is fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the interests of all parties. The parties believe that this Settlement Agreement will benefit mentally ill offenders who are confined in correctional facilities under Defendants’ control.
g) The terms of this Settlement Agreement shall be applicable to and binding upon the Plaintiff class as certified by the Court and the Defendants in their official capacities, and their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and successors. This Settlement Agreement applies to all of IDOC’s existing correctional facilities housing adult male and female offenders, as well as any new facilities where adult offenders are confined during the life of this Settlement Agreement.
h) By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the Defendants do not admit to any liability regarding the allegations made in this action. Moreover, this Settlement Agreement may not be used as evidence of liability or lack of liability in any other legal proceeding.
i) The parties will file this Settlement Agreement with the Court, and ask that the Court approve it, which approval is a condition precedent to the Agreement’s effectiveness.
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 3 of 32
II. DEFINITIONS
a) Administrative Detention: A non-disciplinary status of confinement which removes an offender from general population or restricts the individual's access to general population.
b) Approval Date: The date on which the Court approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement, except for the specific obligations designated as “budget contingent.”
c) Approved Remedial Plan: The remedial plan submitted by the Defendants on April 17, 2014, as conditionally approved by Dr. Raymond Patterson on July 28, 2014.
d) Budget Contingent Approval Date: The date on which the Court approves the terms of this Settlement Agreement or the date the State of Illinois passes a budget, whichever is later.
e) Crisis Beds: Beds that are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2). Crisis placement should not take place in a segregation setting, absent exigent circumstances and only on a case-by-case basis for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. Examples of circumstances in which crisis placement is permissible include when a facility lacks non-segregation crisis beds in either its infirmary or general population and when a transfer is not possible (e.g., after business hours, weather emergency).
f) Crisis Intervention Services: Prompt and adequate response to any mental health emergency with access to a full range of mental health services, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(3) and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102 .
g) Control (or segregation) Unit: An area within a correctional facility for housing offenders on segregation status. Segregation status includes temporary confinement pending a disciplinary hearing or investigation, disciplinary segregation resulting from a hearing or investigation, and Administrative Detention. Segregation status does not include offenders in protective custody. Segregation areas include the segregation unit or any cell, living area, or other area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer to house offenders who are in segregation status.
h) Disciplinary Segregation: Offenders housed in a Control Unit as a result of a disciplinary hearing.
i) Inpatient Mental Health Services: Intensive, inpatient care and treatment at an appropriate facility, one equivalent to an inpatient accredited mental health treatment
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 4 of 32
facility, during the period of an offender’s acute crisis, in order to return the offender to a less intensive treatment environment at the earliest clinically appropriate time, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(4).
j) Medication Non-Compliance: An offender will be deemed to be in medication non-compliance with his or her medication when he or she (i) misses three (3) consecutive days of medication rounds; (ii) misses 50% of the medication distributed within a seven (7) day period; or (iii) exhibits a clinically significant pattern of missing medication, as determined by an MHP.
k) Mental Health Professional (“MHP”): A mental health professional is: a physician who is licensed to practice medicine and is board-certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“ABPN”) or the American Osteopathic Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“AOBPN”), or has completed four (4) years of an accredited post-graduate training program in psychiatry; a psychologist with a Ph.D/ Psy.D and licensed as a clinical psychologist; a licensed psychiatric nurse (i.e., a nurse licensed as an R.N. and certified in psychiatric-mental health); a licensed clinical social worker; or an individual licensed to provide mental health services with a Ph.D/Psy.D or Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program. “Licensed” means currently licensed by the State of Illinois.
l) Mentally Ill Offenders: Persons now or in the future in the custody of IDOC who are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism, drug addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purposes of this class definition.
m) Monitor: The individual identified in Section XXVII, below, together with the Monitor’s staff to the extent the Monitor designates his staff to perform any monitoring function in this Settlement Agreement, and any successor(s) to the Monitor.
n) Outpatient Mental Health Services: The provision of appropriate mental health care and supportive services for those offenders with mental illness who are able to be housed and function in the general prison population, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100.
o) Protective Custody: A status requested by the offender and approved by IDOC aimed at preventing the offender from coming into contact or intermingling with offenders in general population or disciplinary segregation. Units designated for use as protective custody are not physically located on the same gallery as disciplinary segregation facilities. Neither general population nor disciplinary segregation individuals are permitted to have access to these areas except as approved by the Chief Administrative Officers. Housing accommodations and essential services in protective custody are comparable to those provided for the general population.
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 5 of 32
p) Residential Treatment Unit (“RTU”): A housing unit within the prison system for offenders with mental illness who do not need inpatient treatment (see subsection (g), below) but who do require the therapeutic milieu and full range of services and variable security available in the RTU, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(E)(2) and “IDOC Mental Health Units,” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)).
q) Segregation Rounds: Weekly screenings, done by a mental health professional, to identify those offenders who may be experiencing the onset of and/or ongoing mental health symptons/concerns for the purpose of addressing those symptons/concerns.
r) Serious Mental Illness: As used herein, an IDOC offender is “seriously mentally ill” (“SMI”) if he or she, as a result of a mental disorder as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) of the American Psychiatric Association, exhibits impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes seriously with his or her ability to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. These individuals also must either currently have, or have had within the past year, a diagnosed mental disorder, or must currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, of developmental disorders, or of any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual seriously mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis or significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder and an impaired level of functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be considered seriously mentally ill. Whether a person meets the criteria of seriously mentally ill is initially determined by a comprehensive, professional clinical assessment by an IDOC Mental Health Professional in order to 1) determine if the individual has a diagnosable mental disorder as defined by the current DSM and 2) to establish the person’s overall level of functioning. The appropriate threshold to establish level of functioning that equates to a serious mental illness includes serious impairments in capacity to recognize reality, in work environments, school or learning environments, frequent problems with the authority/rules, occasional combative behavior, serious impairments in relationships with friends and family, serious impairments in judgment, thinking, and mood, and serious impairment due to anxiety. These aforementioned disturbances must be observed in at least one of the areas listed above.
s) Specialized treatment setting: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
t) Substantial Compliance: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOC-wide or at specific facilities.
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 6 of 32
u) Temporary Confinement/Investigative Status: Offenders housed in segregation pending a disciplinary hearing or investigation.
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS
a) References in this Settlement Agreement to IDOC’s Administrative Directives, the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (“Manual”), and forms are to the specific versions of those Administrative Directives, the Manual, and forms that have been finalized and adopted by IDOC by the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. IDOC’s creation and promulgation of any subsequent versions of those Administrative Directives, manual, and forms will not change or void any provision of this Settlement Agreement unless the parties specifically agree in writing to a modification of the Settlement Agreement’s terms incorporating the changed or new Administrative Directive, Manual, and/or forms.
b) Wherever IDOC has agreed to adopt new policies, procedures, or Administrative Directives in this Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise specified, the time frame for the submission of such proposed policies, procedures, or Administrative Directives to counsel for Plaintiffs and the Monitor shall not exceed six (6) months from the approval date. The adoption of new, or revision to existing, Administrative Directives which are not anticipated by this Settlement Agreement but serve to effectuate the terms of this Settlement Agreement shall occur within a “reasonable time” as agreed to by the parties.
c) IDOC agrees to provide counsel for Plaintiffs and the Monitor with the proposed new or revised items specified in Sections III(a)-(b) above sufficiently in advance of the various target dates established here (including those subject to subsection (a), above) to allow for study and comment, but in no event less than thirty (30) days before a specific target date. Counsel shall comment in writing to the Monitor within seven (7) days of the receipt of this material.
d) Where a particular time frame or deadline is specified in the various paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement, those provisions are not subject to subsections (a) and (b), above.
e) Whenever a specific time for the achievement of a particular goal is not specified, the time to achieve that particular goal shall be a “reasonable time” as agreed to by the parties.
f) Any dispute which may arise under this section shall be resolved in accordance with Section XXIX governing Dispute Resolution.
IV. INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
a) All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 7 of 32
acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at p. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101,§ II(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
b) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b), such screening shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this settlement.
c) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(b), offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
d) In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
e) IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
f) Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist, and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
g) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(2)(a), screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 8 of 32
be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). The screening process shall also include review of the records which accompany the offender.
V. MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
a) Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.
b) Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
c) IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
d) In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
e) IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
f) Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral (see IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 § II(G)(2)(b) and 04.04.101 §II(F)(2)(c)).
g) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.
h) The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(3).
i) Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by Mental Health Professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D/Psy. D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 9 of 32

applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.

j) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

VI.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION

a) In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.

b) IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

VII. TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW

a) As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.

b) The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent, and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on Form 0284 or its equivalent.

c) Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes). Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than once every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated. Reviews shall assess the progress of the documented treatment goals and be documented

9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 10 of 32

on the DOC 0284 or its equivalent and shall include the date of the review and the date on which the next review will be performed.

d) Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:

(i) For offenders at an outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.

(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.

(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, with no extension of the follow-up appointments.

e) Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.

VIII.

TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS

a) SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team.

b) The following shall also apply to offenders transitioning from specialized treatment settings:

i) For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor. This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for Crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from Crisis Watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 11 of 32

ii) Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within thirty (30) days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, §(F)(2)(c)(4)(c).

IX.

ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF

a) The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates:

i) Dixon Correctional Center (“CC”) – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date;

ii) Pontiac CC – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date;

iii) Logan CC – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date.

b) The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

c) Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.

d) To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.

e) In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.

11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 12 of 32

f) In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX, below.

X.

BED/TREATMENT SPACE

a) The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.

b) RTU beds for male offenders:

i) Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.

ii) IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:

A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately625 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;

B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and

C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.

c) RTU beds for female offenders:

i) IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108 female offenders at Logan CC.

ii) IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:

12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 13 of 32
A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
d) The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains a RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
e) Inpatient beds: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget contingent approval date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
f) IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of this Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 14 of 32

g) IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own Administrative Directives, forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.

h) The treatment and other space required by subsections (d) – (g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.

i) Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.

XI.

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING

a) Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.

b) IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

c) Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 15 of 32
d) IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facility-specific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XII. MEDICATION
a) In accordance with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.100 § II(E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
b) Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
c) In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:
i) The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
ii) The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskenesia, high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
iii) Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
iv) The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
v) That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanations from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 16 of 32
the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
vi) That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience Medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by a MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
XIII. OFFENDER FORCED MEDICATION
IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70.
XIV. HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
a) Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
b) For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII(a)(v)(F), below.
c) If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation.
XV. SEGREGATION
a) As to mentally ill offenders in Administrative Detention and Disciplinary Segregation:
i) Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally
16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 17 of 32
ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
ii) Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670.
iii) Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
iv) An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
v) As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
vi) IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by a MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380);
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);
D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP;
E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established;
F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing;
G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record; and
17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 18 of 32
H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
vi) IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.
vii) If, at any time, it is determined by a MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
i) IDOC will organize Review Committees (“Committees”) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this settlement agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
ii) The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
iii) With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
iv) The Committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 19 of 32
segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
v) The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
vi) These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
i) With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
ii) An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
iii) IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP;
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380;
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);
D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP;
E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings, once teams have been established;
F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing;
19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 20 of 32
G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record; and
H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
iv) IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.
v) If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
c) Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i) For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-of-cell time per week.
ii) For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-of-cell time per week.
iii) For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours out-of-cell time per week.
iv) For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours out-of-cell time per week.
20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 21 of 32
d) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XVI. SUICIDE PREVENTION
a) IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
b) IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XVII. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
a) IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
b) IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60; and Administrative Directive 05.01.126.
c) Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.
d) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XVIII. MEDICAL RECORDS
a) In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of
21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 22 of 32
Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
b) No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
XIX. CONFIDENTIALITY
a) No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records. Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services.
b) Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
c) Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)). In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
d) In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
XX. CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
The determination that an offender, who once met the criteria of seriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender’s mental health treatment
22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 23 of 32
team and documented in the offender’s mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
XXI. STAFF TRAINING
a) Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
b) Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII(a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas:
i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population;
ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal;
iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication;
iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability;
v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises;
vi) Suicide prevention;
vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and
viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
c) Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement
23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 24 of 32
Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
XXII. PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
a) Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
XXIII. TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY-TO-FACILITY
a) To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
b) When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
c) The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
XXIV. USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108 (B), and 20 Ill. Admin. Code 501.30.
XXV. DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
a) IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
b) No later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and
24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 25 of 32
procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
c) For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period, but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
d) No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
XXVI. CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
a) IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), § II(E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility and throughout IDOC.
b) The statewide QI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
XXVII. MONITORING
a) The parties will agree on a monitor within ninety (90) days of the Court’s tentative approval of the Settlement Agreement. In the event they are unable to agree, within 30 days each side will submit a proposal to the Court, which will designate a monitor who has not already served as an expert consultant in this matter.
b) The Monitor may retain such appropriate staff with the approval of IDOC including clinical and administrative experts as are necessary to conduct the requisite monitoring. IDOC agrees to pay for all agreed upon costs associated with said monitoring pursuant to a reasonable budget to be agreed upon by and between the IDOC and the Monitor.
25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 26 of 32
c) The Monitor shall submit to counsel for the parties the curriculum vitae of any proposed clinical and administrative experts and shall seek the advice and consent of counsel prior to retaining experts.
d) Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
e) The Monitor and any experts or other staff retained hereunder in connection with the monitoring function shall contract for their services directly with IDOC and shall be governed by existing IDOC rules and regulations regarding their employment, especially relating to compensation and expenses.
f) The general principles for monitoring shall include:
i) The reporting and on-site aspects of the monitoring shall be more intensive at the outset and likely decrease as compliance is achieved;
ii) Monitoring may consist of specifying what empirical data IDOC should collect, including written reports from IDOC and its vendors; on-site inspections; oral and written reports from the Monitor; and appropriate consultation in aid of compliance;
iii) The Monitor’s role shall include: gathering of appropriate data and statistics; conducting on-site inspections; assessing whether required policies and procedures are adequate; assessing and reporting to the parties on whether the objectives of the Settlement Agreement are being met; and, where disputes between the parties occur or where there appears to be non-compliance, assisting to resolve such matters in the most expeditious and non-adversarial fashion possible;
iv) The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies, and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation;
v) The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced on-site tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel. The Monitor and his staff will be limited to five (5) days of onsite inspection time up to four (4) times per year during the life of the Settlement Agreement per staff member. The Monitor shall provide IDOC’s legal
26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 27 of 32
office with at least forty-eight (48) hours’ notice prior to any visit to any IDOC facility.
g) Statements in any section of this Settlement Agreement that require the Monitor to take action are not to be construed as a limitation upon the Monitor’s ability to review and report upon all matters contained within this Agreement.
h) Reports, documents, data, and other information provided by IDOC to the Monitor will also be available to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a confidential basis and for use in this matter only.
i) A review of records by the Monitor or his staff shall not constitute a waiver of IDOC’s quality assurance privilege. Moreover, any such disclosures shall not constitute a waiver or serve as precedent in other legal proceedings with respect to the aforementioned quality assurance privilege. In addition, Plaintiffs and the Monitor and his staff agree to keep said documentation confidential, if the documentation is confidential, and not to disclose, publish or use for public consumption any of the records reviewed by Plaintiffs, the Monitor or his staff.
j) In addition to the quality assurance privileges described above, other records or information the disclosure of which is objected to by either party based upon a claim of privilege, confidentiality, or relevance to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement shall not be disclosed by the Monitor to the other party or to the public. Such material shall be made available for inspection by the Court, along with a precise statement of the objection or objections to disclosure prepared by the objecting party, and the Court shall render a decision on the disclosure.
k) Within three (3) months of the adoption of the policies and procedures referenced throughout this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor may prepare report forms for use by the institutions and central office, which shall be submitted to counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants for prior approval before being put into use. Such report forms will require the submission of specified data relevant to the Settlement Agreement for evaluation by the Monitor. IDOC shall prepare the reports quarterly during the first two years of this Settlement Agreement, and twice per year thereafter, unless the Monitor determines that the interim goals have not been met or the Monitor determines that less frequent reports are sufficient. The Monitor will specify the dates for all such submissions upon the approval of the forms described in this specific paragraph.
l) The Monitor shall prepare and submit an annual report to be submitted to the parties and the Court every twelve (12) months as to IDOC’s substantial compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The first report shall be issued one year after Court approval of the settlement. Subsequent reports shall be issued annually after that date.
m) In his annual report, the Monitor shall evaluate the status of IDOC compliance with the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement using the following standards: Substantial Compliance and Non-Compliance. In order to assess compliance,
27

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 28 of 32
the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents, interview necessary staff, and interview a sufficient number of offenders to accurately gauge current conditions.
n) The Monitor shall also prepare and submit to the parties a status update six (6) months after the filing of each annual report on IDOC progress as to this Settlement Agreement.
o) If, during a period of Substantial Compliance, the Monitor identifies a material violation of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall still be considered to be in Substantial Compliance throughout the pertinent period if it promptly develops and implements a timely and appropriate remedy that, in the Monitor’s view, results in compliance within a reasonable period of time.
p) In the event that the designated monitor is no longer able or willing to serve as the Monitor, the parties shall select another Monitor using the same method as the initial selection.
q) The Monitor shall not be subject to dismissal except upon good cause and the agreement of both parties, subject to Court approval, or by the Court upon motion of one of the parties and a showing of good cause, as determined after a hearing before the Court. The moving party must establish good cause by clear and convincing evidence.
r) Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be entitled to tour those portions of each facility where mentally ill prisoners are housed and treated, and to talk to class members at their cells, after providing a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours notice to IDOC. Counsel shall also be permitted to have confidential legal visits with members of the plaintiff class identified during such cell front visits. All such visits will be subject to reasonable security measures and the subject facility’s legal visit scheduling process so that they will not interfere with either the confidentiality of such visits or the operations of the IDOC facility in which the offender is housed. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit any right of access Plaintiffs’ counsel may otherwise have pursuant to statute or otherwise.
XXVIII. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
28

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 29 of 32
XXIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
a) If Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with any provision of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendants, in writing, specific reasons why they believe that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions, referencing the specific provision or provisions. Plaintiffs may not allege that the Defendants are not in Substantial Compliance based on minor or isolated delays in compliance. To the extent Plaintiffs rely on observations or opinions of the Monitor to support an allegation that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make a reference to the written reports of the Monitor and to portions thereof which support Plaintiff’s belief. To the extent Plaintiffs rely upon documents provided by Defendants to support an allegation that Defendants are not in substantial compliance, Plaintiffs shall make reference to the specific performance measures which support Plaintiffs’ belief.
b) Defendants shall have the opportunity to consult their designated expert with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendants are not in substantial compliance with such provision or provisions. The Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a written response to the notification within thirty (30) days of its receipt. The Defendants’ response shall contain a description of the steps they took to investigate the issues addressed in the Plaintiffs’ notice, the results of the investigation, and, where the Defendants propose corrective action, a specific plan for addressing the described issues. If no corrective action is proposed by reason of legal considerations or for other reasons, the Defendants’ response shall specifically state those reasons and any statutes, regulations, expert opinion, or technical bases upon which they are relying in reaching such conclusion.
c) Plaintiffs agree to advise Defendants of their acceptance or rejection of Defendants’ response within seven (7) business days of its receipt. The parties shall meet to discuss and attempt to resolve any disputes addressed in the written submissions. The Defendants and Plaintiffs shall meet within fourteen (14) business days of Plaintiffs’ rejection of Defendants’ response, unless a later meeting is agreed by both sides. The Monitor will participate in these meetings to offer evaluations of the disputed conditions and recommendations for resolution.
d) If Defendants and Plaintiffs are not successful in their efforts to resolve their dispute, they may jointly or individually seek relief from the Court to effect substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement, but not through a petition for contempt. For all obligations within this Settlement Agreement that are “budget contingent,” after engaging in the dispute resolution outlined in (a)-(c), Plaintiffs may request that the Court return this case to the active docket if a necessary appropriation is not made within fifteen (15) months of the start of the Fiscal Year for 2016 and within six (6) months of the start of the Fiscal Year for all subsequent fiscal years.
e) The Court’s jurisdiction shall terminate three (3) years after the Approval Date or the Budget Contingent Approval Date, whichever is later, with respect to any provisions of this Settlement Agreement for which there is no outstanding determination that Defendants are not in substantial compliance. If the Court determines that Defendants
29

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 30 of 32
are not in substantial compliance, with any provisions of this Settlement Agreement at any time during the three (3) year period of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to such provisions shall continue for the remainder of the three (3) year period or for a period to be ordered by the Court of not more than two (2) years from the date of the Court’s finding that Defendants are not in substantial compliance.
f) If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to achieve compliance.
g) To permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court, the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court’s assistance as to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding that the relief sought is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so.
h) The parties acknowledge that no provision of this Settlement Agreement has an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
i) If Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with an order entered under the preceding paragraphs, they may, after reasonable notice and a meeting with Defendants, move for further relief from the Court to obtain compliance with the Court’s prior order. The Court may apply equitable principles and may use any appropriate equitable or remedial power available to it. This may include returning the case to the active docket and setting a trial date. The information gathered by the Monitor during the life of this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor’s reports, including all reports and materials supplied by Defendants, may be used in Plaintiffs’ case at such a trial, along with the testimony of the Monitor, which testimony may address ultimate issues in this case.
j) Three years after the approval date of this Settlement Agreement or the budget contingent approval date, whichever is later, Plaintiffs may move to abrogate this agreement except XXIX(g)-(i) and XXXIII will continue in effect.
XXX. FORCE MAJEURE
a) Force majeure events are earthquakes, floods, fire, plague, Acts of God (as defined in applicable law), and other natural disasters; terrorism, riots or civil disturbances; war, whether declared or not; strikes; nuclear or chemical contamination; and failure of public infrastructure.
b) If any force majeure event occurs which causes or may cause a delay in or impediment to performance in complying with any provision of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor in writing within fifteen (15) business days of when IDOC first knew that the event might cause a delay. This notice shall specifically reference this Section XXX of the Settlement Agreement. Within seven (7) days thereafter, IDOC shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor with a written
30

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 31 of 32
description of the anticipated length of time the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, and the measures taken or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and the schedule on which those measures shall be implemented.
c) Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor shall respond, in writing, to IDOC’s claim of a delay or impediment to performance within thirty (30) days of receipt of the force majeure notice provided under this Section XXX. If the Monitor agrees that the delay has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, and Plaintiffs’ counsel accepts the Monitor’s position, the parties shall stipulate to an extension of the deadline(s) for all requirement(s) affected by the delay for a period equivalent to the delay actually caused by such circumstances. The stipulation shall be filed as a modification to the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section XXXI (Modification), below, and shall be subject to approval by the Court as therein provided.
d) If IDOC’s claim of force majeure delay is not resolved pursuant to subsection (c), either Plaintiffs or Defendants may submit this matter to the Court for resolution. If the Court determines that the delay or impediment to performance has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, IDOC shall be excused as to that event(s) and delay, for a period of time equivalent to the delay caused by such circumstances.
e) When IDOC asserts a claim of force majeure, IDOC shall bear the burden of proving that any delay of any requirement(s) of this Settlement Agreement was caused by or will be caused by a force majeure event. IDOC shall also bear the burden of proving the duration and extent of any delay(s) attributable to such circumstances.
f) Absent compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) - (e), above, no claim of force majeure or emergency may be made to excuse performance under any provision of this Settlement Agreement after the fact.
XXXI. MODIFICATION
a) The parties recognize that the change of some conditions or practices may reduce the necessity of change to other conditions or practices. Therefore, the parties agree that it may be appropriate that the Settlement Agreement be modified from time to time. After six (6) months of operation under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants may ask Plaintiffs’ counsel to review a proposed modification to any portion of the Settlement Agreement.
b) If Plaintiffs’ counsel agree with the proposed modification, the parties will seek Court approval of the modification.
c) If Plaintiffs’ counsel disagree with the proposed modification, the parties will meet and confer as to whether they can reach agreement. If the parties cannot agree, within thirty (30) days, the parties will seek the assistance of the magistrate judge assigned to this case to mediate the dispute.
31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 346-1 Page 32 of 32
d) If mediation is not successful, then appropriate relief may be sought from the Court in the form of a motion for modification.
XXXII. SCOPE; COURT APPROVAL; FUNDING
a) Scope -
The parties hereby memorialize the terms of their agreement in this Settlement Agreement.
This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and except for any Protective Order entered by the Court, supersedes all prior agreements, representations, negotiations and undertakings in this litigation not set forth or incorporated herein.
b) Court Approval
i) The Settlement Agreement is not effective absent approval by the Court. All Parties and their counsel will use their best efforts to obtain Court approval of this Agreement.
ii) Unless otherwise indicated, the term of this Settlement Agreement shall commence upon the date of approval by the Court.
c) Funding
i) The IDOC agrees to make all possible good faith efforts to seek all necessary funding to implement fully the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
ii) In the event that the parties are unable to agree as to whether there is sufficient funding to implement fully this Settlement Agreement, the parties shall meet and confer. In the event that the parties continue to be unable to agree, the parties may invoke the dispute resolution procedures of this Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Section XXXIII.
XXXIII. ATTORNEY FEES
The parties agree that an award of fees is appropriate in this matter. The Court shall determine the amount of fees and costs due to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Fees are to be determined as if the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. One half of this sum shall be payable one hundred twenty (120) days after the Court determines that amount. The remaining half of the fees will become immediately due if the Court enters an order pursuant to Section XXIX(g). In no event will the award be more than six million dollars.
32

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1211 Page 1 of 2

E-FILED
Friday, 10 February, 2017 09:53:38 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ASHOOR RASHO, et al, Plaintiffs, vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL NO. 07-1298

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Section XXXIII of the Settlement Agreement between the parties provides that the court shall determine the attorney fees due to Plaintiff’s counsel. Doc. 711. "Fees are to be determined

as if the Plaintiffs are a prevailing party." Id. Fees are to be capped at $6,000,000. One-half of

the fees to be determined by the Court "shall be" paid within 120 days and one-half would be paid,

if the Court enters an order under Section XXIX(g) of the Agreement. Subsequent to the Court’s approval of that Agreement, pursuant to the Court's order
plaintiff’s counsel filed a petition for fees and costs in the amount of $6,090,698.12. Prior to a

response to the petition being filed, the parties informed the Court that they had reached an

agreement to settle the claim for fees. This agreement calls for the fees to be set at $3,800,000.

Doc. 1091. One-half of that amount ($1,900,000) is due presently and one-half to be paid if the

Court enters an order under Section XXIX(g) of the underlying Agreement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(h) notice of the petition for attorney fees was given to members of the

class and the class members were given an opportunity to object. About 300 responses were

received from members of the class totaling more than 10,000 members. All of the responses have

been reviewed by the Court. The Court held a hearing on the fees on February 3, 2017.

The Court finds that the agreement between the parties for attorney fees in the amount of

$3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time pursuant to under Section XXIX(g) is fair to members

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1211 Page 2 of 2

of the class given the nature of the case. The Agreement settling the underlying dispute affords members of the class comprehensive relief which includes fundamental changes to the housing, treatment, and discipline of mentally ill inmates. In view of the hours expended by counsel and the results obtained on behalf of the members of the class the Court finds that the agreement on fees is fair and reasonable. The Court, accordingly finds that the fees and costs are reasonable and approves the Agreement between the parties filed as Doc. 1091.

Dated: _F_e_b_._1_0_,_2_0_1_7________

__/_s_/_M__ic_h_a_e_l_M__. _M_i_h_m______________ JUDGE MICHAEL MIHM

2

 
 In the
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit
____________________

No. 14-1902

ASHOOR RASHO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLARD O. ELYEA, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 1:11-CV-01308 — Michael M. Mihm, Judge.
____________________

ARGUED APRIL 17, 2015 — DECIDED MARCH 7, 2017 ____________________

Before POSNER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, District Judge.*
WOOD, District Judge. Ashoor Rasho arrived at the Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”), an Illinois prison, in 2003. Rasho has a history of mental illness and, after he stopped taking his medication and began showing escalating symp-

* Hon. Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of Illinois sitting by designation.

2

No. 14-1902

toms, he was transferred into Pontiac’s Mental Health Unit. He remained in the Mental Health Unit until 2006, when he was transferred to the North Segregation Unit. Rasho believes that he was transferred out of the Mental Health Unit not because he no longer required the specialized treatment offered there but instead in retaliation for complaints he had lodged against various prison staff. According to Rasho, after he was transferred, he was denied even minimally adequate mental health care for more than 20 months.
Rasho subsequently filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Pontiac staff psychiatrist and psychology services administrator who recommended his transfer out of the Mental Health Unit, as well as the warden, medical director, and director of mental health, alleging that each acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants. Rasho now appeals.
I.
Rasho has been an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) since 1996, although he did not arrive at Pontiac until 2003. He has a history of mental illness—characterized by auditory hallucinations, severe depression, agitation, self-mutilation, and suicide attempts—

1 As explained in the district court’s opinion, Rasho’s individual action has been separated from the putative class action Rasho, et al. v. Director Roger E. Walker, Jr., et al., Case No. 07-cv-1298 (C.D. Ill.). The present appeal, like the lower court ruling from which it has been taken, addresses only Rasho’s individual claims.

No. 14-1902

3

for which he has been prescribed psychotropic medications. At various times, he has been diagnosed with the Axis I mental disorders “Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, with Psychotic Features or Schizophrenia” and “Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features, Recurrent.”2 While at Pontiac, he also received an Axis I diagnosis of “history of polysubstance abuse and dependence” and an Axis II diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.” As described by his expert witness in this case, Rasho is a “very, very sick man.”
In April 2004, after Rasho stopped taking his medications and began cutting himself, a psychiatrist at Pontiac recommended that he be transferred to the prison’s Mental Health Unit. Inmates assigned to that unit have more frequent access to mental health professionals and receive greater continuity of mental health care than those in other prison units. Among the therapeutic benefits available to inmates in the Mental Health Unit are group therapy, cells with open bars, and the ability to have private and confidential conversations with mental health staff more easily. Inmates in the Mental Health Unit also may receive individual therapy, crisis intervention, and psychotropic medication management.
While Rasho was in the Mental Health Unit, he met with mental health professionals at least monthly and was prescribed psychotropic medications. Yet the record reveals that

2 “Axis I” is a classification for clinical disorders recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. Text Rev. 2000) (“DSM-IV”), published by the American Psychiatric Association and widely recognized as an authoritative source for information about mental conditions. “Axis II” is the DSM-IV’s classification for personality disorders.

4

No. 14-1902

Rasho still cut himself on approximately five or six occasions—including at least twice that resulted in Rasho being placed on crisis watch—and engaged in other disruptive and self-destructive behavior. He complained frequently and acted out while in the Mental Health Unit and filed several grievances regarding Pontiac staff.
Rasho remained in the Mental Health Unit until he was transferred to the North Segregation Unit in November 2006. The transfer was initially recommended by Dr. Michael Massa, who worked as a staff psychiatrist at Pontiac and treated Rasho. The transfer was also approved by Dr. John Garlick, who held the position of Psychology Services Administrator and was Dr. Massa’s supervisor. At the time, Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick provided mental health services to Pontiac inmates pursuant to the IDOC’s contract with private contractor Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”). Dr. Massa first recommended that Rasho be transferred out of the Mental Health Unit on May 25, 2006; he followed with another recommendation on August 3, 2006. Rasho was eventually transferred in November 2006.
The parties dispute the reason for Dr. Massa’s and Dr. Garlick’s determination to transfer Rasho out of the Mental Health Unit. Dr. Massa claims that he recommended the transfer because he did not believe that Rasho had a diagnosis or set of symptoms such that he was benefitting from the placement. Dr. Massa also claims that he had become concerned that Rasho’s continued presence in the Mental Health Unit would be detrimental to other inmates in the unit— specifically, Rasho was showing signs of antisocial personality disorder that made him a risk to the genuinely mentally ill and vulnerable inmates there. Dr. Garlick claims that he

No. 14-1902

5

agreed that Rasho should leave the Mental Health Unit based on his own interactions with Rasho and his knowledge of Rasho’s condition and behavior. According to Dr. Garlick, he too was concerned that Rasho’s continued presence in the Mental Health Unit would have a detrimental effect on other inmates and he also doubted that Rasho was benefitting from placement there.
Rasho challenges Dr. Massa’s and Dr. Garlick’s stated reasons for recommending his transfer out of the Mental Health Unit. He contends that they actually decided to have him transferred as punishment for his complaints. In fact, Rasho claims that both Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick actually told him that he was kicked out of the Mental Health Unit because he filed too many grievances. Rasho also points out that Dr. Massa recommended the transfer even though Dr. Massa was well aware of Rasho’s history of mental health problems and continued to prescribe Rasho powerful psychotropic medications after making the recommendation. One of those medications was Geodon, which is primarily used to treat schizophrenia and mania and to provide maintenance for bipolar disorder. If Dr. Massa truly believed that he did not require specialized mental health treatment, Rasho argues, then why would he continue to prescribe medications indicated only for that purpose?
Rasho also has presented testimony from Dr. Jose Matthews, who treated Rasho in the North Segregation Unit, and Dr. Joel Silverberg, an expert witness retained on Rasho’s behalf for purposes of this case. Dr. Matthews testified that after treating Rasho for some time in the North Segregation Unit (and initially believing that Rasho might be malingering), he came to believe that Rasho did require

6

No. 14-1902

greater care than would be provided in the North Segregation Unit and should be transferred back to the Mental Health Unit. When Dr. Matthews raised the issue, however, Dr. Garlick rejected the idea stating “no, no, no, [Rasho] can’t go there.”
Similarly, Dr. Silverberg has offered an expert opinion that Rasho should have been kept in the Mental Health Unit and not transferred to the North Segregation Unit, an environment that he considers to have been “toxic” to Rasho’s mental health and where there was no meaningful mental health treatment. According to Dr. Silverberg, inmates in the North Segregation Unit were isolated and treated like animals. Moreover, the filth and noise there aggravated Rasho’s condition and, because the unit did not have places that allowed Rasho to talk to mental health staff in private, Rasho was forced to downplay his issues. Dr. Silverberg concluded that Rasho was undertreated while at Pontiac but did respond when provided with appropriate care—i.e., beginning no earlier than 2008 (or approximately 20 months after Rasho was transferred), when Dr. Matthews arrived at Pontiac and began paying special attention to Rasho beyond what would otherwise have been provided.
Although it is undisputed that Rasho cut himself both while he was in the Mental Health Unit and after he was transferred, supported by the testimony from Dr. Matthews and Dr. Silverberg, Rasho claims that his mental health deteriorated and his self-mutilation escalated after he was transferred.
Rasho was transferred from Pontiac to Stateville Correctional Center in 2011, but then returned to Pontiac’s North Segregation Unit in February 2012. Rasho claims that his

No. 14-1902

7

mental health treatment upon his return to Pontiac was very different than during his prior stint there. The difference was the attention he received from Dr. Matthews, who began meeting with Rasho for two hours each week. Rasho characterizes the treatment that Dr. Matthews provided him as exceptional and not at all typical of the care usually provided to inmates in the North Segregation Unit. Dr. Matthews has acknowledged that he initially felt that Rasho might be faking his symptoms. By the time he left Pontiac in September 2012, however, Dr. Matthews had changed his mind and recommended that Rasho be transferred to the Mental Health Unit. As noted above, this recommendation was rejected by Dr. Garlick.
Rasho claims in his lawsuit that Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by transferring him out of the Mental Health Unit. Rasho also has sued three supervisory IDOC staff for their purported deliberate indifference: Dr. Wendy Blank (originally named in Rasho’s lawsuit under her prior name, Wendy Navarro) served as IDOC’s Director of Mental Health beginning in 2006; Dr. Willard Elyea served as IDOC’s medical director from 1999 until April 2007; and finally, Eddie Jones was Pontiac’s warden from 2006 to 2008. Rasho seeks to hold these defendants liable under a theory that they failed in their respective duties to take reasonable steps to ensure adequate medical care for seriously mentally ill inmates.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants. Focusing on his claim against Dr. Massa, the district court found that Rasho could not show that he actually received inadequate care while in the North Segregation Unit. Key to the district court’s conclusion was the

8

No. 14-1902

opinion from Dr. Silverberg that the care provided to Rasho by Dr. Matthews fell within the appropriate standard of care. As the district court explained, “the importance of [Dr. Silverberg’s] testimony is the fact that Rasho was capable of getting ‘appropriate and reasonable’ treatment while being housed in North Segregation unit. Given this, it is difficult to find that Dr. Massa’s recommendation to transfer Rasho to North Segregation would violate the Constitution.” The district court went on to express skepticism that Rasho would be able to establish any injury as a result of the alleged constitutional violation, since he self-mutilated both before and after the transfer.
Having concluded that Rasho could not prevail against the medical provider most directly responsible for the decision to transfer him out of the Mental Health Unit, the district court next considered Rasho’s claims against Dr. Garlick, Dr. Elyea, Dr. Blank, and Warden Jones. With respect to Dr. Garlick, the district court found that he was even further removed from the transfer decision than Dr. Massa and, in any case, that there was no evidence he knew a transfer from the Mental Health Unit would be detrimental to Rasho’s mental health. With respect to Dr. Elyea and Dr. Navarro, who were even further removed from the transfer decision than Dr. Garlick, the district court concluded that there was no evidence their actions caused any harm to Rasho in particular. Finally, the district court held that the record could not support a finding that Warden Jones failed to comply with any duty by not preventing Rasho from being transferred out of the Mental Health Unit into the allegedly terrible conditions of the North Segregation Unit.

No. 14-1902

9

II.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Rasho and drawing all inferences in his favor. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
It is well-established that prison officials and medical staff violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976); Chatham v. Davis, 839 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir. 2016). “To determine if the Eighth Amendment has been violated in the prison medical context, we perform a two-step analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and then determining whether the individual was deliberately indifferent to that condition.” Petties, 836 F.3d at 727–28 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994); Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010)).
For purposes of summary judgment, the defendants conceded below that whether Rasho suffered from an objectively serious medical condition constitutes a triable issue of fact for a jury to decide. And so the question to be determined here is whether Rasho has produced sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that any of the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his condition.

10

No. 14-1902

Deliberate indifference requires that a defendant actually know about yet disregard a substantial risk of harm to an inmate’s health or safety. Petties, 836 F.3d at 728. “The standard is a subjective one: The defendant must know facts from which he could infer that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and he must actually draw the inference.” Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2016). Emphasizing the deference owed to the professional judgment of medical providers, we have observed that “[b]y definition a treatment decision [that is] based on professional judgment cannot evince deliberate indifference because professional judgment implies a choice of what the defendant believed to be the best course of treatment.” Id. at 805; see also McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th Cir. 2013); Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894–95 (7th Cir. 2008). “A medical professional acting in his professional capacity may be held to have displayed deliberate indifference only if the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Sain, 512 F.3d at 895 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The defendants would like us to view the decision to transfer Rasho out of the Mental Health Unit as an exercise of medical judgment entitled to judicial deference. But Rasho claims that Dr. Masso and Dr. Garlick did not exercise medical judgment at all in deciding to recommend that he be transferred. Instead, Rasho contends, their decision was motivated by spite: they sought to have him transferred in retaliation for his several grievances against prison staff and medical personnel.

No. 14-1902

11

In Petties, we recognized that the choice of “an easier and less efficacious treatment without exercising professional judgment” can constitute deliberate indifference. 836 F.3d at 730 (internal quotation marks omitted). Most often, this concern arises when a medical provider is alleged to have chosen a treatment—or lack thereof—based on cost considerations rather than medical judgment. See, e.g., Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Although administrative convenience and costs may be, in appropriate circumstances, permissible factors for correctional systems to consider in making treatment decisions, the Constitution is violated when they are considered to the exclusion of reasonable medical judgment about inmate health.” (emphasis omitted)); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The cost of treatment alternatives is a factor in determining what constitutes adequate, minimum-level medical care, but medical personnel cannot simply resort to an easier course of treatment that they know is ineffective.” (citations omitted)). But a similar concern arises if a medical provider bases his or her treatment decision on personal prejudices or animosity. In either circumstance, the medical provider may violate the patient-inmate’s constitutional rights by failing to exercise medical judgment at all. See Roe, 631 F.3d at 863.
Rasho here has put forward sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could decide that Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick caused him to be transferred out of the Mental Health Unit for reasons that had nothing to do with medical judgment. Such evidence includes Rasho’s own testimony that Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick each explicitly told him that he was transferred in response to his complaints. The district court discounted Rasho’s testimony on this point as not

12

No. 14-1902

sufficiently unequivocal in its language. But Rasho’s credibility and the weight to be afforded his testimony is a matter for a jury to decide. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge[.]”). Together with his mental health history, the continued prescription of psychotropic medications after his transfer, the testimony from Dr. Matthews regarding his need for mental health treatment and Dr. Garlick’s refusal to allow him to return to the Mental Health Unit, and Dr. Silverberg’s expert testimony, Rasho’s testimony is sufficient to create a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick recommended the transfer as retaliation rather than as a matter of medical judgment.
Furthermore, we reject the suggestion that a reasonable jury could not find that Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick acted in retaliation for Rasho’s grievances simply because those grievances were directed toward other Pontiac staff members. To the contrary, a reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence could be that Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick were motivated either to punish Rasho for his complaints against their colleagues or by a desire to remove a troublemaking inmate before they became the next targets of his complaints.
In addition, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in Rasho’s favor, a jury could conclude that Rasho was harmed as a result of his transfer out of the Mental Health Unit. The district court expressed skepticism that such a causal connection could be proved. But a jury could

No. 14-1902

13

agree with Dr. Silverberg that being transferred out of the Mental Health Unit increased the risk that Rasho’s mental condition would deteriorate, leading to self-mutilation and other self-destructive behavior. That Rasho was capable of getting appropriate and reasonable treatment while in the North Segregation Unit is not dispositive where a jury could find that to have been the case only due to an extraordinary effort by Dr. Matthews.
As an alternative basis for its grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Massa, the district court concluded that Rasho’s claim is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), because he cannot present evidence of a physical injury. Section 1997e(e) provides that “[n]o 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 or the commission of a sexual act.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The district court found that Rasho could not present evidence of a physical injury resulting from his transfer out of the Mental Health Unit and therefore his claim is barred. But Rasho did present evidence of at least one undisputed incident of self-mutilation. That incident is sufficient to satisfy the physical harm requirement. And as discussed above, Rasho has demonstrated that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether that harm is attributable to the increased risk to his mental health resulting from his transfer.
Even if Rasho were unable to point to any physical injury, the lack of such an injury would not bar his claim but rather merely limit the damages he could recover: if Rasho proved his claim, he would still be able to recover nominal

14

No. 14-1902

and punitive damages. Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir. 2016); Calhoun v. Detella, 319 F.3d 936, 941–42 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus the district court erred in suggesting that the lack of a physical injury provided an independent basis to grant summary judgment in Dr. Massa’s favor.
III.
As noted above, in addition to Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick, Rasho also sued three defendants with more tenuous connections to his mental health treatment: Dr. Elyea, Dr. Blank, and Warden Jones. Specifically, Rasho sought to hold Dr. Elyea accountable for his alleged failure to supervise properly the contract between IDOC and its medical provider, Wexford; he asserted a claim against Dr. Blank based on the allegation that she knew the mental health staff at Pontiac was less than half as large as needed to provide adequate care for its inmates and that Wexford’s psychiatrists were not working enough hours to comply with their contractual requirements; and finally, he sued Warden Jones based on the theory that, as the prison official in charge of ensuring proper implementation of the policies and procedures established by IDOC’s Director of Mental Health, Warden Jones was ultimately responsible for the decision to transfer him from the Mental Health Unit to the North Segregation Unit.
But in order to hold an individual defendant liable under § 1983 for a violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights, the inmate must show that the defendant was personally responsible for that violation. Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433, 439 (7th Cir. 2001); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). “A defendant will be deemed to have sufficient personal responsibility if he directed the conduct

No. 14-1902

15

causing the constitutional violation, or if it occurred with his knowledge or consent.” Sanville, 266 F.3d at 740 (internal quotation marks omitted). While the defendant need not have participated directly in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional right to be held liable, he or she must nonetheless have “‘know[n] about the conduct, facilitate[d] it, approve[d] it, condone[d] it, or turne[d] a blind eye for fear of what they might see.’” Matthews v. City of East St. Louis, 675 F.3d 793, 708 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992–93 (7th Cir. 1988)).
As the district court correctly concluded, Rasho has presented no evidence to show that any of Dr. Elyea, Dr. Blank, or Warden Jones was personally responsible for the decision to transfer him out of the Mental Health Unit or otherwise to connect the alleged conduct of those defendants to the deficient mental health care he claims to have received after that transfer. There is no evidence, for example, that Dr. Elyea’s alleged failure to supervise properly Wexford’s contract or Dr. Blank’s alleged failure to promulgate protocols led to Rasho’s transfer or caused him any harm. Nor is there any evidence that Warden Jones knew about, facilitated, approved, condoned, or turned a blind eye toward the psychiatric staff’s purported decision to punish Rasho by transferring him out of the Mental Health Unit.
Rasho also has failed to put forward any facts suggesting that Dr. Elyea, Dr. Blank, or Dr. Jones had any reason to doubt that Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick based their recommendations on anything other than medical judgment. Prison officials generally are entitled to rely on the judgment of medical professionals treating an inmate, see Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 676 (7th Cir. 2012)

16

No. 14-1902

(noting that “jail officials ordinarily are entitled to defer to the judgment of medical professionals”); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 755 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that non-medical prison officials can rely on the expertise of medical personnel and will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands). While Dr. Elyea and Dr. Blank were themselves medical professionals who might ordinarily be held to a different standard than a non-medical prison official, in this case Rasho seeks to hold Dr. Elyea and Dr. Blank accountable as prison administrators and policymakers, not treaters. Rasho has not presented evidence that either of them should have realized that something was amiss with Dr. Massa’s and Dr. Garlick’s transfer recommendation. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment in their favor was appropriate as well.
IV.
As the district court found that Rasho could not show that any of the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, the court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity. But in light of our determination that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on that basis as to Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick, the qualified-immunity defense warrants some discussion.
This Court has construed the Supreme Court’s holding that employees of privately-operated prisons may not assert a qualified-immunity defense also to deny that defense to employees of private corporations that contract with the state to provide medical care for prisoners. Zaya, 836 F.3d at 807 (citing Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 412, 117 S. Ct. 2100, 138 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1997)). Thus, Dr. Massa and Dr.

No. 14-1902

17

Garlick, as employees of the private contractor Wexford, cannot assert qualified immunity as a defense to Rasho’s claims. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 734 (“[Q]ualified immunity does not apply to private medical personnel in prisons.”) (citing Shields v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 794 (7th Cir. 2014)); see also Currie v. Chhabra, 728 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing with approval the Sixth Circuit’s holding in McCullum v. Tepe, 693 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2012), that “a [private] doctor providing psychiatric services to inmates at a state prison is not entitled to assert qualified immunity”).
But even if a qualified-immunity defense were available to them, it would be inappropriate to award summary judgment in Dr. Massa’s and Dr. Garlick’s favors on that basis while such threshold factual questions as their states of mind remain disputed. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 734; see also Zaya, 836 F.3d at 807 (finding summary judgment on a qualified-immunity defense inappropriate because the plaintiff’s claim turned on the defendant’s mental state and “it is well established what the law requires in that regard”). If Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick denied Rasho mental health treatment to retaliate against him for his grievances, then their conduct violates clearly-established law under the Eighth Amendment. For reasons we have discussed above, that is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
V.
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Elyea, Blank, and Jones, but REVERSE the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Massa and Garlick. This case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF IlliNOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) )
)
)

Statement of Compliance

Plaintiffs submit the attached affidavit of Brian Nelson, in compliance with the
Court's Order entered March 3, 2016, that counsel provide Mr. Botello with copies of
the following pleadings:
A. Amended Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, entered August 14, 2015,
B. Settlement Agreement, filed January 21, 2016, C. Second Amended Class Action Complaint, filed April29, 2011, and D. Amended Class Action Complaint, filed May 4, 2009.

s/Alan Mills

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) ) ) )

Affidavit of Brian Nelson I, Brian Nelson, affirm and attest that the following is true and correct under penalty of

perjury: 2. I am an adult over the age of 21 years old. I am employed as the Prison Rights Coordinator at the Uptown Peoples Law Center. 3. Among my responsibilities is reviewing all prisoner correspondence received by UPLC. I categorize the issue addressed in the request for assistance enter the information into a data base and either prepare a form response, request additional information, or forward the letter to one of the attorneys if it relates to a pending case. 4. Due to the large amount of mail received in Rasho et al., v Baldwin et al., I worked with the other counsel representing plaintiffs in Rasho to create and populate a

shared chart to track the requests made by class members, and our responses. The chart is shared by all co-counsel, both to allow tracking of communications, and to ensure that duplicate information is not provided to prisoners who may write more than one counsel. The information collected includes:
A. Lastname B. FirstName C. IDOC Number D. Date of class member's letter requesting information E. Counsel responding F. Date information is sent to class member G. Objection Date H. Class member's prison facility 5. Uptown People's Law Center received a request for information from Mr. Trindad Botello (K76540) on January, 14 2016. 6. On January 21, 2016, I copied the requested documents and placed them in the outgoing mail addressed to Trinidad Botello K76540 at Menard Correctional Center P. 0. Box 1000 Menard, Illinois 62259. 7. On March 4, 2016, at the request of Alan Mills, I sent another set of the requested documents to Trinidad Botello at the same address. This second mailing
included: A. Amended Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, entered August 14, 2015,

B. Settlement Agreement, filed January 21,2016, C. Second Amended Class Action Complaint, filed April29, 2011, and D. Amended Class Action Complaint, filed May 4, 2009. 8. Neither package I sent to Mr. Botello has been returned, so my assumption is that they were delivered as addressed. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. I declare under penalty of perjury, in accordance with 28 U.S. §1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Brian Nelson
March 16, 2016 Date

Certificate of Service
I, Alan Mills, hereby certify that on March 16, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing Statement of Compliance and Affidavit of Brian Nelson with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve a copy of such filing on the following:
Amanda C Antholt
Laura JMiller
Barry Taylor EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC Suite 300 20 N Michigan Chicago, IL 60602 312-432-0400 312-850-2704 (fax)
BarryG Lowy EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC 235 S 5th St POBox276 Springfield, IL 62705-0276 217-544-0464 ext 6015 (fax)
Harold C Hirshman DENTONS US LLP Suite 5900 233 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606-6306 312-876-8000 312-876-7934 (fax)
William R Stone BUSH SEYFERTH & PAIGE PLLC Suite 600 3001 W. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084 248-822-7805 248-822-7001 (fax)

Marc R Kadish Matthew V Wargin MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312-701-8747 312-706-8774 (fax)
Terence JCorrigan
Heidi Hildebrand ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S Second St Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-5819 217-524-5091 (fax)
Brian Michael Smith HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN POBox 129 Urbana, IL 61801-0129 217-344-0060 217-344-9295 (fax)
Is/ Alan Mills
Alan Mills One of the attorneys for the plaintiff class UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1411 773-769-2224 (fax)

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 83

Page 1 of 6

E-FILED

Friday, 19 November, 2010 04:26:45 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS, )

GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH, )

LATERIAL STINSON, and KEITH

)

WALKER,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., )

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, )

DR. WENDY NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA )

MAHONE, EDDIE JONES, DR.

)

WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN

)

GARLIC, DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,

)

and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )

INC.

)

)

Defendants

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG Judge Michael M. Mihm Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

STIPULATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES
Plaintiffs hereby seek preliminary certification of a class for settlement purposes, and in support state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs are individuals with serious mental illness who are inmates in various adult correctional facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). They allege that they have not received adequate or proper care for their mental illness and have received additional punishment as a result of their mental illness. They have brought this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to take prompt action to remedy the alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ and the

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 83 Page 2 of 6
class members’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
2. The original complaint in this matter was filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho pro se. (Docket 1.) On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Rasho, Daniels, Forrest, Smith, Stinson, and Walker, by their undersigned counsel, filed an amended complaint. (Docket 54.)
3. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs’ counsel entered into settlement discussions with counsel for the IDOC and Defendants Walker, Fews, Navarro, Jones, and Elyea (the “State Defendants”). As a result of those discussions, Plaintiffs and the State Defendants ultimately agreed to seek (i) preliminary certification of a settlement class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), and (ii) entry of a Case Management Order (filed herewith) which would provide for expert review of the IDOC’s policies, procedures, and care of mentally ill inmates, with the aim of creating concrete proposals for improving that system which could be the basis of a final settlement.
4. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs now respectfully move this Court for preliminary certification of a settlement class consisting of:
all persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and who, while incarcerated, have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (hereafter "DSM-IV"), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction or any form of sexual disorder shall not by itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of this class definition. 5. Plaintiffs request that this class be certified for settlement purposes only. The State Defendants have agreed to certification for settlement purposes of a settlement class more
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 83 Page 3 of 6
narrowly defined than the class sought by Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint. (The Second Amended Complaint is filed herewith with a motion for leave to file.) In the event this case does not settle, Plaintiffs intend to request class certification for all purposes of a class as defined in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
6. The State Defendants in their turn reserve the right to oppose class certification, or request a different definition of the plaintiff class, in the event this case does not settle.
7. Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), and Drs. Mahone and Massa, who work for Wexford, have not participated in the settlement discussions described in paragraph 3 above and do not agree to the certification of a settlement class.1 Wexford is a forprofit company which provides prison health care services, including mental health services, to the IDOC.
8. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the case continue to be stayed while the expert consultants described in the Case Management Plan completes their work. A stay of the claims, including those against the Wexford Defendants, will conserve the Court’s time and energy, particularly since it is not currently clear whether Wexford will continue to be the IDOC’s health care provider (the contract is currently out for bid), and thus the class claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Wexford may be rendered moot.
9. Together with this motion, Plaintiffs submit a memorandum in support of this motion for certification of the settlement class which sets forth how the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), including the qualifications of Plaintiffs’ counsel to act as class counsel.
1 As directed by the Court at the October 29 status conference, Plaintiffs and counsel for the Wexford Defendants have discussed the status of the case; this is more fully described in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed herewith.
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 83 Page 4 of 6

For the reasons set forth in this motion and the accompanying memorandum of law, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (i) preliminarily certify for settlement purposes the class set forth in paragraph 4 above; (ii) appoint Plaintiffs Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, and Keith Walker as Class Representatives;2 (iii) appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel Marc R. Kadish and Daniel Herrera of Mayer Brown LLP, Alan Mills of the Uptown People’s Law Center, Harold C. Hirshman and Camille Bennett of SNR Denton US LLP, and Barry Lowy of Equip for Equality, as Class Counsel; (iv) stay all matters in this case pending the completion of the expert consultant review; and (v) grant any such further relief as the Court may deem proper or necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

November 19, 2010

/s/ Harold C. Hirshman One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Harold C. Hirshman (ARDC #1226290) Camille E. Bennett (ARDC #6224457) SNR Denton US LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 (phone) (312) 876-7934 (fax) harold.hirshman@snrdenton.com camille.bennett@snrdenton.com

Marc R. Kadish Daniel Herrera Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com dherrera@mayerbrown.com

2 In addition, if the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request that additional Plaintiffs Philip A. Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, and Rasheed McGee also be appointed as Class Representatives.
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 83 Page 5 of 6 Alan Mills Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) Alanmill@aol.com Barry G. Lowy (ARDC #6196719) Equip for Equality 235 S. Fifth St. Springfield, IL 62705 (800) 758-0464 (phone) (217) 523-0720 (fax) contactus@equipforequality.org
- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 83 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on November 19, 2010, she caused the
foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which
will send notice of electronic filing to:
Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-9029 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us
Theresa M. Powell David M. Walter HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN National City Bank Building Suite 575 One N. Old State capitol Plaza P.O. Box 1687 Springfield, IL 62705 tpowell@heylroyster.com dwalter@heylroyster.com
/s/ Camille E. Bennett

 
 Joel M Silberberg, M.D Professor ol Psychiatry University of Navada, Las Vegas campus 4575 Dean Martin Drive
Suite 3209 Las Vegas, NV 89103

Marc R. Kadish Mayer Brown LLP Diro(llor of Pro Bono Activities and Litigation Training 71 South Wacker Driva Suite 1525
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: 312-701-8106 FAX: 312·706·8346 Email: mkadish@mayerbrown.com
RE: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, Plaintiff,
•VS•

No. 11-cv-1308

DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, OR. WENDY NAVARRO,
EDDIE JONES, OR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,

Defendants.

Dear Mr. Kadish:
I have been asked by you to render an expert opinion in the case of Rasho v. Walker et aL At your request, I am submitting the following report.
Medical Records ancl Materials Reviewed and Considered
In order lo provide an expert opinion in thi$ Ca$e, I performed a four and ona•half hour forensic psychiatric evaluation on Ashoor Rasho (Mr. Rasho), did a one-hour collateral interview with psychiatrist Dr. Jose Matthows and roviewed thG following medical end correctional records, and materials provided by you:
Mental Health evaluations Records {Box 1 of 3. Fedex July 17, 2012}
·-Volume 1: 1996- 2000 --Volume 2: 2001 • 2004
Disciplinary Records {Box 2 of 3. Fedex July 17, 2012} •• Volume 1: 1996 and 1997
··Volume 2: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, :wos, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

9bE890.L21U:Ol

8601985202.

9d3Bd3BliS l3or:wod~ 00=10 2102-21-lJD

Grievance and Mlscelfan&ous Correctional. Court and Legal Records {Box 3 of 3. Fedex July 17, 2012}

•• Volume 1: 2000, 2001,2002, 2003, 2004, 2005

:woe, ··Volume 2: 2006, 2007,

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

• Volume 1 ol "Miscsllaneous Records": Correctional, Court and Lsgal

Modica/ and Mental Record$ {6ox 1 of 3. Feaex September 7, 2012} -- 1995 to 2000 {AR012447- AR012877} - 2001 {AR10945 AR011379; ~nd AR011821- AR012446; and AR06619·AR06643; and AR011381· AR011398)
··2002 {AR011399-AR011818}
··2003 (AR00664 - AR006790; AR006023- AR006230) ··2008 {AR004520 - AR004658} -2009 {AR004659 - AR004779} ··2010 {AR004780- AR004888}
-2011 {AR004889 - AR005036}

Tamms {Box 2 of 3. Fedex September 7, 2012} ··Tamms 4111195 to 7/29198 {AR008805 AR009265} -Tamms 7/30198 to 512199 {AR009266- AR009671}
••Tamm3 512199 to 5125/00 (AR009672 - AR01 0445} "·Tamms 5125/00to 12/15100 {AR10446~AR10940} --Tamm$ 1995 to 2000 Medication Admini$tration Rocord, Prescription Orders, Laboratory Reports -Tamms 1995 to 2000 O<:~ntsl and Vision Records -Tamms 1995 to 2000 weekly M.D. Round$

Miscellaneous (Box 3 of 3. Fadex September 7, 2012}
··Miscellaneous Records 1995 to 1999 {AR007663 - AR008099} ··Miscellaneous Records 2000 to 2001 {AR008100 AR006406; and AR12883. AR13028} ··Miscellaneous Records 2002 (AR13029 -AR13186}
··Miscellaneous Records 2003 (AR0013187·AR0013272; and AR006231·AR006836; and AR008553-
AR008604; and AR006508·AR006618; and AR006242· 006507; and AR006863- AR007032 -Miscellaneous Records 2007 {AR004516·AR004517) -Miscellaneous Recorda 2010 (AR004518· AR004519)

Modica/ Progress notes (Elox 1 of 2. Feaex September 13, 2012} --Progress notos 2004 and 2005

Medical Progl"flS$ notes {Sox 2 of2. Fedox Sopt9mb9r 13, 2012} --Progress notes 2006, 2007, and 2008

Deposllion Trsnscripts and !Exhibits
·-Ashhoor Rasho {No Exhibits), Apri126, 2012 ··Michael F. Massa, M.D. {No Exhibits}. April29, 2012 ·-Willard, Elyea, M.D. {Exhibits 1 - 8}. June 25, 2012
••John M. Garlick, Psy. o, {Exhibits 1- 8}. June 26, 2012
··Wendy 61ank (Navarro), F'sy. D. {Exhibits 1- 4}. June 26, 2012 ··Eddie JOnlils (Exhibits 1 - 6}. August 30, 2012

Pontiac Admini$lralive Direct/vas Psychiatric Evalw;ltlon of Mr. Rasho by Robert C Chapman, M.D. SC, November 7, 2005 (AR000569-
AR000572). Preliminary !Evaluation of Mr. Resho by Kathryn A. Bums, M.D .. 1999

2

9bE8902.21ET:Ol

860198£202.

9~38~38liS l3or:wo~~ 00=10 2102-21-lJO

Portion of an Expert Report by Kathryn A. Burns, M,D, (pages 18 and 19 pertaining to Mr, Rasho} which was completed for plaintiffs' counsel in a class action concerning Tamms Correctional Center. Mr. Rasho was the first named plaintiff, This evaluation was done In 2004 based on his then up to date medical records. She did n<:>t int~;~rview him.
A six•pege settlement demand letter dated August 4, 2011 with Exhibits A through F
Severed Complaint flied on August 9, 2011
Illinois Deparlment of Corrections, AnnrJal Rt~porl FY2010: http://www2,illinois,gov/idoclreportsandstatistlcs/Pages/Annua1Raports.aspx. According to the IDOC 2010 annual report, the average daily population in the IDOC in 2010 was 45,981.
1/linoisprobono,org: "Prisoner's Rights."
NstionliJI Alliance on Menta/Illness, Matters of Fact- Illinois, April 2005: "The Illinois Department of Corrections conservatively estimates that 16 percent of inmates suffer from mental illness, lour or five times higher than rates of mental illness among the general population. Experts agree that these estimates are routinely low as correctional facilities do not have the capacity for assessment end diagnosis.''
John Howard Association Monitoring Tovr of Pontiac Corroctional Center - February 16, 2010
Cases during the Past Four Years that I Testlfiod in as an Expert at Trial or Deposition
Depositigns
1. Colleen Schroinor v, Stephen A. Reiter, M.O. Circuit Court for the County of Ablemarle, Virginia No. CL07001304- 00 1/15/09
2. Curtis Mason v. City of Chicago, et al, United States District Court for the Northern Distrtct of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 07 C 4763 4/15/09
3. Suzanne Valerie, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Anthony McManus, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. Valerie Ansell, et al,
United states District Court for the Wastarn District of Michigan, Northern Division No. 2:07-cv-5 05/15/09 4. John Richardson and Deborah Richardson, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of
John Wesley Richordson, docoased, v. Tonya S. Anderson, A, R.N. P., and Trimark Physicians
Group, Inc., d/b/a "PocahoniO$ Fomily Practice". Law No. LACV125911 11/23/09 5. Larry Scott v. City of Chicago, at al.
c United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Eastern Division
No. 07 3684 12/10/09 6. Kathleen Baudlno, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Frank Baudlno, Deceased v, Joseph Corvallis, M.D. Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois Case No. 08 L 1224 12115/09

9bE890.L21U:Ol

860198£20.!_

~d38d38liS l3or:wod~ 00=10 2102-21-lJO

u. 7. Joe Hannon, Guardian of the Estate of Thomas Hannon, a Disabled Adult, v. Dr. Nalla Ourai. Circuit Court of Lee County, Illinois, for the 15~ Judicial Circuit No. 05 L 14 08/3/10 8. Carlock v. Sangamon County Sheriiff, et at.
United States District Court- Springfield Division No. 3:06-cv-03075 01/24/11
9. Alexander Mendez and Claire Manda:z, Plaintiffs, v. Vill~ge of Tinley Park; a Municipal
Corporation, et at.. Defendants. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division No. 08 L 2477 04/28/11
10. Jill C. Valenti, Petitioner, v. Thomas P. Valenti, Respondent.
Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department- Domestic Relations Division No. 07 D 1549 07/14/11
11. Sandy Parfait, Individually and as Independent Administrator of tha Estate of Claire Parfait, daceaaed, Plaintiff, v, Flora Baetiong. M.D .. Defendant.
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division No. 07 L 2093 08/9/11
12. Cynthie F'rauta-1-lahn, Executor of the Estate of John 0. Hahn, docoasod, Plaintiff, v. Amhe!'llt
Family Practice, P.O. and Jefferson F. Llvermon, JR., M.D.. Defendants. Circuit Court for the City of Winchastlilr, Manassas, Virginia
Law Number CL10 • 207
10/12/11 13. Rosemary Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Heartland Regional Medical Center, and Paul R. Epp. M.D..
Defendants. Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri Case No. 10BU- CV04475; Div. 3 01/16/12 14. Tha Estate of Linda Sanders, by the Personal Representatives James F. Sanders ana Shelly
Sanders, Plaintiff, v. Moulton's Pharmacy, Inc.; Fred Aubert, M.D.; White•Wilson Medical Canter,
P.A., end Diana Melazzo, D.O.. Defendants. Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County, Florida Case No. 2010 CA 005369C 04/23/12
15. George Bromley, Individually, and as next friend of Rebecca Bromley, a Minor, Plaintiffs, v. Melvin Cohen, M.D. and ZA and Associates. Defendants.
District Court of Bexar County, Texas. 45'" Judicial District Case No. 2011 - Cl • 09366 04/30/12
Trial Testimony
1. None In tast tour years
Compensation Paid for rny Study (and Future Testimony)
My fee for forensic services was and currontty is $350 per hour for record review, preparation of report(s)
and telephone conferences to discuss substantiv(l i$$U9$ ~bout the case.
For forensic interview, collateral interviews, research, deposition, and court testimony my daily rate was and currently Is $2,800 per day or $350 per hour including travel time (if this is less than $2,800 per day).
4

Sl>!.'d

9bS:890!.21U=Ol

860198520!.

9d38d38l IS l30f :eiOd.::l 10 : 10 2102-21 -DO

Relevant Publications
1. Kravit;:, H,K, Davis, J.M, Silberberg, J.M. Reducing Recidivism Among Mentally Ill Offenders: The Role or Psychotropic Medication in Correctional Psychiatry. P!i!yQhiatrjg Annals, 31: No 7: 409-418, July 2001
2. Contributor, "Correctional Mental Health Care: Standards 3nd GuidQiinos for Delivering Services." A National Commission on Correctional Health Care Publication, November 2003
Qualifications
1 have knowledge of accepted standards of medical care for the diagnosis, care, and treatmant of psychiatric disorders including but not limited to psychosis, deprassion, mania, anxiety, substance abuse/dependence and organic mental disorders: the standards lor the evaluation of and monitoring of traatment with psychotropic medications; and for the assessment and reduction of risk to self or others in
all levels ot care In correctional settings and in the community. 1am a physician, who is board certified in
the field of psychiatry with added qualifications in forensic psychiatry. 1 have been practicing medicine continuously since I completed my residency in psychi10try in July 1964. I have been a practicing and academic psychiatrist since July 1964.
I have treated many of thoso soriously montally ill offonders/patlents in all levels of correctional settings, and In the community in inpatient, consultation liaison, and amargancy room and outpatient settings since 1984. As a practicing and academic p$ychiatrist responsible for teaching medical students, residents and fallows, I have bean responsible, as Medical Director tor four years, for the supervision of clinical $taff in a two hundred bed slate hospital in Illinois. I have been responsible, as Director of Mental Health Services lor three years. for the supervision of clinical staff at Cermak Health Services of Cook Correctional, the largest public health facility in the state of Illinois. From 2002 until 2006 I traated patients. and supervised and taught residents and fellows who treat patients, at The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas in inpatient, consultation liaison, emergency room and outpatient settings. From 2007 to 2011, 1have been Oivlslon Director of Forensic Psychiatry at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine where 1 treated patients, and supervised residents and medical students who treat patients, and consulted with faculty who treat patients. 1transitioned over to private practice of psychiatry and forensic psychiatry although I remain<:ld affiliatad with the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University as an Associate Professor of Psychiatry until August 2012. I am currently a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Navada School of Medicine, Las Vegas campus where I practice consultation liaison ~nd omorgoncy psychiatry, and talapaychiatry. I maintain a nation-wide private practice of forensic psychiatry.
I have been a Physician Surveyor, National Commission on Correctional Health Care since December 2000. I have served as a Reviewer lor the Journal of Correctional Health Cara since April 2007. I taught correctional officars at South Suburban College about mental health issues and mental health emergencies in corrections from 2000 until 2002. I have knowledge and experience about acceptable standards lor the governance. leadership, supervision and administration of a large correctional facility. 1 know the standards for governance and care of detainees/offenders in correctional settings, the role of medical autonomy in such settings, the right to access to care and the right to mental health treatment for the seriously mentally ill offender.
Pertinent Summary of the Facts from tho Materials Reviewed ami Considered
Mr. Rasho was incaroomtcd for his curront GEmtence In the IDOC in1996. For his currant $EJntence he has been lncarc<'lratod at Stale$ViiiQ Correctional Center (Stato$villo) and Tamm$ Correctional Center
(TAMMS). 1-le was transferred to Pontiac Corractional Center (Pontiac) on NovQmber 7, 2003 until
March 22, 2011 when ha was lr:iinsferred to Statesville. He was transferred back to Pontiac, and is currently Incarcerated at Pontiac.
5

Sl>8 'd

9bS:890!.21U=Ol

860198520!.

9d38d38l IS l30f :eiOd.:l 10 : 10 2102-21 -DO

On 7/22/98 Frank w, Hayes, M.D. at TAMMS gave him an Axis I diagnosis of Dysthymic Disorder with an
Intermittent Explosive Element and Dissociative Disorder, and an Axis Ill diagnosis of suspected brain damage from a 1968 gunshot wound to the head and/or brain damage secondary to rabies. Like most inmates with behavior problems he also was given an Axis II diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.
On 71281913 Frank w. Hayes, M.D. at TAMMS gave him an Axis 1 diagnosis of dtagnosas of Dysthymic
Disorder with an lntermlttant explosive Elemant and Dissociative Disorder, Provisional. At this time Dr. Hayes added Axis 11 cliagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder and Personality Disorder secondary to trauma; and added an Axis Ill diagnosis of Psychomotor Epilepsy. Provisional. Subsequent Axis I diagnoses were Psychosis NOS, Atypical P3ycho&i&, and P&ychosis NOS vs Brief P$ychotic E;pi$OdEI$, controllad with medication. Oue to medication noncompliance socondory to his psychosis. Mr. Rasho was placed on enforcad madication,
On 9116198 Frank W. Hayes at TAMMS writes: "The patient was told of my desire for him to be on enforced medication• and "Transfer all medical (including psychiatric) responsibility and authority ovar this case to the Medical Director. Dr. Powers STAT." Since this lima Mr, Rasho had
Axis I diagnosis of No Diagnosis (On 9118/98, Kelly A. Rhodes, Ph. D) with documentation of "Inmate stated he had the 'urge' to cut. Later stated that he was hearing voices at the time" Substance Abuse Disorder by history (On 10126198 James E. Adams, M.D .• Psychiatrist) with documentation ""Decrease Haldol to 2 mg bid x 1 month, Decrease Cogentin to 1 mg bid x 1 month. Continue Haldol 5 mg IM q 6 hrs PRN for observable agitation and chart response. Continue Valproio acid 1000 mg bid x I month. Obtain serum level of Vatproic ACid. Continue Prozac 20 mg q am x I month. Current decrEtii$EI in Haldol and Cogentin aimed at resolution of induced aide effec::ts. He needs to develop better means of coping which is apt to require some time and limit setting" No oi~gnosis (On 215198 Bonnia Ek$trom, M.A.. Mental Health ProfO$$ional) Psychotic Disorder, NOS (On 10126198 James E. Adams, M.D .. Psychiatrist) with documentation "No abnormal cognitions or perceptions. He's previously alluded to hearing a voice but is by report only recalling what is said in his head and is not thought to be hallucinated as such. Change to Vatproic Acid 750 mg at 11 :00 (am) and qhs x 2 months, Increase Doxepin to 150 mg qhs x 1 month." Dementia Secondary to a General Medical Condition (On 7115199 E. Wainer, Psy. D. in a neuropsychological screening) with documentation: "Inmate suffers from significant neurobehavloratlmpairment showing deficits in language processing, memory, reasoning, as well as attention." Dementia sacondary to a General Medical Condition (On 7/2/00 Jill Stevens. M.A.) with documentation "Inmate Rasho wa$ pra$ent in the group treatment room for the video, 'Ferris auollor's Day Off.' Ha $milect and laughed throughout mo3t of the movie. Affect was generally bright. Domoanor was basically cooperativa and pleasant." "Deferred" (On 9115100 R, Chandra. M.D., Psychiatrist) with documentation "He continues on his current medication with no change. This lncluda$ Rispardal 0.5 mg bid, Sor<:ono 200 mg tid, Prozac 20 mg onoe a day, and Benadryl, which has been incr!lasad from 50 mg that ha was getting before to 100mg. He is doing well with no specific difficulties or problems ~I this time. plan to see him at his next regularly scheduled appointment."
In a report dated 04103/99 Katherine Burns, M.D .. M.P.H. narrowed down her differential diagnosis on Mr. Rasho on Axis I to Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, with Psychotic Features or Schizophrenia, Undifferentiatad Type. She narrowed down her differential diagnosis on Mr. Rasho on Axis lito aorderline Personality Disorder or Schizotypal Personality Disorder. She states: "All the diagnoses listecl for Mr. Rasho are serious mental illnesses based on their auration and dagree of disability (impairment) they cause." Or. Burns described serious mental Illness Is one that is a diagnosable condition of substantial duration causing some degree or disability or impaired functioning. She added that Mental He;;.lth Staff at TAMMS felled to acknowledge appropriate mental health diagnoses, and attributed behaviors symptom<~tic of serious mental illn()SS to willful misconduct,
6

9bE8902.21U:Ol

8601985202.

9d3Bd3BliS l3or:wod~ 10=10 2102-21-lJD

denying treatment to inmates with serious mental illness and needlessly prolonging pain and suffering.
In a report for a fitness hearing on November 7, 2005, Robart E. Chapman, M.D., S.C. makes an Axis I Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder Type I -with childhood onset; Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Acquired Type secondary !o rabies encephalitis; and Dementia due to Gonorai Madiool Condition. Robert E. Chapmen, M.D., S.C. makes an Axis II Diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Oi$ordor and Bordorlino Personality OiGorder. He reported: "He suffers a sen$e of impending
doom, mood swings, depression, and has a tendency toward addic;tivG bohavior and inaccurate self-
observation."
Mr. Rasho was transferred to Pontiac on November 7, 2003 with a well-documented history of sMcus
mental illness of hallucinations, psychosis, psychotic agitation, poor impulso control and depressive
symptoms which when not controlled by medication and a structured therapeutic environment manifestad acutely through self-mutilation and suicide attempts. Prior to Iran sfe r to Pontiac, Mr. Rasho had been treated with a wide variety of psychotropic medications, including Haldol (haloperidol), risperdal (risperldone), depakote (valproic acid), Sinaquan (doxepin), Wellbutrln (bupropion), Prozac {fluoxetine), Remeran (mirtazapine), Serzone (Nefazodone) and auspar (buspirone). Mr. Rasho had relapsed off his medications and at times and became so seriously Ill necessitating enforced medications to get back him
back to a safe clinical condition.
Mr. Rasho's mental health was reasonably stable for sevaral months alter his transfer from TAMMS to Pontiac, but es seriously m<;mtally Ill patients do, he beg~n to refuse medication$ in April 2004 and to self-mutilattil. At this lima Or. Kowalkowski (Pontiac psyehi~trist) tronsfcrrod Mr. Resho to the Mental Health Unit.
Altar baing transferred to Pontiac's Montal Health Unit by Or. Kowalkowski, Mr. Rasho resumed medication and stabilized. However, as sariously mantally ill patients do, he subsGquently refused his medication, and began again to self-mutilate and during November 2004 and October 2005 he cut himself five to six times, requiring several stitches avery time. In 2005 Or, Garlick did a placement review and recommended that Mr, Rasho should remain in the Mental Health Unit. In 2005 Or.
Christine Fletcher added Schizophrenia to Mr. Rasho's diagnosis on Axis 1 and made a notation about
his past suicide attempts, On June 28, 2005 Dr. Fletcher was prescribing Mr. Rasho Geodon 80 mg po bid (twice daily), Buspar 5 mg tid (three times per day) and Benadryl 75 mg po hs (at night). This self· destructive behavior secondary to his serious mental illness and episodic medication non-compliance continued Into 2006. Yet, despite his well-documented serious mental illness and ongoing selfdestructive conduct secondary !o psychosis, Or. Massa (Psychiatrist) and Or, Garlick (Supervising Clinical Psychologist), as tha leaders of the treatment !earn, transferred Mr. Rasho Into the North Sogrogation Unit (North Seg).
According to Mr. Rasho he was transferred out of tho Mental Hoalth Unit because he cornplained about staff in the Mental Health Unit, and his mental condition subsequently deteriorated further with repeated self-injurious behavior. He was even returned, via datarrnination of Dr. Garlick and Or. Massa, to North Segregation alter thE! incident when ha cut himself with a sprinkler haad requiring fifteen stitch as. Whila on North Segregation Unit Or, Massa continued to prescribe high doses of antipsychotics and antidepressants even though Mr. Rasho had recently cut his right arm daeply and had a longstanding history of sarious mental illness on Axis 1.
Despite the harsh and counter therapeutic conditions on North Segregation Unit, there were periods of time whsn Mr. Rasho's Axis I serious mental illness responded to treatment
• On May 16,2008 Melvin Koko, M,D,, Psychiatrist, notes an Axis I diagnosis of Impulse Control Disorder and rules out Antisocial Personality disorder on Axis II. Or. Koko notes a previous good response to Depakene, and recommends to titrate the Depakene up to 750mg to 1OOOmg per day
7

Sl>01 'd

9bS:890!.21U=Ol

860198520!.

9d38d38l IS l30f :eiOd.:l 20 : 10 2102-21 -DO

• On September 9, 2008 Jose Matthews, M.D.. Psychiatrist, notes a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder,
NO$ and that Mr. Rasho was stable on Depakene (Valproic acid) lor mood stabilization, and he suggested the addition of Celexa (Citalopram) to treat his residual depression.
Sentencing Information from IDOC shows that Mr. R11sho should only have been incarcerated for
thirteen years. Mr. Rasho now has a projected discharge date of September 30, 2024. Mr. Rasho
accumulated much segregation time for disciplinary infractions most likely caused by hia undertreated
and often untreated sarious mental iilnesa (Axia I) but not considered as such by the Adjustment Committee. From January 17,2003 until July 12,2010 Mr. Ra~ho had forty Tickets, many with multiple
offMsas and disciplinary action, lor whieh he was only found "not guilty" on two OCc:!lsions. For example, the Adjustment Committaa Report for offenses 202, 403, 304 and 102, signed by Warden E. Jan A$, did net take serious mental illness into account in the final recommendations. Mr. Rasho's serious Axis I mental illness was not mentioned In most of the disciplinary hearings. Mr. Rasho will
actually spend much more time in prison due to discipline secondary to his serious Axis I mental illness
than for his original time sentenced.
Review of depositions revealed that IDOC has only lour adult correctional facilities that provide any sort of specialized mental health services at all and contain a specialized mental health unit: Pontiac, Dixon Correctional Center ("J2!.!l.2Q"), TAMMS and Dwight Correctional Center. In addition there Is even inadequate access to available beds in these mental health units lor treatment of inmates with serious mental Illness.
In his deposition Eddie Jones described the harsh conditions al Pontiac. He said thai any housing unit In Pontiac Is kind of gloomy. He mentioned that he had never accompanied mental health professionals on their rounds, Ho roport~;~d that thera were (prior to his retirement) one hundred plus cells in North Segregation and around sixty plus cells in Mental Health Unit where most cells are open bar cell$. Tha Mantal Haalth Unit is the South Half (Unit), and the noise level in the Mental Health Unit is "very mellow and quiet at times and sometimes can be a little nowdy but most of the tim& the noise level is low". He stated that North segregation ls for some of the higher aggressive offenders (not by written policy, just by practice) and most of the cells have perforated doors, not open bars, and that cells do not have windows, He described that North Segregation can be noisy. He said that on North Segregation generally mental health would be talking to the mentally ill offender from tho other sldo of the perforated door. He stated that either the offender or porters (other offenders) cleaned the North Segregation cells.
Review of IDOC and Pontiac policies, practices, protocols, and/or customs enacted, Implemented, and/or carried out by Walker, Elyea, Navarro, Jones, Garlick and Massa demonstrated the nexus to the failure to provide constitutionally-required mental health care to Mr. Rasno for ttls serious mental illness, and to his punitive housing on the North Segregation Unit.
Monitoring Tour of Pontiac Correctional Center by slx John Howard Association personnel on February 16, 2010
On F"'b. 16 ~ gnoup of six John Howard Association personnel and volunteers conducted a monitoring tour of Pontiac Correctional Contor. Ponti~c consi$ts prim<trily of " m<tximum socurity unit which inoludos pri$Onci'S in disciplinary-related segregation or protective custody and "Death Row". There is an adjoining medium security unit.
Summary No vocational and littla educational opportunity for many inmates, but prison management Is attempting to improve opportunities lor other prisoners.
Issues Relevant to the case of Mr. Rasho
General Description: Pontiac's maximum security segregation inmates, most sel'lling long or life-term sentences, include some of the most disruptive Individuals in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Among them are inmates believed to present a serious threat to staff and other inmates.
a

ST H'd

9b[890d.cTU:Ql

860T98Sc0d.

9d38d38l IS l30f' :1-,0d.:J 20 : TO 2 TOe- 2 T- lJO

They typically come from other prisons where they committed serious offenses and are held lor months
or years In segregation at Pontiac. Of the approximataly 1,200 maximum sacurlty Inmates, 580 are held
in disciplinary· related segregation status. They receive virtually nothing in the way of education, vocalional training or other rehabilitative programs. Most of the remaining maximum security inmates are
in Protective Custody end they, like the approximately 490 medium socurity inmates, have somo aocass
to oduc~tion and othor prOgram$ but no vocational training. The Inmates segregated for disciplinary reasons are treated to a more restrictive regime than inmatas in gan.;~ral population at other prison$. For example, they are not allowed to purchase food from the commissary and must subsist exclusively on
the soy-based diet fed to state inmates.

Segregated Inmates' time out of call Is more limited than general population inmates and they may be
allowed to shower only three times a week. Other than a small GEO program which can accommodate about 30 Inmates at a time, there are no educational programs for segregated inmates.
For example, Pontiac's segregated Inmates include many with a history of violence. Despite this, there is
no anger management program for them. Inmates are instead given a booklet which offers tips on anger
management. Prison management said lack of staff and money prevent them frOm offering programs to
sagr&gated inmates. Many of Pontiac's inmates are deeply problematic and access to programs would require extensive security staffing.

Manta/ Health: A consistent complaint among maximum security inmates was the absence of
educational and rehabilitative program$. As might be expected, Pontiac Inmates require mora mental
hoolth services than that of an ordinary prison popul$tion. Daapite that need, Pontiac has for a year and
a half had an unfilled position for o clinicol psychologist. Or. John Garlick oversees care for the
approximately 50 inmates currently housed in Pontiac's mental health unit, which has 98 calls. Garlick
said ha expects the unit will be fully occupied once ha has the assistance of the olinloal psychologist, an
indication there is an unmet need lor more mental health care.

Infrastructure: The maximum security callblocks at Pontiac are utterly obsolete. Some of the prison's
buildings date to 1871. Most inmates are housed In long, linear galleries with multiple tiers of cells.
Such design makes supervision of inmates more difficult than current prison architecture, which calls for
smaller units of inmates who can be observed from a central position. The medium security housing
units at Pontiac, built In the mid·1970s, are of the more contemporary X house design. In winter,
Pontiac's maximum security segregation inmates cellblocks derive their warmth from a central heating plant. This and the archaic design of the prison lead to wide variations in temperature which are difficult or impossible to control. One cellblock might be cool but tolerable at floor level, for example, but too hot
on a top tier near the ceiling. Buildings in the m~;~ximum security prison are spread out over e wioe
arM. TrMsporting inmatos botwoon thorn can bo limo consuming for steff.

!CLINICA~ tNTEIIVIeW

.. ::

Mr. Rasho was interviewed on Sunday, August 26, 2012, for four ond one- half hours in the visiting area of Pontiac Correctional Canter.

Mr. Rasho is a thirty-eight ye~r old, right-handed, white male born In Iraq on June G, 1975. He reported that his mother, father and younger brother moved to Midland, Texas when he was four years old, and
they moved to Chicago when he was eight years old. Mr. Rasho has been incarcerated for his current
sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IOOC) since 1996. He was transferred to Pontiac on
November 7, 2003 and remained there until March 22, 2011, and this forensic psychiatric evaluation
focuses on Mr. Rasho's mental condition, level of function, treatment and custodial care during this time period.

Complaint

Mr. Raaho reported he waa housed in North Segregation Unit from 2006 to 2011 with a short time in "east and Wost." Mr. Rasho reported he was transferred in 2006 to North Segregation Unit from the Mental

9

9bE890.L21U:Ol

860198£20.!_

~d38d38liS l3or:wod~ E0:10 2102-21-lJO

Health Unit because he complained about staff in the Mental Health Unit. He reported that he has been in solitary confinement since 2006. He reported that corrections often punished him when he was distracted by "the voices" and "because of this punishment I came here (Pontiac) with eight years and now 1have thirty years, Sometimes I would be Irritable and get Into a fight and I deliberately got locked up because or rear or loosing control or being afraid of hurting others. I have hurt others in the past with sex mutilation and eating blood. Thera is something wrong with me but medications help to calm me down, This (modications calming mo down) hns boon truo all my lifo spcoiolly Hnldol and Gcodon. Haldol has been the beat thing for me since 'Juvy". The TAMMS or Mental Health Unit help to calm me down and not feel so worried about g.;orms and poisoning and I feel mora comfortable to speak about my
issues. The rats and smelly cells are much worse on North Segregation Unit. No one cleans up the
smell on North Segregation Unit. I need Mental Health Unit because I do not want to catch more cases."
History of Complaint
Mr. Rasho responded in detail to questioning in regard to his time in Pontiac's North Segregation Unit. Mr. Rasho reported that he was very seldom allowed out of his cell or to h ave interaction with other prisoners, and he h a d I i ttl e access to mental health professionals except for very quick visits, monthly, at the most, by psychiatry and social work/mental health workers. He reported that he had many grievances In regard to his request to transfer to tne Mental Health Unit due to his worsening depression, voices and "hurting myself' on North Segregation Unit, and was often told by Warden eddie Jones: "Nature of your grievance could not be determined".
Mr. Rasho reported that in North Segregation Unit he had no "treatment privacy" and was forced to have talks with mental health staff that could be heard by correctional staff and by some other prisoners, He reported denying/minimizing voices, depression and suicidal thoughts to keep his "prison mask of toughneas", This gave Garlick a reason not to provide treatment to him "as if he needed a reason." Sometimes this public embarrassment would "make me mad and I would refuse meds and that would be it. They would not try to change my mind."
Mr, Rasho roported: "Or. Matfhews haa saved me by seeing me in North Segregation Unit for the past few months. He listens to mo and givos mo Rispordal, and Cogentin and Ativan for side effects. 1am afraid I will got sick again when he leaves."
Review of Current symptoms
"I am doing much better at present due to Or. Matthews but I still hava problams. My mood is sad. and 1 feel anxiety and agitated at times and I have periods when I am very anxious and I can feel my heart pound and I get restless and fear losing control. I threatened Garlick and his family because sometimes the voices tell me my food is being poisoned and cameras have been put in my cell. I 'doze up' but do not sleep well, I have nightmares about self-mutilation and cannibalism. I pace and clean but at the same time feel tired with no energy. My concentration Is better but still not goOd. At times 1search for microphones and wash the cell to get rid of chemicals that 'they' put in the vent ol my cell. Angus and Garlick are putting stuff in my medication. I am fighting the urge not to cut myself or hurt myself almost
every day. I do not have that urge today maybe because I am busy. iha best way to fight the voices or
the urge to hurt mysolf is to stay busy. Thinking about my case or about a grievance keeps my mind busy and halps to decrease the voices or to decrea$o:> tho o:>ffoct thoy have on me becau$e of the bad things they say,"
He attributed doing better to seeing Or, Matthews two hours per week since he wa$ back at Pontiac. "Under Dr. Matthews my symptoms are still there but I can at least manage not to act on tham [voices], or have violent outbursts or a strong drive to cut my arms deep. I think his medications help me and it helps to have someone to talk to. I don't trust anybody after he leaves. I don't trust the rest. 1think they work in a secret society. Prior to Or. Matthews, I was lvcky if I was seen one time per month by the psychiatrist
for tan to fifteen minutes at the best. and by a social worker or mental health worker. I am now on
Risperdal, Ativan and Cogentin, Or. Matthews takes me serious and treats me like a person. Dr. Garlick
10

9bC8902.21:U:Ol

8601:98£202.

9d38d38liS l30f :f.IOd.:l CO : W 21:02-21: -DO

thinks 1am bullshitting [malingering) even though he has hardly spent time with me. Dr. Matthews just resigned. Dr. Blank [Navarro] just resigned too. This is all because of Or. Garlick, and I am fearful what he will do to me now."
Medical History
Mr. Rashc reported that he contracted rabies encephalitis at age saven or eight years old from the bite en his right ring and index finger from a "rat lhallooked like a rabbit". He got a lot or shots, was In a coma, had seizures and spent a long time in the hospital,
Hs rsportod docroasod haaring in his right oar sin co 2010. Ha roportod chost pains most likoly duo to pneumonia. He takas medication for back pain.
Psychiatric History
He recalled his first incarceration in "Adult" at age seventeen years old (burglary) and then at nineteen years old (robbery), He reported that both times he was placed on Haldol and other medications. He reported that he received Haldol and other medications when he was incarcerated at age twenty-one
years old in 1996 for burglary. He reported "a good" response in 2003 at TAMMS to the combination of Geodon 60 to 80 mg per day and Ooxapin 100 to 150 mg per day because "this combination decreases
my urge to be violent against myself, my anxiety, my depression and my voices. The voices mock me and talk bad about me, ~cmetime~ bud sax thing~. ~cmetimes laugh at me. When I was younger the voices use to tell me to kill my family, and I thought they were not hurnan. I recogni~a now that the voice Is a men's voice." He reported that when he was off these medications in 2004 at Pontiac he began to cut himsolf again and "one time I threw feces In the face of a nurse because I thought she was ignoring my request for pain msdication for my cum.'
He reported a long history "of being paranoid around paopla. I get too nervous out there. As an adolescent I did not like crowded places such as Kiddie Land or Great America. I would get panicky."
He reported that his obsession with germs and being poisoned "were made worse on North Segregation Unit with rats, stinking cells, always noisy, aggressive officers [much worse than on Mental Health Unit] and nobody to talk to for days on end. At least in Mental Health Unit I could sometimes get some mental
health care by their programming, and going to the yard for a short time each day. The nurses were more
attentive and even bothered to ask me about side effects, sleep, sadness end voices. The officers were not looking to make a fight over there [Mental Health Unit],"
He reported that North Segregation Unit had mor~;~ rats lilnd was much more smelly than Mental Health Unit, end he would hava perioda of time when he would become "obsessed with garms and being poisonod by othors. At this time cutting or washing or throwing feces helped me to calm down. Does not make sensa but that did calm me down."
He reported that the noise In North Segregation Unit would make the voices louder, and with ths "loudar voices" he reported a "need to cut myself because they [voices] would not go away. Tho voices come and go. They get better [less] when I take my medication or when I try to distract myself by doing stuff such as reading the Bible."
He reported periods of time when he would "out of the blue feel sad and doomed and on a mood rollercoaster ride even when not angry with the nurses or Garlick. Garlick (I feel] diagnosed me with a five-minute session. He tninKs 1am just antisocial an~ do not need mental health [treatment]."
Mr. Rasho reported a psychiatric history consistent with the extensive records reviewed by me In regard to the derogatory voices, obsessions and self-mutilation that have consistently responded to various Mtipsychotics, mood stabilizers and antidepressants. His description of $ymptoms and response to medications was consistent over time and throughout this four ond one-half hour interview. He reported that at times he stopped medication duo to "feeling like I was jumping out of my $kin [akathisia]. With the
11

9bE8902.21ET:Ol

860198£202.

9~38~38liS l3or:wo~~ 170:10 2102-21-lJO

Cogentin and Ativan 1no longer get that. Sometimes I would also stop medications when I thought Pontiac staff was trying to poison me. The medication that has helped me best is Haldol or Geodon for the voices, and Doxepin for anxiety and sleep. I have been on Haldol and other 'psych mads' since I was twelve or thirteen years old. I will remain on medications because I do not want to catch more cases. I do not remember mental health speaking up for me on any of my disciplinary hearings. Garlick speaks as If he knows me but he just judges me as "bullshitting' and often says about me "that's a security issue.' I shut down, don't talk, don't comunicate when I feel mistreated or misjudged by mental health or correctional staff."
In regard to responea to $p\lcific p$ychotropic m~>dication, Mr. R;~$ho raported: "Sinequan [Ooxepin] decreased my anxiety and decreased my heart pounding. Wellbutrin made me 'snap', cut myself, feel high and nat feel right Remoran was the same as Wellbutrin and it also gave me a rash. Suspar was good to decrease my anxiaty. Prozac helped to stabilize my mood, improve my concentration, slow my worry down and slow my urge to hurt myself. I hated forced medication, because I do have pride, but they did help me. Risperdel decreased my agitation, paranoia (;~bout Angus] and made it easier for me to get along with others."
He reported that Dr. Kowalkoski transferred him to the Mental Health Unit in spring 2004 because he
stopped taking his medication and began to cut himself. At first he took medications and then needed forced medications and was "doing ok and benefitting from groups and treatment". He reported: "I had problems from November 2004 until October 2005 with cutting myself badly five to seven times. In regard to the voices Emd depression I was benefitting from treatment. On a time when a staff member told me 'call mo when you hit an artery' I thought poison gas was coming out of the sprinkler head.
Soon after this incident in 2006 I think I was transferred out to North Segregation Unit due to my grievances. I was disappointed in myself but I did complain about mental staff in grievances. 1should have not blamed them, Or, Massa agreed with Dr. Garlick (!ven though 1know 1told him about the voices, fear of being poisoned, depression and the urge to hurt myself, I have caught about thirteen
years for assaulting officers/nurses since 2006 because of the voices and agitation and thinking some staff are poisoning me or watching me [hidden cameras In my call]."
Substance Uso History
He reported mat as an adolescent and young adult he used street drugs to stop the pain In my head. When asked further about the pain in his head he stated "the voices and noise like a thOusand bees trying to sting you." He reported use of cocaine, "weed", PCP (Phencyclidine), carburetor cleaner and glue.
Ho answorod "yos' to quostions about his drinking as an adolescent and young adult in regard to cutting down, being annoyed when confronted about his drinking, feeling guilty about it or naoding an eye opener drink in the morning.
He admitted use of illicit drugs and alcohol since incarcerated: "It is hard to gat and maybe three to four times for each,"
Familial Medical, Psychiatric, and Substance Use History
He reported that his mother had diabetes, a heart condition and was on disability, and that his lather was an electrician. He Is the fifth of five boys and he denies a psychiatric history in any of his brother$ or imrnediate family. He reported that he was raised mainly by his mother and said "she did her best to help
me".
He reported that he had no informotion about Familial Psychiatric and Substance Use History.
12

ST ST'd

9b[890LcTU=Ol

860T98ScOL

9d38d38l IS l30f' =I.,Qd.:J bO : TO 2 TOe- 2 T- lJO

Duvolopmentai/Sducatlonal HlatoryNocationai/Military Hl$lory He described a prolonged vaginal delivery of three days duration in Iraq and the usual childhood
diseases, He reported that when he was seven years old and living In Texas he was bitten by a rat and
became vary ill and needed to be hospitalized for a "long time" for "a brain infection". He reported that hs
was told by his mother that he was a quiet kid prior to the rabies, but his behavior became violent towards
animals after he recovered from the rabies, and that by age eight years old he had been detained at Illinois Youth Center in Joliet.
He reported that he was told that he was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder as a child,
He reported that his parents divorced whan he was eight years old. He did not raport a history of any sexual abuse, but "my father teased and mocked me, and beat my ass". He reported a history of learning diffioulti¢$, ropoatod grades and special classes. He was kicked out of Montefiora High School when in fourth or fifth grade at aga thirteen. He never did a day of hornowork in his life, because "I was running around the streets with gangs and friends". He actually only learned to writo at ago twenty, and he does need a dictionary to assist him when he writes. Vocational History He reported that his father was an electrician and his father took him to work a couple of times. Mr. Rasho has never had a job. Military History Mr. Rasho reported no history of military service. Soc::ial Hi~tory/Current Daily Functioning Mr. Rasho reported that ha was divorced In 1999. He stated that he has an eighteen-year-old doughtor. He reported that he writes his family but his mail has been held in July and August 2012 by the mailroom because he "owes a lot of money." He stated that he is in his cell seven days per week, twenty-four hours per day except for rare visits for medical reasons or other visits "such as talking with you today.' He raceives three meals per day in his
cell, which he takes out of a box. He reported that since about February 2012 he nas been seen by Or. Matthews on Mondays and
Thursdays for forty-five minutes to an hour. He tries to occupy his time by doing artwork and playing chess with him&elf. He complained that he is totally isolated bocouso ho is not allowed to write to anyone, including his ex• wife. Adult Legal/Financial History He did receive SSt when in the community, He reported that as an adolescent he was always in trouble for stealing and burglary, and as a young adult was incarcerated in SMridan correctional Center from 1992 to 1993, and from 1995 to 1996. He was again incarcerated in IOOC In 1996 until present. He reported that he has an e.x.tensive disciplinary and grievance history,
13

9b£890l2tzt:Ol

860T98£20l

9d38d38liS l30f:WOd~ 60:t0 2T02-2T-1JO

ENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION/BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
Mr. Rasho is a thirty-eight-year-old divorced, right-handed, white male who wa$ fully alart and orientad upon av~luation. He w~s dressed in an omnge jumpsuit and wMring reading glasses. He appeared well groomed. Per Pontiac policy 1was only allowed to interview him through a glass partition as both his arms were shackled to a chair. He was remarkably calm and cooperative. Upon request Corrections allowed me to observe that his gait was normal and that he ambulated normally. Sitting posture was symmetric.
He was alert, responsive, and oriented to time, place and person, His eye contact was appropriate, and he responded appropriately to humor.
Dominant right-handed graphomotor functions were intact for paper-pencil tasks such as drawing a clock at 3:30 and a cat. Speech was normal in rate and rhythm, without signs of pressure, coherent and goal directed. No word finding or paraphasic errors were noted in conversational speech.
His mood was both sad and anxious, but approprlata for the situation. He did have an exaggerated startle
response when I pounded on tha desk whan he wa$ looking away, and he was hyperresponsive to
external stimuli such as a correctional officer shouting to another correctional officar. Affect was responsive and he revealed full affective range. For example, he became appropriately emotional when discussing his fear of what his treatment at Pontiac will be like after Dr. Matthews leaves.
Frustration tolerance was preserved, based on his engagement and perseverance with a four and one half hour evaluation. Frustration tolerance was also preserved cognitively, based on his engagement and perseverance on a series of questions In regards to memory and attention. Recent, remote and Intermediate memory was intact. He repeated "stadium, deer aM table" and remambered such five minutes later. He was embarrassed when asked to spell "world" and "cobalt" forwards and bacKwards correctly and asked; "can I write the words down first." Subsequent to doing so and Inspecting the words on tho notopad, he spelled the words without looking at the notepad corraclly forward, and backwards correctly on the second attompt, He could not perform "serial sovens" from a hundred and from ninety rapidly and accurately, but he did manage to do "serial threes". HG damOn$\r;;~tc:>d c:>ffort to do well on all these memory/attention tasks. He Is a man of avarage intelligence based on his general vocabul;;~ry and general knowledge. His listed the last three Presidents of the USA correctly in backwards-chronological order.
Mr. Rasho has been called a malingerer particularly by Or, Garlick. Mr. Rasho, however, did not attempt to take control of the interview, did not attempt to Intimidate the interviewer (Dr. Silberberg) and did not attempt to feign Impaired memory or "being stupid." Mr. Rasho's symptoms were consistent with documents reviewed. When given the opportunity he did elaborate more about hallucinations, obsessions, akathlsla, etc. than In tne once monthly correctional interview often dona in ten minutes in a noisy and smelly anvironrnent, with documentation sometimes limited to a brief entry in a segregation visit log. Mr. Raaho's symptoms were consistont with known disease entities, For example he desribed the voicos as malo, outside his head end decreaaed by activities such as writing/reading, He described the symptoms of clinical depression that he still currently suffers from. Ho doscribod the response to medications such as Haldol and Geodon to docreasa the voices.
There was some evidence of current delusional thinking and auditory hallucinations: "AI times I search for microphones and wash the cell to get rid of chemicals that 'they' put in the vent of my cell. Angus and Garlick are putting stuff in my medication. At times 1am fighting the urge not to cut myself. The best way to fight the voices or the urge to hurt myself is to stay busy, Thinking about my case or about a grievance keeps my mind busy and helps to decrease the voices or to decrease the effect they have on me because ot the bad things they say," He also reported that he thinks some of the nurses "are not human" and "they are allowed to experiment on us. It is in their rules: Thera was no current evidence of any manic or impulsive behavior. He reported no current experience of suicidal ideation: "not at this moment."
14

Tf.['d

9b[890d.cTU=Ol

860T98Sc0d.

9d38d38l IS l30f" :i.,Qd.:J 60 : TO 2 TOe- 2 T- lJO

He reported no current experience of homicidal ideation. He reported past experience of homicidal ideation. He has a history of past ¥iolent beha¥ior. He reported past experience of suicidal ideation and multiple attempts and self-mutilation.
Judgment and abstraction were Intact by standard testing such as questions about "baby at the doorstep" or "fire In a theatre", and about similarities and differences. At this time he demonstrated limited judgment, and interpersonal and psychological insight into his share of the problem with the multiple di~ciplinary i~~ue~: "Thoy u~ually happen when lam off my med~" and "I don't do nothing. I try to get help and they deny me and I just lose it."
In regard to insight Into his future plans Rasho reported: "I want to avoid more time added to my time In prison. I want to faal better like Or. Matthews has helped ma to feeL I want to do even better than Or. Matthews has helped me to feel and ask to be in the six-month mental health program In Dixon. Even TAMMS has better programming than North Segregation Unit and helped ma much more. They (TAMMS) let me out two hours per day seven days per week if you earn it. North Segregation Unit is a big dark hole with nothing (treatment) and no way to earn anything. North Segregation noise is deafening, and togethar with the foul smell 1get agitated and the voices get worse. Reeding helps to decrease the voices but the noise makes It difficult to concentrate."
In regard to insight into his future plans Mr. Rasho added; "I hope I help for all mentally Ill prisoners to get better treatment. I hope I can gat trealmant in the Mental Health Unit bafora I get released into the community. I hope somoono can roview my file and see that some of the flghts were due to my mental illnoss not being treated properly." In this regard Mr. Resho reported: "I do not remember having a mental haalth axamination before most of my disciplinary problems. I have not been in major ti'Oublo sinco 2010 when I assaulted a medical technician because I was hearing voicos.'
!COli..ATeRAliNTERVIEWWITH JOSE MATTHEWS. M.D., PSYCHIATRIST
Mr. Rasho signed authorization for me to talk with Or. Matthews in regard to his care at Pontiac. 1 perlormed a one-hour collateral interview with Or. Matthews on September 24, 2012.
Or. Matthews reported that he has worked at Pontiac for the past four years. He reported that his last day of work at Pontiac was September 19, 2012.
or. Matthews reported that Mr. RasM has an Axis 1diagnosis of BIPolar Disorder, Depressed, and a history of Substance Abuse, and an Axis II diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. "He has severe Axis I psychopathology and some Axis II issues. He has soma psychopathic tendencies. He does not have observable organic soquolao of tho rabies oncophalitis or head Injury."
Dr. Matthews stated: "About two w(lQks ago [two Thursdays back] Or. Hinton, Or. Garlick and Or. Tinwalla cama to my office and asked me questions about Rasho. Over ths objections of Or. Garlick and Or. Hinton. Or. Tinwalla asked me for my recommendations. I recommended transfer to tha Msntal Health Unit lor supportive psychotherapy and medication management because he does benefit from supportive psychotherapy and medication management I know this becavse for the past five to six months 1have been treating him weekly with two hours psychotherapy and medication management. He did well and was not disruptive in the time I treated him. He had no cutting or suicide attempt or self·injurious behavior. Dr. Tinwalla listened to me and then he suggested Dixon because 'there is more psychotherapy tnere and he can get psychological testing'. 1stressed that either transfer to the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac or to Dixon needed to be done before my last day at work because I knew that Rasho would not get weekly two hours psychotherapy and medication management after 1left Pontiac. ag>:~in emphasized that he clearly had benefitted fi'Om weekly two hour:l psychotherapy and rnadication management with me. With reasonable treatment Raeho is amenable to change, clinical stabilization in regard to markad dacrease of severity and frequency of psychosis and $Oif·injury. The ball is now in the court of Or. Hinton, but I think there is nobody to taka on weakly two hour psychotherapy and modication management for Rasho and I do not think he will be transferred to Dixon. They do not hava a
15

11>!? 'd

9!?1:890!.211:1=01

860198520!.

9d38d38l IS l30f :eiOd.:l 01 : 10 2102-21 -DO

replacement for me and Rasho will just be left out in the dark. There are only three psychiatrists left at Pontiac at present. "
Or. Matthews said; "Rasho would defioitaly benefit and improve with supportive psychotherapy and proper medication treatment. Under my care he had trouble tolerating Depakote because of stomach upset. Most of the time he has been compliant with Risperdal which stabilizes his mood and controls his psychotic symptoms. When psychotic, he hears voices that laugh ana mock him, and tell him he will be deported to Iraq and executed. He. is fearful and paranoid when he hears these voices:·
Dr. Matthews continued: "To give you some background, in 2006 Rasho wa$ treated in the Mental Health Unit by Dr. KowalkalskL Or, Garlick [and Angus] vigorously opposod this and wrote to Dr. Eli [sic] [Director of Mental Health] that Rasho was disruptive and needed to be sant out. of the Mental Health Unit. I think Rasho fait the tension of not being wanted on the Unit and he therefore also r~tqutilstad tha transfer.»
When I asked Dr. Matthews: "What was the quality of mental health care for Mr. Rasho in North Segregation Unit?" he responded: "Rasho was placed into North Segregation Unit for assaultive behavior.
There is no meaningful mental treatment there. Rasho was told by Garlick to write to him if he wanted
psychotherapy in North Segregation Unit, and that It [psychotherapy] would be provided if it was available, but if it Is not available you will need to wait. After I arrived in August 2008 I did not find him disruptive in a manner that would prevent transfer to Mental Health Unit."
Or. Matthews reported: "Rasho returned late last year from Statesville. Or, Garlick again said 'No transfer to the Mental Hoalth Unit'. Or. Massa joined the $ide of Or. Garlick who said 'Rasho is not suitable for the Mental Health Unit' Everyone knew that Rasho would get very sick again if nothin9 was done, and I thllrl!fore off11red to do two hours per weak aupportivo psychothorapy and medication management, and R.asho accepted this plan. Wh•:m Rasho learned of my plans to leave Pontiac, ho renewed his requaat for transfer to th11 Mental Health Unit.
In early June2012. Assistant Warden Reed asked me to stay longer for a couple of months. Ha $aw how
well Rasho was doing and he wanted to change things at Pontiac in general. Warden Reed organized a
meeting to discuss R.asho's care and issues related to his care. Dr. Blank and Or. Garlick presided at this
meeting. Among things discussed was the request by me to transfer Rasho to Mental Health Unit [I was
not told a final decision], and that a mental health professional can discontinue restraints ordered by a
physician, and they can even order it. Subsequently Or. Blank and Dr. Ga~ick met with Salvador Godinez and were able to make an Administrative Directive that any mental health professional [suah as a licensed social work~;~r] can order and discontinue restraints."
IDSM IV DIAGNOSIS
Axis I Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features, Recurrent Rule out 9ipolor Disorder
Axis II Mixed Pel'!lonallty DisordQr with strong ~ntisocial and borderline choraeterlstios secondary to chronic untreated serious manual illness (Axis I) and rabies encllphalitis/history of gun$hot wound to head
Axis Ill Rabies Encephalitis at age 8 History of gunshot wound to the head
Axis IV Stress of inhumane living conditions and denial of access to minimum acceptable treatment for serious mental Illness (Axis I)
Axis V GAF last year 45- 50 (Suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals and compulsions, intanse urge to self•mutllate, refractory auditory hallucinations)

16

9bE8902.21U:Ol

8601985202.

9d38d38liS l3or:wod~ 01=10 2102-21-lJD

Opinion
1can provide the following opinions and conclusions, expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, with the understanding that they are based on the interview with Mr. Rasho, the collateral interview with Dr Matthews and the information available to me at this time, If I receive additional information, 1 may have additional opinions. My current Curriculum Vitae is attached.
1. Mr. Rasho has a long history of Axis I serious mental Illness.
2. Mr. Rasho has a long history of Axis II psychiatric disorder.
3. Mr. Rasho's serious mental illness (Axis I) is treatable when he has been given psychotropic medication and proper supportive Individual and group psychotherapy.
4. Mr. Rasho should have been kept In the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac Correctional Center and not transferred out because there Is a nexus between Mr. Rasho's refractory Axis 1serious mental illness and multiple allegations of willful misconduct leading to years and years of extra Incarceration secondary to bogus disciplinary hearings based on "periodic psychotic episodes of Borderline Personality Disorder."
5. The need to keep him In the mental health unit for humane and medical reasons should have been so obvious that it reaches the level of reckless Indifference by Director Roger E. Walkor.
Jr., Dr. Willard E:lyea, Dr. Wendy Navarro, Eddie Jones, Dr. John Garlick, and Dr. Michael F. Massa.
Basis for Qpinion
1. Mr. Rasho has a long hlatory of Axla I aerlous mental illness.
Serious mental illness is a mental illness that is a diagnosable condition of substantial duration causing some degree of disability or Impaired functioning. Mr. Rasho has a long history of Axis 1 serious mental illness causing significant disability and impairment of functioning based on review of documents including mental health screenings and records, information about personal, social, occupational, family, criminal justice. mental health. and medical history obtained by record review and a four and one half hour face-to-face interview that included direct observation of his behavior. Over time Mr. Rasho has been diagnosed with many illnesses that meet this criteria including psychotic disorders not otherwise specified. major affective disorders (bipolar disorder I and recurrent major depression) and dementia.
Mr. Rasho reported that he was told that he was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder as a child.
In a report for a fitness hearing on November 7, 2005, Robert E, Chapman. M.D., S.C. makes an Axis 1 Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder Type I - with childhood onset; Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; Adult Attention Deficit Disorder- Acquired Type secondary to rabies encephalitis; and Dementia - due to General Medical Condition. Robert E. Chapman, M.D., S.C. makes an Axis II Diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. He reported: "He suffers a sense of impending doom, mood swings, depression, and has a tendency toward addictive behavior and inaccurate self· observation."
Mr. Rasho was transferred to Pontiac on November 7. 2003 with a well-documented history of serious mental illness of hallucinations, psychosis, psychotic agitation, poor impulse control and depressive symptoms which when not controlled by medication and a structured therapeutic environment manifested acutely through self-mutilation and suicide attempts.

11>9 'd

9bS:890!.21U=Ol

17

860198£20!.

9d38d38l IS l30f :eiOd.:l 11 : 10 2102-21 -DO

Mr. Rasho has been given a diagnosis of dementia secondary to a general medical condition in the past
basad on neuropsychological screening by E. Weiner, Psy. D. on July 15, 1999: "Inmate suffers from
significant neurobehavioral impairment showing deficits in language processing, memory, reasoning, as
well as attention." This diagnosis (screening diagnosis) is related to the manner in which Rasho deals
with stress: "I shut down, don't talk, don't communicate when I feel mistreated by mental health or
correctional staff," This diagnosis is also related to his history of rabies encephalitis as a child and
gunshot wound to the head. Mr. Rasho has, howaver, responded favorably to medications for suatained poriods of limo. This is not consistent with 11 diagnosis of domontia. Ho currently does not oxhibit symptoms of dGmE!ntia.
Mr. Rasho has bean called a malingerer particularly by Dr. Garlick. This argument does not hold water
because as noted in the mental staus examination on August 26, 2012: Mr. Rasho did not attempt to takf3 control of tho lntf3rview. Mr. Rasho did not attempt to intimidate the interviewer.
Mr, Rasho did not lilttlilmpt to feign lmplilired mlilmory or "bliling stupid. "
Mr. Rasho's symptoms were consistent with documents reviewed. When given the opporlunity he did elaborate more about hallucinations, obsessions, aketh/sls, etc. than in the once monthly cori'$Ctional intflrview oftrm done In ton minutes in a noisy and smelly environment with documentation sometimes limited to a brief entry in a segregation visit log. Mr. Rasho 's symptoms wera C(,msistent with known dlslilase entities. For example he described the voices as male, outsidriJ his heed and dt:Jcroased by activities such as wrllinglreading. Ha described the c/ess/oal symptoms of clinical depression. He describfiJd the response to
medications such as Ha/dol and Goodon to docroaso th& voices.
This opinion Is further basQd upon matQrials raviewQd.
2. Mr. Rasho has a long history of Axle II psychiatric disorder.
Mr. Rasho had symptoms that have been maladaptive and inconsistent with his functioning In society and while incarcerated.
The diagnosis of personality disorder may be related to his history of rabies encephalitis as a child and gunshot wound to the neaa. Personality change may occur after an Insult to tne brain.
Serious mental illness is a mental illness that is a diagnosable condition of substantial duration causing some degree of disability or impaired functioning, Mr. Rasho has a long history of Axis II aerious mental Illness causing somo disability and impairmont of functioning based on review of documents including mental health screenings and records, information about personal, social, occupational, family, criminal justice, mental health, and medical history obtained by record review and a four and one half hour laceto-face interview that included direct observation of his behavior. Ovar time Mr. Rasho has bean diagnosed with Mixed Personality Disorder. Personality Disorder secondary to trauma, Borderline Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder. Many times Pontiac staff blamed behavior secondary to untreated refractory Axis I serious mental illness on personality disorder and/or malingering. Mr. Rasho's psychosis has however responded favorably to medications for sustained periods of time. This clearly makes his psychosis primarily due to his diagnosis of serious mental illness on Axis 1.
This opinion Is further t>asea upon materials reviewed.
3, Mr. Raaho's seriou$ momt11i Illness (Axis I) Is treatable when he has been given psychotropic medication and proper supportive Individual and group psychotherapy.
"I am doing much br:>Mr ~t prQ$Qnt duQ to Dr. Matthews bull still Mvo probloms. My mood is sad, and 1 feel anxiety and agitated at times. I threatened Garlick and his family b11cause at times the voice$ tell mo my food is being poisoned and cameras put in my cell. I doze up but do not sleep well. I pace and clean but at the same time feel tired with no energy. At times I search lor microphonlils and wash the cell to get rid of chemicals that 'they' put in the vent of my cell. At times I am fighting the urge not to cut myself.
16

1l>!.'d

9bS:890!.21U=Ol

860198520!.

9d38d38l IS l30f :eiOd.:l 11 : 10 2102-21 -DO

The best way to flght the voices or the urge to hurt myself is to stay busy, Thinking about my case or
about a grievance keeps my mind busy and helps to decrease the voices or to decrease tha effect they have on me bacause of the bad things they say."
Mr, Rasho damon5trated adequate frustration tolerance and patience during a four and one half hour forensic psychiatry evaluation. This is not congruent with history of severe disciplinary action taken 3gainst him at Pontiac being mainly secondary to personality disorder. In addition Mr. Rasho was not dQfensive or angry throughout the four and one half hour forensic psychiatry avaluation, This too is not congruent with history of severa disciplinary action takon against him at Pontiac being mainly secondary to per$analily disorder. Untreated Axis I $erious mental illness con load to multiple probli!lms with the law or disciplinary infractions in prison. lndelld, Mr. Rasho reported that he was told that he wa$ diognosod with Bipolar Disorder as a child, Mr. Rasho was undertreated at Pontiac, but he did respond when provided with appropriate care on the
Mental Health Unit or mons recently on North Segregation Unit by or, Matthews who provided him with two hOurs psychotherapy per week and medication management Prior to Or. Matthews, Mr, Rasho was
unfortunately provided on North Segregation Unit with erratic care chiefly by medication, brief sessions and cell door checks via segregation rounds. In these circumstances, his serious mental illness was undertrealed and this led to medication noncompliance; severe pain, suffering and humiliation; and the racking up of disciplinary chargea and unnecessary jail time. Oespito;o thQ harsh and countor-thorapoutic condltiona on North Segregation Unit, there were periods of time when Mr, Rasho's Axis I serious mental illnoss responded to treatment;
• "On May 16, 2008, Melvin Koko, M.D., Psychiatrist, notos on Axis I diagno5ia of Impulse Control
Disorder and rules out Antisocial Personality disorder on Axis II. Dr, Koko notes ~ previous good response to Depakene, end recommends to titrate the Depakene up to 750mg to 1000mg per day.
• On September 9, 2008, Jose Matthews, M.O"' Psychiatrist, notes a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, NOS and that Mr. Rasho was stable on Depakene (Valproic acid) for mood
stabilization, and he suggested the addition of Celexa (Citalopram) to treat his residual depression, This opinion Is further based upon materials reviewed, 4. Mr. Rasho should have been kept In the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac: Correctional Center and not transforrod out because there ill ll nexus between Mr. Rauho's refractory Allis 1serious mental illn•s• and multiple allegations of willful misconduct hooding to years and years of extra incarceration secondary to bogus disciplinary haarings based on "p~>riodlc psychotic episodes of Bordorlln& Personality Disorder." It is an Insult to any competent psychiatrist to suggest that Mr. Rasho's symptoms such as auditory hallucinations, severe depression, suicide attempts, self-mutilation and agitation were only due to
Borderline Personality Disorder and/or Malingering, Mr. Rasho did at times significantly benefit from treatment in the Mental Health Unit. Rather, Drs. Massa and Garlick decided to move Mr. Rasho out of
the Mental Health Unit and into the North Segregation Unit not because he would no longer benafit from treatment in that unit, but because Mr. Rasho complained about staff behavior in the Mental Health Unit. As clearly articulated in the Severed Complaint filed on August 9, 2011: "Or. Garlick and Dr. Massa failed to acknowledge appropriate mental health diagnoses and attributed behaviors of Mr. Rasho symptomatic of serious menial illness to willful misconduct, denying treatment to Mr, Rasho's serious mantal illness and needlessly prolonging pain and suffering" and "Drs, Massa and Garlick did not determine to tr~nsfor Mr. Rasho out of tha Mantal Health Unit and into the North Segregation Unit for any legltlmoto mcdicol or thorapGutlc reason.'' Those multiple allegations of willful misconduct led to many years of extra incarceration secondary to untreotod, blatantly obvious and well-known sarious Axis I mentellllness symptoms that were oftan dealt with by bogus disciplinary hearings based on "periodic psychotic episodes of Borderline Parsonality Disorder."
19

l:k8'd

917Z8902.2l:U:Ol

8601:985202.

9d38d38liS l30f :f.IOd.:J 21: : W 21:02-21: -lJO

Or. Massa and 0 r. Garlick transferred Mr. Rasho out of the Pontiac Mental Health Unit although they were well aware of Mr. Rasho's history of serious mental health problems and the fact that he still had serious mental illness and repeatedly harmed himself by cutting large, deep wounds on his arms.
Dr. Burns states in her report "It Is well-known that even without mental illness, many prisoners in isolation experience mental deterioration; isolation is especially dangerous to those who are already mentally ill. Studies have found that the effects of isolation include: paranoid psychosis and uncontrolled raga, including incraa$ad homicidal and suicidal Impulses; frequent schizophrenia; and Impairment of the ability to socially reconnect wllh others once released. Yet mentally Ill prisoners still accumulato years upon years of 'seg' time in the IOOC." It is remarkable, that despite these wellknown facts about sorious mental illness and isolation, that Mr. R~sho was housed in segregation and
given minim a I mental ho;.alth caro;..
Confidentiality is tho critical olomont in tho effective delivery of healthcare in a similar manner that a
surg\'lon no<:lds an aseptic operating room. Mr. Ra$ho was doniod his right to confidentiality in the treatment of his serious mantal illness and this impeded his respon$\'1 to troatment on North Segrcgotion Unit.
Mr. Resho reported that in North Segregation Unit h& hed no 'trootmont privacy" and wes forced to haiiB talks with mental health staff that could be heard by corrections/ staff and by some other prisoners. He reported denying/minimizing voicEI.s, dEipression and suicidlll thoughts to keep his 'prison mask of toughness."
Or. Massa and 0 r _Garlick transfarred Mr. Rasho out of the Pontiac Mental Health Unit although they were wall aware of Mr. Rasho's history of serious mental illness. In fact, prior to this pun~iva transfer. Mr. Rasho still had serious mental Illness and a recent and repeated history of self-mutilation,
This opinion Is further based upon materials reviewed.
5. The need to keep him In the mental health unit for humane and medical reasons should have been so obvious that It reaches the level of reckless indifference by Director Roger E. Walker, Jr., Dr. Willard Elyea, Dr. Wendy Navarro, Eddie Jones, Dr. John Garlick, and Dr. Michael F. Massa.
As written in the First Severed Complaint at all times relevant to this Complaint (about Mr. Rasho's treatment at Pontiac from 2003 to 2011 ), Defendant Rog~r E. Walker, Jr, was the Director or the IDOC. As such, ho hod ovoran responsibility for IDOC's policies and procedures and the administration of all corractional facilities within the State, as w\'111 as personal, first-hand knowlodgo of the operations of Pontiac: Defendant Eddie Jones was the Warden of Pontiac Corr<:>ction;~l Center. As such, ho had ultimate responsibility for the entire operation of the institution, including implem•mting ail state laws and the IOOC's policies. practices, and procedures affecting prisoners confined at Pontiac, Its mental health unit. and its segregation units; Defendant Or. Willard Elyea was the Medical Director of the IDOC. As such, he had overall responsibility for providing health care, Including mental health care, to inmates in the custody of the IOOC. including inmates at Pontiac; and Defendant Or. Wendy Navarro was the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IOOC. As such, she had immediate and overall responsibility for the mental health and psychiatric care of inmates In the custody of the IDOC, Including inmates at Pontiac.
As stated in the First Severed Complaint and based on all the documents reviewed by me and the inter~~lew of Mr. Rasho and the collateral inter~~iew of Dr. Matthews, the protocols developM or approved by Or:;;. Elyoa and Navarro for the treatment of mentally Ill prisoners did not provide for placement of such prisonors in $pociali.:od montal health treatment unil$, and instead allowed them to be placed in highly restrictive environments such l!l$ Pontiac's North Segregation Unit. Drs. Elyea and Navarro developed or approv!ld these protocols with actual knowladga that envlronmonts $uch as
20

l:k6'd

917Z8902.2l:U:Ol

8601:985202.

9d38d38liS l30f :f.JOd.:J 21: : W 21:02-21: -lJO

Pontiac's North Segregation Unit were toxic to the mental health of prisoners suffering from serious mental illness such as Mr. Rasho.
As clearty articulated in the Severed Complaint flied on August 9, 2011: "Or. Garlick and Or, Massa
failed to acknowledge appropriate mental health diagnoses and attriDuted Dehaviors of Mr. Rasho symptomatic of serious mental Illness to willfUl misconduct, denying treatment to Mr. Rasho's serious mental Illness and needlessly prolonging pain and suffering" and "Drs. Massa and Garlick did not determine to transfer Mr, Raaho out of the Manlal Haallh Unit and into !he North Segregation Unit for any logitimate medical or therapeutic reason," Theae multiple allegations of willful misconduct led to many years of extra Incarceration secondary to untreated, blatantly obvious and wellknown serious Axis I mantal illm:>ss symptoms clearly manifasted by Rasho that wara oftan dealt with by bogus disciplinary hearings based on "periodic psychotic episodes of Borderline Personality Disorder."
Or. Kathryn Byrnes wrote In her report on March 31, 2004, 'He [Mr. Rasho) is considered mentally ill by virtue of his diagnoses, their duration and the degree of functional Impairment experienced. Mr. Rasho must be excluded from returning to TAMMS In the future." The degree of lack of treatment for his longstanding serious mental illness is self-evident in view of Mr. Rasho's wish to even return to TAMMS instead of his continued stay In the North Segregation Unit.
Illinois Department of Corrections Director, Roger E. Walker, was responsible for all correctional, medical and mental health staff, to ensure education and training about these policies and procedures, and compliance and documentation of sucn compliance with these policies and procedures. He ignored policies and procedures In regard to Non-Emergency Mental Health Services and Emergency Mental Health Services particularly in the "'reas of access to care and segregation of mentally disorder&d offenders. He also failed to effecllvely implement policies and procedures in regard to Non·Emargancy Mental Health Services and Emargency Mental Health Services particularly in the areas of acces9 to care and segregation of montmlly disordorod offenders. Ho failod to provide tho necessary leadership to pravMt dani::d of acc<:lss to manl(ll h.;.alth care for the serious mental illness of Mr. Rasho for tha duration of his treatment at Pontiac. He ignored his duty to "ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing,
$helter and medical care," as cited in Farmer v. Brannan, 511 u.s. 825, 832 (1994). Prisoners have a
Constitutional right to be protected from self·destructive tendencies, self.mutilation end suicide attempts. Mr. Rasho demonstrated a serious medical need, but his pleas for help were ignored. Roger E. Walker allowed Mr. Rasho to be placed In an environment toxic to his health despite his serious mental illness and the associated risks. This Is not rocket science. Given the facts available to Pontiac leadership, even a layperson would have transferred Mr. Rasho to Mental Health Unit and persisted to treat him there because of the unreasonable and foreseeable risk of exacerbating his serious mental health problems in the rat-Infested cell and cell areas peliodlcally filled with human waste and constant echoing/deafening noise. These ware the vary factors that aggravated Mr. Rasho's voices and drove his obsessions and compulsions to the level of delusional thinking and self•mulilalionlsuioidal behavior. Mr. Rasho was abandoned in this toxic environment like a helpless child in an isolated location wllh consequent evoidable mental pain and suffering due to deterioration of his Axis I seriou$ mental illness. 11 is well· known by anyono working with seriously montally ill Axis I patients that untreated Axis I serious mental Illness over lime leads to the development of or severe aggravation of a Personality Disordar. It is al$0 wall-known by anyone working with sariously mentally ill Axis I patients that untreated Axis I serious mental Illness, particularly severe depression or psychosis, significantly worsens in Intensity and freQuency of recurrence each time an acute episode Is not treated, or ignored, as in Mr. Rasho's case at Pontiac.
This pattorn of disrogarding tho nocd for treatment of Mr. Rasho's Axis I sorious montal illnoss aroso from tho failure of Illinois Oepartment of Corrections Oirector, Rogor E. Walker, to provide the necessary leadership to prevent the occurrence of reckless Indifference to the serious mental illness of Mr. Rasho during for the duration of his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center from 2003 to 2011. Roger E. Walker operated the facility under a series of customs and practices that allow a culture of reckless indifference to occur. He lacked policies and procedures to provide a safe, secure and humane environment with access to care for serious mental health needs, or lacked providing education of staff about adherence to such policies, This led to IOOC Defendants, who also knew about Mr. Rasho's
21

11>01'd

9bS:890!_21U=Ol

860198520!_

9d38d38liS l30f :I<IOd.:l 1:1 : 10 2102-21 -DO

serious Axis I mental illness and associated risks. such as middle managers Dr. Navarro and Dr. Elyea and staff such as Or. Garlick and Or. Messa, to be emboldened not to comply with these policies and procedures including. but not limited to. the right to confidentiality, access to safe and humane care as per community standards and placement of Axis I driven seriously mentally ill patients in specialized treatment units.
Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlick ignored the need for psychiatric treatment of the serious mental illness of Mr. Rasho In the Mental Health Unit that could provide him appropriate, effective and safe treatment for his serious mental health illness. Pontiac Correctional Center Correctional Officers and Mental Health Staff doing segregation rounds ignored Mr. Rasho's pleas for treatment in the Mental Health Unit and failed to
take necessary steps to Initiate transfer of Mr. Rasho to a level of care that could provide him appropriate,
effective and safe treatment for his serious mental illness.
This opinion is further based upon materials reviewed.

Conclusion
Without access to care for his serious mental health needs, Mr. Rasho was abandoned like a helpless
child In an Isolated location. Mr. Rasno was denied the basic civil right of access to care for his serious
mental health needs In the Mental Health Unit. There was a lack of training and education about policies,
and a lack of monitoring of compliance with such policies to &nsure the safety of a helpless and severely mentally disordered offender that fostsrsd and enabled the culture of and bahavior of reckless indifference to his special needs and safety.

The tragic aspect of Mr. Rasho's situation is that the recklo;.ss indifference of Director Roger E. Walker,
Jr., Dr. Willard Elyaa, Or. Wendy Navarro, Eddie Jones, Dr. John Garlick, and Or. Michael F. Massa has
caused Mr. Rasho needless pain and suffering secondary to serious mental illness that could have been effectively treated or managed with modern psychotropic medications, monitoring and therapy available in the Mental Health Unit. Their reckless indifference now forces Mr. Rasho to have thirteen plus years
needlessly added to his sentence by punitive action for behavior secondary to his treatable, or at least
manageable, serious mental illness.

Respectfully submitted,

October 11, 2012

J~Silb~g.~ 7 Psychi~~ ~evada, Professor of

.. Univ<i!r$ily of

Las Vagas campus

Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, with Added Qualifications in Forensic

Psychiatry

Cc; Curriculum Vitae

22

Hd1'd

9bE8902.21ET:Ol

860198£202.

9~38~38liS l30r:wo~~ E1:10 2102-21-lJO

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, #B38970,

Plaintiff,

Law No, Il-cv-1308-MMM-JAG

ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR, JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,

Defendants.

ANSWERS To PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES NOW COMES the Defendant, MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., by his attorney, THERESA

M. POWELL, of HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, and for his answers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories states:

Interrogatory No. 1 Describe, in detail, the reason(s) that Plaintiff was transferred out of the Mental Health

Unit in 2006.

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory

As pertains to the unobjectionable aspect of this question, see plaintiff's mental health records from the Pontiac correctional facility near or about the time I recommended that Plaintiff be transferred out of the Mental Health Unit, May, 2006. The basis for plaintiff's transfer relies both on the material contained in plaintiff's records directly and my discussions with other mental health staff whose names are also contained in plaintiff's mental health records near or about the time of my recommendation and before.
It is my recollection as well that Mr. Rasho did not want to be in the Mental Health Unit at certain times relevant to this case. Mr. Rasho did not cooperate with his care and treatment. Mr. Rasho's behavior

was not sufficiently modified by the treatment provided to him, suggesting that he did not suffer the mental health condition that was previously considered to be causing his behavior,
Interrogatory No. 2
Describe, in detail, the mental health treatment Plaintiff received while in the North
Segregation Unit.

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory

As it pertains to the unobjectionable portion of the interrogatory, I do not recall treating Mr. Rasho when he was in the North Segregation Unit. Pursuant to Federal Rule 33(d), see plaintiffs mental health records for those dates he was seen by mental health staff while he was living in North Segregation Unit.
Interrogatory No. 3
Describe, in detail, the mental health treatment Plaintiff received while in the Mental Health
Unit.
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 3.
Pursuant to Federal Rule 33(d), see plaintiff's mental health records for those dates he was seen by mental health staff while plaintiff was in the Mental Health Unit. The mental health treatment is outlined in the records,
Interrogatory No. 4
Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) who provided medical treatment, including but not
limited to mental health treatment, to Plaintiff.
Answer: Pursuant to Federal Rule 33(d), see plaintiff's medical records and mental health records provided to plaintiff's counsel through discovery in this case, The records contain the names of all persons who have treated the plaintiff for both his medical issues and his mental health needs.
5

Il-cv-1308 Page 2 of 11

Interrogatory No.
Identify the person(s) and/or entity(ies) who directed, ordered, recommended, or were
otherwise involved in Plaintiffs transfer out of the Mental Health Unit in 2006.
Answer: I recommended that plaintiff, Rasho, be transferred out of the Mental Health Unit in 2006. (See my record dated 5/25/2006 plaintiff" s AR104), The decision to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the Mental Health Unit was made by various employees for the IDOC. IDOC staff had access to recommendations from mental health staff regarding Mr. Rasho's placement at that time. I am not certain who ultimately gave the order to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the MHU. It may have been one person or a combination of persons.
Interrogatory No. 6
Describe, in detail, any policies, procedures, protocols, and/or orders concerning the
medical treatment, including but not limited to the mental health treatment, of prisoners at Pontiac.
Answer: I was employed as a psychiatrist to evaluate, diagnose, and treat inmates with mental health issues and/or those who may potentially suffer from mental health issues. My treatment of patients for purely medical issues was very limited. I believe that there were policies regarding medical treatment, but I do not recall them, nor do I have them in my personal possession. Likewise, there were policies, procedures and protocols which related to mental health treatment, but I do not recall them in detail, nor do I have a copy in my personal possession. I no longer work at the facility and cannot recite them all verbatim.
Interrogatory No, 7
Describe, in detail, how any policies, procedures, protocols, and/or orders concerning the
medical treatment, including but not limited to the mental health treatment, of prisoners at Pontiac
affected, influenced, and/or determined the mental health treatment that Plaintiff received,
Answer: I do not recall any specific policy, procedure or protocol affecting, influencing or determining the mental health treatment that plaintiff, Rasho, received while I worked at the Pontiac correctional facility, I am aware that at times Mr. Rasho was considered for enforced medications as pertains to medicine that had already been prescribed to him. There is a procedure for determining whether or not that is to be done. I believe that on at least one occasion, Mr. Rasho did receive enforced medication as a result of that procedure. On other occasions, it was recommended that he not be forced to take his medications, and Il-cv-1308 Page 3 of 11

he was encouraged to take or accept his medication voluntarily. Other than that, I do not recall any procedures or policies affecting Mr. Rasho's treatment,
Interrogatory No, 8
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your statement, contained in the Answer, that "Defendant Massa denies that Ashoor Rasho
suffered from serious medical conditions. Defendant denies that Mr. Rasho suffered from serious

mental illnesses at all times,"

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory

Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 8 as it calls for a legal conclusion on the part of Dr. Massa. In addition, Dr. Massa is not required yet to provide his opinions concerning all relevant matters in this case. At certain times, Mr. Rasho was diagnosed by medical professionals as having certain medical and mental health issues. At other times, Mr, Rasho was found not to suffer from those mental or medical issues.
In my opinion, Mr. Rasho did not require or merit placement in the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac in 2006 when I made the recommendation to transfer him off the unit. Defendant Massa reserves the right to supplement with any additional opinions when required to do so.

Il-cv-1308 Page 4 of 11

Interrogatory No.
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, 9

your statement, contained in the Answer, that "Defendant denies that enforcement of medication

is due solely to the severity of Mr. Rasho's mental problems,"

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory

Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 9 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa, but by his counsel. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant,
Interrogatory No. 10
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 10.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant,
Interrogatory No. 11
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 11.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 11 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant,
Il-cv-1308 Page 5 of 11

Interrogatory No. State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,

your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph of the Complaint.

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 12

35
12,
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 13
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 13.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 13 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 14
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint,
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 14.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No, 14 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered
Page 6 of 11

Interrogatory No. State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,

your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph of the Complaint.

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. by Dr, Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.

110-1308
15
39
15. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 15 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa, Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 16
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No, 16. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 16 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr, Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant. Il-cv-1308 Page 7 of 11

Interrogatory No. State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph of the Complaint. Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No.
Interrogatory No. 17 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint. Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 17. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 17 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Page 8 of 11

Interrogatory No. State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,

your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph of the Complaint.

Answer:

See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 18

42
18, Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 18 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr, Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 19
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No. 1, that "Defendant Massa is
entitled to qualified immunity,"
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 19. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr, Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant,
Interrogatory No. 20
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No. 2, that "[t]o the extent
Plaintiffs cause of action was filed beyond the statute of limitations, Defendant Massa is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. "
Il-cv-1308 Page 9 of 11

Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No, 20.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 20 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr, Massa. Neither answers nor complaints arc verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 21
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No. 3, that "Plaintiff is not entitled
to bring any claims based upon vicarious liability or respondeat superior. "
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 21.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 21 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr. Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
Interrogatory No. 22
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No, 4, that "Defendant Massa
lacks sufficient personal involvement. "
Answer: See Defendant Massa's separately served Objection to Interrogatory No. 22.
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 22 as Defendant's answers to the complaint are drafted by counsel and were not directly answered by Dr, Massa. Neither answers nor complaints are verified in Federal Court and therefore this question is also irrelevant.
MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., Defendant

By: Page 10 of 11

Theresa M, Powell IL ARDC 6230402

HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN

Suite 575, PNC Bank Building

One North Old State Capitol Plaza

P. O. Box 1687

Springfield, IL 62705-1687

217.522.8822 Phone, Ext, 222

217.523.3902

Fax

tpowell@heylroyster.com

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served upon the attorneys of record of all parties to

the above cause by enclosing same in an envelope with postage prepaid, and by depositing said

envelope in a United States Post Office mail box in Springfield, Illinois on the 2@-day of June,

2012, addressed to such parties at their address as disclosed by the pleadings of record herein,

Mr. Alan Mills

Mr. William R. Stone

UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER

Mr. Alan Mills

4413 N. Sheridan Rd,

Mr. Marc R. Kadish

Chicago, IL 60640

Mr. Matthew V. Wargin

MAYER BROWN LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Ms, Heidi Hildebrand

Chicago, IL 60606

Mr. Christopher L. Higgerson

Assistant Attorney Generals

Illinois Attorney General's Office

500 South Second Street

Springfield, IL 62706
TMP/cs (R6135) 18837233 1

Theresa M. Powell

110-1308

Il-cv-1308 Page 11 of 11

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
ASHOOR RASHO, #B38970,
Plaintiff, Law No. Il-cv-1308-MMM-JAG
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES NOW COMES the Defendant, MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., by his attorney, THERESA
M. POWELL, of HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, and for his objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories states:
DEFINITIONS Defendant objects to definition L as it is vague and difficult to understand.
INSTRUCTIONS Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Instructions to the extent they require the Defendant to provide responses not required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Plaintiff's Instructions require more information and responses than do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically as pertains to directions H, I, J and K. Defendant objects to instruction M, Defendant cannot be required to provide answers that
he does not possess in his personal knowledge at the time the interrogatories are answered,

INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1
Describe, in detail, the reason(s) that Plaintiff was transferred out of the Mental Health Unit in 2006.
Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 1 to the extent it calls for Dr, Massa to provide opinions. Dr. Massa's deadline for providing opinions in this case has not yet been required by the scheduling order currently in place.
Interrogatory No. 2 Describe, in detail, the mental health treatment Plaintiff received while in the North
Segregation Unit. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 2 to the extent it requires Dr. Massa to provide information outside the dates that Dr. Massa treated the patient.
Interrogatory No. 3 Describe, in detail, the mental health treatment Plaintiff received while in the Mental
Health Unit. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 3 to the extent it requires Dr, Massa to provide information outside the dates that Dr. Massa treated the patient,
Interrogatory No. 8 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your statement, contained in the Answer, that "Defendant Massa denies that Ashoor Rasho suffered
Il-cv-1308 Page 2 of 10

from serious medical conditions. Defendant denies that Mr. Rasho suffered from serious mental illnesses at all times, 't
Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 8 in that requires Dr. Massa to provide opinions which are not yet due under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor under this Court's scheduling order. In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings,
Interro ato No. 9
State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your statement, contained in the Answer, that "Defendant denies that enforcement of medication is due solely to the severity of Mr. Rasho ts mental problems."
Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 9 in that requires Dr, Massa to provide opinions which are not yet due under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor under this Court's scheduling order. In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party, To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position, Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings,
Il-cv-1308 Page 3 of 10

Interrogatory No. 10 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 10 in that requires Dr. Massa to provide opinions which are not yet due under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor under this Court's scheduling order, In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party, To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings,
Interrogatory No. 11 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 11 in that requires Dr, Massa to provide opinions which are not yet due under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor under this Court's scheduling order. In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings.
Interrogatory No, 12 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint,
Il-cv-1308 Page 4 of 10

Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 12 in that requires Dr. Massa to provide opinions which are not yet due under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor under this Court's scheduling order, In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings.
Interrogatory No. 13 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 13 which asks the Defendant to identify all information and all documents relevant to his denials. Some of the information is protected by the attorney work product. Some of the information is protected by the attorneyclient privilege. In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party, To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings.
Interrogatory No, 14 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 14 which asks the Defendant to identify all information and all documents relevant to his denials,
Il-cv-1308 Page 5 of 10

Some of the information is attorney work product. Some of the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege. In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings. Interrogatory No. 15 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 15 which asks the Defendant to identify all information and all documents relevant to his denials, Some of the information is attorney work product. Some of the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege, In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position, Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings, Interrogatory No. 16 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 16 which asks the Defendant to identify all information and all documents relevant to his denials, Some of the information is attorney work product. Some of the
Il-cv-1308 Page 6 of 10

information is protected by the attorney-client privilege, In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position, Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings. Interrogatory No. 17 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 17 which asks the Defendant to identify all information and all documents relevant to his denials. Some of the information is attorney work product. Some of the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege. In addition, pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party, To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings. Interrogatory No. 18 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your denial, contained in the Answer, of the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint. Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 18 which asks the Defendant to identify all information and all documents relevant to his denials, Some of the information is attorney work product. Some of the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege. In addition,
Il-cv-1308 Page 7 of 10

pleadings are the product of the attorneys not the party. To the extent any denial was based upon a legal defense, Defendant objects to asking Defendant Massa to explain his attorneys' position. Federal pleadings are not verified pleadings. Interrogatory No. 19 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No. 1, that "Defendant Massa is entitled to qualified immunity," Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 19. Qualified immunity is a legal argument and not a proper question for individual defendants. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's interrogatories which seek legal conclusions from a physician. Interrogatory No, 20 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No, 2, that "[t]o the extent Plaintiffs cause of action was filed beyond the statute of limitations, Defendant Massa is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. " Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 20. Qualified immunity is a legal argument and not a proper question for individual defendants. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's interrogatories which seek legal conclusions from a physician.
Il-cv-1308 Page 8 of 10

Interrogatory No. 21 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to, your
contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No. 3, that "Plaintiff is not entitled to bring any claims based upon vicarious liability or respondeat superior. '
Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 21. Qualified immunity is a legal argument and not a proper question for individual defendants. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's interrogatories which seek legal conclusions from a physician,
Interrogatory No. 22 State and describe the basis for, and identify all information and documents relevant to,
your contention, set forth in the Answer as Affirmative Defense No. 4, that "Defendant Massa lacks sufficient personal involvement. "
Objection: Defendant objects to Interrogatory Number 22, Qualified immunity is a legal argument and not a proper question for individual defendants. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's interrogatories which seek legal conclusions from a physician.
Il-cv-1308 Page 9 of 10

MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., Defendant

By: Theresa M. Powell IL ARDC 6230402

HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN

Suite 575, PNC Bank Building

One North Old State Capitol Plaza

P. O. Box 1687

Springfield, IL 62705-1687

217.522.8822 Phone, Ext, 222

217.523.3902

Fax

tpowell@heylroyster.com

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served upon the attorneys of record of all parties to

the above cause by enclosing same in an envelope with postage prepaid, and by depositing said

envelope in a United States Post Office mail box in Springfield, Illinois on the day of June, 2012,

addressed to such parties at their address as disclosed by the pleadings of record herein.

Mr. Alan Mills

Mr. William R. Stone

UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER

Mr. Alan Mills

4413 N. Sheridan Rd.

Mr. Marc R. Kadish

Chicago, IL 60640

Mr. Matthew V. Wargin

MAYER BROWN LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

Ms. Heidi Hildebrand

Mr. Christopher L. Higgerson

Assistant Attorney Generals

Illinois Attorney General's Office 500 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62706

TMP/cs (R6135) 18836867 1

Theresa M, Powell
Il-cv-1308 Page 10 of 10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, #B38970,

Plaintiff,

v.

Law No. 11-cv-1308-MMM-JAG

ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,

Defendants.

RULE 26(a)(2)(B) AND (C) AND 26(a)(3) PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURES

NOW COMES the Defendant, MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., by his attorney, THERESA

M. POWELL, of HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, and for his Rule 26(a) Expert

Disclosures provide the following information:

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide A Written Report

1. Dr. Michael R. Jarvis

a. See the report of Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D. attached hereto.

b. In addition to his opinions specific to this case, Dr. Jarvis may be called to

testify regarding the provision of psychiatric care in general. He will

testify regarding the appropriate method of assessment and diagnosis of

patient with mental health issues and use and reference to the DSM IV.

Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Witnesses who do not provide a written report 1. Michael F. Massa, M.D. (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705:
Dr. Massa will testify regarding his personal encounters with Mr. Rasho. He will also testify regarding his diagnosis of Mr. Rasho as well as the diagnoses documented by other mental health staff documented in Mr. Rasho’s chart. He will testify regarding the appropriate diagnosis and treatment for Mr. Rasho. He will give testimony concerning the conditions at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He will testify regarding the provision of mental health care to Mr. Rasho and others at the facility generally and specifically as relates to Mr. Rasho. He will testify regarding all matters referenced in his deposition. He will testify regarding his propriety of his care and treatment to Mr. Rasho on the availability of mental health care to Mr. Rasho while he was at the facility during the time that he worked there. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify:
Dr. Massa will testify regarding all matters as stated in his discovery deposition. In addition, he will testify to the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records for the dates Dr. Massa was treating the patient in addition to other relevant dates and medical and mental health information as set forth in Mr. Rasho’s record which is
11-cv-1308 Page 2 of 31

already in the possession of the Plaintiff. Dr. Massa will give the opinion that the diagnosis he provided for Mr. Rasho was appropriate and consistent with the mental health providers who had seen him before and after. He will testify that Mr. Rasho’s presence in the mental health unit was not beneficial to Mr. Rasho and was seen as detrimental to others who replaced there at certain times. Dr. Massa will testify that the care and treatment he provided was appropriate. The care and treatment provided by him and other mental health staff was appropriate and safe treatment for the documented mental health issues of Mr. Rasho. He will also testify that no mental health treatment could be completely effective for Mr. Rasho due to his lack of cooperation and commitment to correcting his behaviors. In his opinion, the care and treatment provided to Mr. Rasho met community standards and complied with the standard of care.
He will also testify that Mr. Rasho was not benefiting from treatment in the mental health unit which lead to the recommendation to transfer him out of that unit.
In addition, Dr. Massa will testify to the following: (1) Dr. Massa will testify that he did not observe any cells at the facility suffering from rat infestations. He did not observe cells with human waste in them. He will testify that Mr. Rasho did not report hearing voices as a symptom of a mental issue. He will also testify that Mr. Rasho was not suicidal and did not cut on himself in an effort to kill himself. He will testify that the conditions of confinement in the north seg
11-cv-1308 Page 3 of 31

section of the Pontiac Correctional Center were not significantly different than the conditions in the mental health unit.
He will testify that Mr. Rasho’s complaints were not ignored and were appropriately addressed by him and other mental health staff at the Pontiac Correctional Center. Dr. Massa will also testify that he did not cause Mr. Rasho any injuries. He did not exacerbate any mental health conditions suffered by Mr. Rasho. In his opinions, Mr. Rasho’s behavior was similar to, if not identical to, to his behavior before his contacts with Dr. Massa. He will testify that he had no involvement in the disciplinary procedures involving Mr. Rasho at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He did not testify for or against Mr. Rasho in any of his criminal trials relating to his behaviors at the Pontiac Correctional Center. In his opinion, the medications provided to Mr. Rasho were appropriate, but they did not stop Mr. Rasho’s criminal behaviors.
Mr. Rasho’s additional years of incarceration were due to sentences imposed by judges following criminal trials for criminal proceedings wherein the Plaintiff plead guilty to the charges filed against him.
Mr. Rasho’s placement in the Pontiac Correctional Center was not the cause for his medication non-compliance. Mr. Rasho failed to comply with his medication while in the mental health unit and when not in the mental health unit both at the Pontiac Correctional Center and at other facilities.
11-cv-1308 Page 4 of 31

Dr. Massa’s first note is at page 5751 on May 25, 2006. Dr. Massa will testify that Mr. Rasho was requesting to be transferred off the mental health ward as of the first visit with him. Following Dr. Massa’s discussion with the treatment team, we were of the belief that Mr. Rasho suffered from anti-social personalty disorder as well as polysubstance abuse. We recommended Mr. Rasho be transferred of the mental health ward. 5758. Dr. Massa saw Mr. Rasho again on July 1, 2006, for medication review. 5766. Dr. Massa’s handwritten note is 5767. Dr. Masaa will testify that the treatment team met again to consider Mr. Rasho’s transfer off the mental health unit on August 3, 2006. At that time, Mr. Rasho refused to see the doctor and refused visits with Dr. Massa. 5781. Mr. Rasho had refused to see Dr. Massa on July 29, 2006. 5782. Dr. Massa will testify that he requested Mr. Rasho be considered for a transfer off the mental health unit on August 3, 2006. 5783.
Dr. Massa continued to evaluate Mr. Rasho while he remained in the mental health unit. He will testify that he conducted a medication review on September 14, 2006. He discontinued Mr. Rasho’s Geodon and Trazadone and had reason to believe that Mr. Rasho may be hoarding medications and therefore discontinued the medicine. 5808. Mr. Rasho refused to see Dr. Massa on October 7, 2006. 5812. Dr. Massa indicates that he again recommended that Mr. Rasho be transferred off the mental health unit based upon his reviews and discussions with the treatment team as well as his personal time spent with Mr. Rasho. Last record with
11-cv-1308 Page 5 of 31

Dr. Massa 5814. For 5818 referencing treatment date of November 4, 2006, Mr. Rasho requested to receive medication. Mr. Rasho was not on medication at that time and was not having any particular issues which needed to be addressed. 2. Marvin F. Powers, M.D. (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Powers is expected to testify regarding Plaintiff Rasho’s medical injuries and his self mutilating while both in the special treatment unit and in a regular cell. Dr. Powers will testify regarding his personal encounters with Mr. Rasho and the care and treatment provided to him. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: Dr. Powers is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho indicated on more than one occasion that he had cut on himself when he perceived that others were doing things he did not like. For example, he reported that he snapped when they were “f***ing with his mattress.” He will also testify that Mr. Rasho’s wounds were superficial. He had no bleeding and no complaints of pain. After his initial self mutilating incident, Mr. Rasho was calm and cooperative. Dr. Powers will testify that many of Rasho’s self-inflicted injuries were superficial or minor. His injuries did not place him at risk of substantial harm. He may also testify that Mr. Rasho’s injurious behaviors were often related to his stated goals of secondary gain. Mr. Rasho’s threats to cut were taken seriously based upon his past
11-cv-1308 Page 6 of 31

history. Appropriate efforts were taken to keep him from hurting himself even when it was thought that Rasho was not trying to commit suicide. He may also be called for impeachment purposes.
Mr. Rasho is documented to have smeared his vomit on his cell window because he wanted to go back to his cell. 3337.
Mr. Powers will testify that many of Mr. Rasho’s self inflicted injuries were superficial or minor. His injurious behaviors were often related to his requests or stated goals of secondary gain. He may be called for impeachment purposes to testify contrary to Mr. Rasho’s statements. 3. V. Clemons, LPN (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: This nurse may testify as to Mr. Rasho’s demeanor after he cut himself which consisted of him laughing and talking with correctional officers. She may also testify that Mr. Rasho refused treatment and refused to cooperate. She may give testimony regarding her observations of Mr. Rasho and that he would cover himself in feces and blood. 4. Delight Griswold, RN/MSN. Nurse who formerly worked at Tamms Correctional Center. (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Ms. Griswold may testify regarding her encounters with Mr. Rasho. She may testify consistent with her records in Mr. Rasho’s
11-cv-1308 Page 7 of 31

medical and mental health record. She may be called to testify regarding her observations of Mr. Rasho’s self inflicted injuries. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: She will provide opinions consistent with her entries in Mr. Rasho’s medical records. She is expected to testify consistent with the opinions and facts referenced by Dr. Chandra and Dr. Powers. 5. Dr. Kowalkowski (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Kowalkowski may be called to testify regarding the issues of proper diagnosis and treatment of a psychiatric patient such as Mr. Rasho. He is expected to give opinions concerning his assessment of Mr. Rasho at various times throughout his incarceration within the Illinois Department of Corrections. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: Dr. Kowalkowski is expected to testify regarding his personal diagnoses of Mr. Rasho and his opinions concerning Mr. Rasho’s care and treatment within the Department of Corrections during the time that he saw him. Dr Kowalkowski may be called to testify regarding the treatments he provided to Mr. Rasho. He is expected to testify that the treatment and medications he recommended were appropriate for the diagnoses he made for Mr. Rasho.
11-cv-1308 Page 8 of 31

He will testify that Mr. Rasho was cleared for transfer to segregation at the Pontiac Correctional Center.
He is expected to testify that upon Mr. Rasho’s transfer back to the Pontiac Correctional Center, he was not expressing any feelings of helplessness, hopelessness or worthlessness. He was doing relatively well with a complaint of insomnia. Mr. Rasho was recommended to be placed in the mental health unit. However, prior to his transfer to the mental health unit, he was doing relatively well and was compliant with his medication as ordered. 5408.
He will also testify that Mr. Rasho denied any signs or symptoms of mania, psychosis, panic or significant neuro vegetative process. Dr. Kowalkowski will testify that Mr. Rasho reported no hallucination and no ideations of suicide or homicide. 5414.
Mr. Rasho was treated with Buspar and Geodon at various times during the time that I treated him. 6. Dr. Rakesh Chandra (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Chandra may be called to testify regarding his personal contacts with Mr. Rasho. He may testify regarding the proper manner and method in which to assess and diagnose a patient generally and specifically as relates to his encounters with Mr. Rasho. He may testify
11-cv-1308 Page 9 of 31

regarding the competency of mental health care at Tamms and other IDOC facilities. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: Dr. Chandra is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho was treated appropriately for his mental health issues and diagnoses. He is also expected to testify that inmates who may have had a diagnosis of certain mental illnesses may later be proven to have no underlying mental illness when the medications and treatments for the previously diagnosed condition proved to be ineffective. Dr. Chandra is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho did not exhibit signs and symptoms of depression while at Tamms Correctional Center. He will also testify that patients such as Mr. Rasho could be properly treated outside of the special treatment unit as well as in the special treatment unit. He is expected to testify that the care and treatment and the provision of mental health services through psychologists is appropriate and effective for patients with mental health issues. Dr. Chandra will testify that not all patients who cut on themselves do so because of a mental illness. Dr. Chandra is expected to testify that some inmates cut on themselves for secondary gain in order to manipulate staff and to obtain and achieve their own personal goals.
11-cv-1308 Page 10 of 31

Dr. Chandra is expected to testify that the patient is documented as not having hallucinations or delusions. He is observed as not being frankly psychotic. 3889 and 3890.
Dr. Chandra may also testify regarding documentation at Tamms that Mr. Rasho would laugh and grin when talking about harming others.
Inmate reports that Mr. Rasho indicated that he did not want to take his medications because it made him feel drowsy. 3189. Mr. Rasho’s demeanor was calm and cooperative at various times. There is little documentation to show that he was depressed.
He will testify that Mr. Rasho is documented to have threatened to throw his feces if he is not moved back to his housing unit. He requested medications while in the health care unit and then two hours later refused to take his medications. 3227-3228. Hours later, Mr. Rasho requested his medication once again and actually took it.
Dr. Chandra will testify that he is a competent mental health provider who provided appropriate care and treatment to Mr. Rasho. 7. Jill Stevens, LCSW. Former Mental Health Worker at Tamms. (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Ms. Stevens may be called to testify regarding her personal observations of Mr. Rasho. She may testify regarding her personal assessment and recommendations for mental health treatment based upon Mr. Rasho’s clinical presentation to her.
11-cv-1308 Page 11 of 31

Ms. Stevens is also expected to testify based upon her observations, Mr. Rasho was rarely reported to be in acute distress. He was usually goal-directed. He purposely chose when to take medication and when he did not want to take medication. When he did not take medication, he would blame others for his inappropriate and often times criminal behaviors. 3099.
Ms. Stevens will testify that Mr. Rasho advised her that he would like to get himself “cleaned out” by not taking so many medications. Although, he requested to have an as needed prescription for medication.
She will testify that Mr. Rasho reported being tired of being at Tamms and wanted to be transferred hoping to get more visits from his family. 5386.
She will testify that when Mr. Rasho was advised that he was being transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center, he indicated that he was looking forward to visits from his family. He wanted to get a television, a radio and schooling. He was happy about the fact that he was being transferred to Pontiac. 5393.
She will also testify that Mr. Rasho showed no signs of depression, anxiety or psychosis, no hypomania or mania and no agitation. At the time of his transfer to Pontiac, Ms. Stevens will testify that Mr. Rasho had gained as much as he could from being in the STU program at Tamms. 8. Kelly Rhodes
11-cv-1308 Page 12 of 31

(i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Ms. Rhodes will testify that Mr. Rasho reported that he did not
have auditory hallucinations and has not heard voices in contradiction to some other reports he had made. He laughed and grinned about harming others. 3091. She will also testify that Mr. Rasho indicated that he would resume his behaviors because that is who he is. He advised her that he would act out if he was not transferred out of that facility. His acting out was in the form of harming himself. 3092. While incarcerated at the Tamms Correctional Center, Mr. Rasho indicated that he wanted to be transferred to Dixon. He reported that he did not want to continue on medications, but didn’t know why. 3093. He indicated that he would stop harming himself and others and stop smearing feces if he was moved to a different pod within the Tamms Correctional Center. He denied responsibility for his aggressive behavior at Tamms because he had refused his medication and was not taking it at the time. He blames others for his criminal behavior and stabbing an officer.
Ms. Rhodes will also testify that Mr. Rasho was repeatedly encouraged to comply with his medication. He was encouraged to discuss his issues that were bothering him including his mother’s illness. 9. Mary Rollins
(i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705:
11-cv-1308 Page 13 of 31

She will testify regarding her encounters with Mr. Rasho as the mental health nurse at Tamms. She will address the issues of treatment access for inmates at Tamms. She will testify that Mr. Rasho’s requests for treatment were met. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: Ms. Rollins will testify that Mr. Rasho reported that he did not have auditory hallucinations and has not heard voices in contradiction to some other reports he had made. He laughed and grinned about harming others. 3091. She will also testify that Mr. Rasho indicated that he would resume his behaviors because that is who he is. He advised her that he would act out if he was not transferred out of that facility. His acting out was in the form of harming himself. 3092. While incarcerated at the Tamms Correctional Center, Mr. Rasho indicated that he wanted to be transferred to Dixon. He reported that he did not want to continue on medications, but didn’t know why. 3093. He indicated that he would stop harming himself and others and stop smearing feces if he was moved to a different pod within the Tamms Correctional Center. He denied responsibility for his aggressive behavior at Tamms because he had refused his medication and was not taking it at the time. He blames others for his criminal behavior and stabbing an officer.
11-cv-1308 Page 14 of 31

10. Dr. John Garlick (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Garlick may be called to testify regarding the subjects of providing mental health care at the Pontiac correctional facility. He will be asked about his contacts with Mr. Rasho specifically, and may be asked to discuss the mental health modalities available at PON. He will testify regarding the division of labor among the mental health workers in conjuction with the medical staff at PON. He may also be called to testify about the mental health treatment available to inmates housed in both the mental health unit and outside the mental health unit. He may testify regarding the process by which inmates may seek access to mental health and medical treatment at PON. He may testify regarding: a. The policies and procedures applicable to providing and seeking mental health care at PON; b. The process by which inmates would be transferred into and/or out of the MHU (mental health unit) at PON; c. The expectations for inmates who were transferred to the MHU; d. The negative impact Mr. Rasho had on those properly housed in the MHU; e. Dr. Garlick may be called to testify regarding the practices of the mental health staff at PON generally and specifically as relates to Mr. Rasho.
11-cv-1308 Page 15 of 31

(ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: Dr. Garlick is expected to testify consistent with the opinions and
testimony given in his deposition. He will testify as to the facts and opinions stated in Mr. Rasho’s medical records. Dr. Garlick is expected to testify that in his opinion, Mr. Rasho was not clinically benefiting from his placement in the mental health unit at the Pontiac Correctional Center.
He is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho’s clinical diagnosis did not warrant placement in the mental health unit in 2006. He is expected to state that he is in agreement that Mr. Rasho’s recommendation to be transferred off the unit was appropriate. It is his opinion that Mr. Rasho could be effectively provided mental health care as needed while living on north seg.
He is also expected to testify that Mr. Rasho was not positively responding to the therapy he was provided by his psychologist. He was not responding favorably to the medications that were provided to him. He is also expected to testify that Mr. Rasho’s behavior was negatively impacting others who were appropriately placed in the mental health unit.
Dr. Garlick and Dr. Fischer are expected to testify that they met to discuss Mr. Rasho’s status and treatment in January of 2005. At that time, both individuals thought that Mr. Rasho should remain in the specialized mental health setting at that time. 5538. 11. Ed Smith
11-cv-1308 Page 16 of 31

(i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Smith will testify regarding the subjects of mental health care
and treatment at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He will address his personal experiences at the Pontiac Correctional Center including his position, his role in providing mental health treatment to patients in general as well as the specifics concerning Mr. Rasho. He will discuss the available treatment modalities at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He may be asked to discuss all matters identified in his deposition. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: Dr. Smith will testify and provide all opinions elicited in his deposition previously taken herein. He will testify to the facts and statements documented by him in the plaintiff’s mental health records. He is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho was provided appropriate mental health care while he was at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He will testify that the care and treatment he provided to Mr. Rasho appears to have been provided when Mr. Rasho was in the mental health unit. According to him, Mr. Rasho’s behavior did not improve during the time that he was in the mental health unit. Mr. Rasho specifically indicated that his criminal behaviors against staff members were related to his efforts to achieve a particular goal or purpose at the facility. These purposes included being moved to other facilities, to other rooms, or at other times included requests for access to commissary privileges and/or audio visual
11-cv-1308 Page 17 of 31

materials that he was currently being denied. Mr. Rasho blamed others for his bad behaviors and took no responsibility for assaults he inflicted upon others. Mr. Rasho would exhibit these behaviors both while on medications and when not on medications. Medications were prescribed for him by the psychiatrists, but were not always taken as Mr. Rasho would refuse to take the medication even though he was encouraged to do so. Mr. Rasho’s behavior is not consistent with a person who is engaged in and receiving available mental health care. He did not cooperate with his treatment team to make efforts to improve his behaviors. When he wanted something, he would act out in order to get what he wanted by cutting or assaulting persons usually.
Dr. Smith will testify that Mr. Rasho discussed his current mental health issues. He will testify that Mr. Rasho admitted that he cut on himself out of anger and frustration. Mr. Rasho himself denies that he has a mental illness.
Dr. Smith will testify that Mr. Rasho reported in August of 2004 that he did not want to be dependent on his medication. He will also testify that Mr. Rasho would report on occasion that he had no problems or concerns at times at the facility. At various times, Mr. Rasho reported that he was doing all right or was just fine.
Dr. Smith will also testify that Mr. Rasho reported that he wanted out of the Pontiac Correctional Center. He requested to go to Tamms and indicated to her that he would take matters into his own hands in order to
11-cv-1308 Page 18 of 31

get a transfer to that facility. He indicated he did not want to go to Dixon or Menard. While in the mental health unit, Mr. Rasho expressed feelings that he would prefer to return to the Tamms Correctional Center even during the timeframe that he was housed in the mental health unit. 5476.
Dr. Smith will testify that Mr. Rasho admitted to him that he was intentionally instigating others when he was angry. Mr. Rasho believed that he was a victim and blamed others for his actions. 5586.
Dr. Smith will testify that Mr. Rasho was able to read and write. Dr. Smith will testify that Mr. Rasho had no depressive, manic or psychotic symptoms noted in June of 2005. 5629. Dr. Smith will testify that Mr. Rasho wanted to be transferred out of Pontiac to another facility. 5737. He will testify that Rasho was not cooperating with the mental health staff to improve his behavior while he was in the MHU at PON. Rasho did not appear to be benefitting clinically from his placement in the MHU. Smith will testify that he provided appropriate and extensive mental health visits with Mr. Rasho. Mr. Rasho had access to both scheduled routine mental health care and could see mental health staff any time he so requested. 12. Mark Fischer
11-cv-1308 Page 19 of 31

(i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Fischer will testify regarding the subjects of mental health care
and treatment at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He will address his personal experiences at the Pontiac Correctional Center including his position, his role in providing mental health treatment to patients in general as well as the specifics concerning Mr. Rasho. He will discuss the available treatment modalities at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He may be asked to discuss all matters identified in his deposition.
Dr. Fischer will testify regarding his assessment of Mr. Rasho, his role at the Pontiac Correctional Center, his understanding and assessment of Mr. Rasho’s mental health issues, his recommendations for care and treatment. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: He is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho was provided appropriate mental health treatment while in north seg. He is expected to testify that he did not recommend that Mr. Rasho be placed back in the mental health unit. He was appropriately provided medications while housed in north seg by him in 2007. He is also expected to testify that the medications he prescribed were consistent with the medications that were prescribed by Dr. Massa when the patient was in the mental health unit. It is his opinion that these medications were appropriately prescribed for Mr. Rasho.
11-cv-1308 Page 20 of 31

Dr. Garlick and Dr. Fischer are expected to testify that they met to discuss Mr. Rasho’s status and treatment in January of 2005. At that time, both individuals thought that Mr. Rasho should remain in the specialized mental health setting at that time. 5538.
Dr. Fischer will testify that in February of 2005 Mr. Rasho reported to him that he is a cutter and that he enjoys cutting. He will testify that Mr. Rasho admitted to him that he had emotional pain and frustration related to his incarceration. It is Dr. Fischer’s opinion that Mr. Rasho does not intend to kill himself when cutting on himself. 5564-5565. Dr. Fischer will testify that Mr. Rasho made several requests to be placed or transferred to the Tamms Correctional Center in February of 2005. 5570. Dr. Fischer is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho had very limited response to treatment in light of his long history of mental health and behavior problems. 5571.
Dr. Fischer also saw Mr. Rasho on May 16, 2005. 5605. Dr. Fischer will testify that Mr. Rasho refused to come to his office on December 4, 2006. 5821. Dr. Fischer is expected to testify after Mr. Rasho was transferred off the mental health unit, he saw Mr. Rasho as his psychiatrist on January 15, 2007. It is expected that he will testify that Mr. Rasho was doing well. He was not reporting any hallucination. He did not relate any delusional or unrealistic fears. He denied thoughts of hurting himself or others. He will testify that he did not recommend any medications for Mr. Rasho and that he was doing well off of meds at that
11-cv-1308 Page 21 of 31

time. He will testify that the treatment provided to Mr. Rasho by mental health staff was appropriate and was done to help Mr. Rasho not to harm him. 13. Alton Angus (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Angus will testify regarding the subjects of mental health care and treatment at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He will address his personal experiences at the Pontiac Correctional Center including his position, his role in providing mental health treatment to patients in general as well as the specifics concerning Mr. Rasho. He will discuss the available treatment modalities at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He may be asked to discuss all matters identified in his deposition. Dr. Angus will testify regarding his assessment of Mr. Rasho, his role at the Pontiac Correctional Center, his understanding and assessment of Mr. Rasho’s mental health issues, his recommendations for care and treatment. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: Mr. Angus may be called to testify regarding his encounters with Mr. Rasho. It is expected that he will testify concerning his contacts with Mr. Rasho and that the care and treatment he provided to Mr. Rasho was appropriate. Mr. Rasho reported that he could not hear out of his right ear. 5401. He will testify that the treatment provided to Mr. Rasho by mental
11-cv-1308 Page 22 of 31

health staff was appropriate and was done to help Mr. Rasho not to harm him.
Mr. Angus will also testify that Mr. Rasho reported to him that he had had problems with his neighbor who he claimed made threats to assault him. Prior to being transferred to the mental health unit, Mr. Rasho was observed to be calm, alert and coherent. He was not depressed or manic and had no psychotic symptoms. Mr. Angus is also expected to testify that when it was recommended that Mr. Rasho be transferred to the Pontiac Correctional Center mental health unit in 2004, he indicated that he did not want to go to the mental health unit and refused to sign the form indicating whether or not he wished to have a hearing regarding whether he should be transferred to the mental health unit or not.
Mr. Angus will testify that Mr. Rasho was placed on crisis watch in early 2004. He documented that Mr. Rasho had attempted to head butt an officer but denied doing so. Mr. Rasho requested to return to the Tamms Correctional Center to obtain mental health treatment at that facility. 5421.
Mr. Angus will testify that Mr. Rasho agreed to be placed in the mental health unit at Pontiac in April of 2004.
He will testify that Mr. Rasho admitted assaulting a nurse in order to get transferred out of the Pontiac Correctional Center. Mr. Angus is expected to testify that Mr. Rasho told him that he would continue to act
11-cv-1308 Page 23 of 31

out to harm others to force his agenda. Mr. Angus will testify that Mr. Rasho had no signs or symptoms of depression or psychosis. 5519.
Mr. Angus will testify that Mr. Rasho engaged in self injurious behavior for the sole purpose of being moved and without intent to suicide in May of 2005. 5597.
Mr. Angus will testify that Mr. Rasho reported cutting on himself in August of 2005 to get moved over the weekend to a new cell. 14. Dr. identified at page AR5419. (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Mr. Rasho cut on himself with a blade. Mr. Rasho was on medication at the time of this cutting. 15. Keith Frainey, Psy.D. (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Frainey will testify regarding the subjects of mental health care and treatment at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He will address his personal experiences at the Pontiac Correctional Center including his position, his role in providing mental health treatment to patients in general as well as the specifics concerning Mr. Rasho. He will discuss the available treatment modalities at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He may be asked to discuss all matters identified in his deposition. Dr. Frainey will testify regarding his assessment of Mr. Rasho, his role at the Pontiac Correctional Center, his understanding and assessment
11-cv-1308 Page 24 of 31

of Mr. Rasho’s mental health issues, his recommendations for care and treatment.
Dr. Frainey may be called to testify that Mr. Rasho reported no hallucinations upon his arrival at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He had no signs of agitation or depression in May of 2004. 5436. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: Dr. Frainey may be called to testify that the mental health staff at PON is and was competent to treat Mr. Rasho. He will testify that the treatment provided to Mr. Rasho by mental health staff was appropriate and was done to help Mr. Rasho not to harm him. 16. Dr. Larson (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Mr. Rasho reported feeling hostile and that he was threatening others during this time while in the Pontiac mental health unit Mr. Rasho threatened to cut on himself and was placed in restraints at times for his behaviors to prevent him from harming himself. 5513. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: He may be called to testify regarding his encounters with Mr. Rasho documented in the plaintiff’s medical records. 17. Dr. Vade (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705:
11-cv-1308 Page 25 of 31

Dr. Vade will testify that Mr. Rasho cut on himself while placed in the mental health unit in February of 2005. Dr. Vade is expected to testify that at times it was his belief that Mr. Rasho would benefit from being placed in restraints to prevent him from harming himself or others. 5543.
Dr. Vade will testify that Mr. Rasho cut himself on the forearm on June 11, 2005. 5613. 18. Dr. Arthur Funk (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Funk may testify that Mr. Rasho cut on himself while placed in the mental health unit in February of 2005. He was placed in the health care unit for observation. 19. Michael Melvin (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Mr. Melvin may be called to testify regarding the subject of Mr. Rasho’s placement in the mental health unit and the process by which inmates are placed in and removed from that unit. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: Recommendations from psychiatrists at the facility were a consideration when determining whether or not to place an inmate in the MHU and transferring them off. Other factors were also considered. The decision to place or remove Rasho from the MHU was a group decision.
11-cv-1308 Page 26 of 31

Mr. Melvin may be called to testify that Mr. Rasho’s placement in the mental health unit was determined by the placement review board. Mr. Rasho’s request to be removed from the unit may have been a relevant factor at that time. 20. Christine Fletcher, M.D., Psychiatrist (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Fletcher will testify regarding her role as a psychiatrist at the PON. She will discuss her competence to treat patients at PON and Mr. Rasho specifically. She will discuss the efforts of the mental health staff to address Mr. Rasho mental health issues and his behaviors. She will discuss psychiatry in general and specifically as relates to Mr. Rasho. She will testify regarding the appropriateness of the care provided to Mr. Rasho while he was at PON. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify: Dr. Fletcher may be called to testify that she documented a recommendation to consider transferring Mr. Rasho off of the mental health unit on August 15, 2005. 5663. She notes this transfer off of the unit as part of Mr. Rasho’s possible treatment plan. Dr. Fletcher is expected to testify that her diagnosis of Mr. Rasho on September 19, 2005, was antisocial personalty disorder. She recommended discontinuing Mr. Rasho’s Buspar and adding Sinequan and Geodon twice a day. 5675. She is expected to testify that her diagnosis of Mr. Rasho was reasonable and
11-cv-1308 Page 27 of 31

the care and treatment provided for that condition was appropriate. She will testify that she is a competent mental health provider and that the care and treatment provided to Mr. Rasho was appropriate from her and others working at PON. She will testify that : a. Psychiatrists were not able to move patients from one cell to
another on their own; b. That it is appropriate to consider a patient’s effect both positive
and negative on others in the MHU when considering whether or not to honor a patient’s request to leave the facility; c. That a patient has the right to refuse mental health care; d. That a patient has the right to refuse medication generally; e. That the decision to enforce medications is not taken lightly f. That Mr. Rasho did not seem to be benefitting clinically from his placement in the MHU; and g. That her opinions regarding Rasho’s clinical status and treatment were consistent with those of Dr. Massa. 21. Aqeel Kahn (i) The subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705: Dr. Kahn had seen Mr. Rasho on April 1, 2006. 5739. He may be called to testify regarding his care and treatment of Mr. Rasho. He is expected to testify that the treatment provided to Mr. Rasho during his
11-cv-1308 Page 28 of 31

incarceration at the Pontiac Correctional Center was appropriate within the standard of care for all mental health providers. 5740. (ii) A summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify: Each of the above providers will testify that he or she is a competent mental health provider. That the care and treatment provided to Mr. Rasho was done so in an effort to properly assess and determine his mental health diagnoses and needs. Treatment modalities were recommended based upon the consensus of diagnoses and appropriate treatment at the time based upon personal contacts, observations, review of prior treatment, experience with treatments offered and provided to Mr. Rasho already. All care was provided in an effort to improve Mr. Rasho’s mental health and to prevent him from harming himself and others despite his stated willingness and desire to do so. Each will testify that Rasho as well as all inmates have the right to refuse care and treatment for both mental health and medical treatment. It is not a simple process to force medication and treatments on a patient. Mr. Rasho’s requests to refuse care were honored when it was determined that doing so did not place him or others at imminent risk of substantial harm. When it was thought that medication enforcement was necessary, mental health staff appropriately initiated the process to have those specified medications enforced.
11-cv-1308 Page 29 of 31

All identified witnesses may be called to testify regarding their own entries in Mr. Rasho’s medical records and to testify regarding entries of others to the extent those entries formed the basis of the care and treatment provided to Mr. Rasho. Each of the identified witnesses may be called to testify and give opinions consistent with those expressed by each other provider as relates to their care and treatment of Mr. Rasho and others within the IDOC.
Rule 26 (a)(3) Each of the witnesses identified herein are also identified as trial witnesses in this case. It is counsel’s recollection that Nurse Rollins may have passed away. Obviously, if that is the case, she will not be called to trial. Other mental health and medical staff may be difficult to locate due to the closing of Tamms Correctional Center. Counsel is not placing home addresses in this document for safety and security reasons. To the extent last known addresses are needed by Plaintiff’s counsel, that can be provided with the understanding that the information is not to be shared with the Plaintiff himself or placed in any public documents.
Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii) Identification Of Each Document Or Other Exhibit 1. AR3033 – AR3035. Plaintiff’s judgment and sentence in Alexander County for his crime of aggravated battery. 2. Counsel intends to use Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records as well as his disciplinary history, master file records and incident reports as exhibits in this case. Plaintiff has possession of all of these documents.
11-cv-1308 Page 30 of 31

MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., Defendant

By: /s/ Theresa M. Powell Theresa M. Powell IL ARDC #: 6230402 HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN 3731 Wabash Avenue P. O. Box 9678 Springfield, IL 62791-9678 Phone: 217.522.8822, Ext. 222 Fax: 217.523.3902 Fax Email: tpowell@heylroyster.com

PROOF OF SERVICE

By agreement of the parties, a copy of the RULE 26(a)(2)(B) AND (C) AND 26(a)(3)
PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURES was served upon the attorneys of record of all parties via email only on this 31st day of January, 2013, addressed to such parties at their email addresses as
indicated below:

Alan Mills – alanmills@comcast.net Marc R. Kadish – mkadish@mayerbrown.com Matthew V. Wargin – mwargin@mayerbrown.com William R. Stone – wstone@mayerbrown.com Lee N. Abrams – labrams@mayerbrown.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Heidi Hildebrand – hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us

Attorneys for Defendants

Christopher L. Higgerson – chiggerson@atg.state.il.us Elyea, Garlic, Jones, Navarro,

and Walker

TMP/cs (R6135) 20519014_1

/s/ Theresa M. Powell Theresa M. Powell

11-cv-1308 Page 31 of 31

a WashingtonUniversity in St.louis
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
January 31, 2013
Ms. Theresa Powell Hey} Royster ·PNCBank 1 NOl1h Old State Capitol Plaza Suite 575 Splingfield, IL 62701
RE: Ashoor Rasho v. Dr. Michael Massa, et al. Case No.: 11-CV-1308
Dear Ms. Powell, At your request I reviewed the care and treatment provided by Dr.
Massa to Ashoor Rasho. My opinions stated herein are to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
i) Statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons for them a. Mr. Rasho's behavior is and was consistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASP) and substance abuse prior to his incarceration on 9-271996. b. Mr. Rasho committed crimes which lead him to be placed within the IDOC: c. Mr. Rasho was diagnosed with various mental health disorders; however the predominant and persistent diagnosis has been polysubstance abuse and ASP. These diagnoses have been determined by mUltiple mental health providers from different mental health disciplines over decades in different settings. i. These mental health providers appropriately documented their diagnosis and treatment of Mr. Rasho. ii. Mr. Rasho often did not provide accurate infoffilation in his testimony about his conditions relating to both his medical and mental health history. iii. Mr. Rasho's claim that his illness causes him to refuse is medication is not reliable and is not supported by the mental health documentation.
Washington University School of Mcdicinc at Washington University Medical Center, Campus Box 8134 660 South EtlClid Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63110-1093, www.wlIphy§icians.org. www.wustl.edu
1

660 South Euelid Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 6311 O·I 093, www.wu12hysicians.QIg. www.wustl.edu
iv. It is not likely that Mr. Rasho suffered from rabies as a child and that none ofhis behavior results from rabies encephalitis.
v. Other than Mr. Rasho's statement that he suffered from a gunshot wound, there is no documented medical evidence to support the opinion that Mr. Rasho suffered a brain injury from a gunshot wound to the head as a child. None of his behavior is the result of a gunshot wound to the head.
vi. Mr. Rasho was accurately diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder as early as 1998.
vii. Subsequent diagnoses and treatments provided by Dr. Fisher and others after he left Pontiac MHU were consistent with Dr. Massa's assessements, recommendations and treatment of Mr. Rasho's condition.
viii. Mr. Rasho does not suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). BPD and ASP express the same genetic vulnerability to early developmental influences in a gender influence fashion. As such they are often diagnostically co-mingled. The diagnoses share impUlsivity, self damaging behavior, il1itability, anger, aggression, interpersonal conflict and substance abuse. However, Mr. Rasho does not have the core features of BPD of chronic fear of abandonment, feeling of emptiness and unstable self identity. His history and behavior is entirely consistent with ASP.
ix. Manipulation and secondary gain are persistent and significant components of Mr. Rasho's behaviors. It is typical for him to blame others for his behavior. These behaviors were accurately described by Mr. Rasho's prior treating psychiatrists and mental health providers.
x. Mr. Rasho's history shows that prescribed medications have provided little benefit. This would be expected since there is no convincing pharmacological treatment for ASP. Attempts to determine the etiology of his self mutilation and psychological distress beyond what is clear in the record will be frustrated if an attempt to go beyond what Mr. Rasho says himself in the record as reasons.
xi. In general, the opinions of the prior treating psychiatrists, psychologist and mental health professional were reasonable and based upon the information that they had at the time concerning Mr. Rasho.
xii. It was reasonable for the mental health staff to modify the diagnoses of Mr. Rasho based upon the history he provided and the records they had regarding his behaviors.
xiii. It was reasonable for each provider, including Dr. Massa to review the prior records and either agree with the prior assessment and/or modify their opinions based upon what they observed.
2

xiv. In my opinion, Mr. Rasho has proper and reasonable diagnoses of polysubstance abuse in remission and Antisocial Personality Disorder.
xv. Mr. Rasho has received multiple tickets for behaviors that he did when fiustrated, bored, manipulative, out of meanness or personal gain. He states "1 like to hmt people". There is very little to suggest his behavior arose from a depression or psychosis.
d. Mr. Rasho purposely chooses not to take his medicine. His contemporaneous stated reasons are varied but they include his concerns for depOltation, side effect, trying to cope without them, "not working" and secondary gain.
e. Mr. Rasho often denies responsibility for his actions whether or not he is on medications.
±: For purposes ofth1s case, Mr. Rasho adopts his attorney's theory of the
case that his mental illness causes him to act out when he does not take his medication. This is not consistent with the records. g. Mr. Rasho is impulsive, assaults staff and mutilates consistent with his diagnosis of ASP. h. Mr. Rasho has verbally identified many reasons for his behavior including wanting return of his radio, "boredom" , "felt like it" and "moving to a different cell" or a different correctional facility. i. Mr. Rasho often acts out when he wants to achieve a certain outcome. J. There is no documentation that Mr. Rasho mutilates at the prompting of hallucination or delusions. k. The mental health providers very rarely document Mr. Rasho complaining of or responding to hallucination or delusions. 1. There is no documentation that Mr. Rasho mutilates as an attempt at suicide. m. The mental health providers do not document that Mr. Rasho complains of depression or the desire or wish to die. n. The mental health providers do not document Mr. Rasho having a thought disorder. o. Dr. Massa provided treatment to Mr. Rasho at the Pontiac Mental Health Unit fi'om 5-26-06 until 11-4-06. Dr. Massa treated Mr. Rasho on 5-2606, 7-1-06, 8-3-06, 9-14-06 and 11-4-06. Mr. Rasho refused to see the doctor on 7-29-06 and 10-07-06. p. Dr. Smith PsyD provided treatment to Mr. Rasbo concurrent with Dr. Massa. q. Drs. Smith and Massa were in substantial agreement diagnostically and therapeutically concerning Mr. Rasho. 1'. It was appropriate for Dr. Massa to treat Mr. Rasho with input from his mental health team. During the time Dr. Massa treated Mr. Rasho he "discussed with team", continued previously prescribed medications "to assist with anger" and correctly determined the "key diagnostic focus is Antisocial Personality Disorder".
3

s. Dr. Massa discontinued Geodon because of Mr. Rasho's medication refusal and out of concern for "hoarding". This was also done by other providers at various times.
t. Dr. Massa's decision to discontinue Mr. Rasho's medications for these reasons was reasonable and within the standard of care.
u. While in the Pontiac MHU Mr. Rasho continued to self mutilate. i. Placement outside of the mental health unit is not a cause ofMr. Rasho's self mutilation. ii. Placement in the mental health unit is not a cause orMr. Rasho's self mutilation.
111. It is reasonable to assume that Mr. Rasho will self mutilate regardless of where he is housed within the facility as his placement is not the direct cause of his self mutilation.
v. Mr. Rasho had insight and often stated "sorry about that" after mutilating or assaulting staff.
w. Dr. Massa's recommendation to transfer Mr. Rasho offthe mental health unit was reasonable and appropriate. He appropriately discussed Mr. Rasho's condition and progress with the treatment team and documented his decision as a consensus of opinion.
x. Dr. Massa's last note from 11-04-06 documented Mr. Rasho is euthymic and without psychosis.
y. Mr. Rasho had cutting incidents when he was at Tamms in the Specialized Treatment Unit.
z. Mr. Rasho's disciplinary infractions began very early on in his tenure within the IDOC which is expected given his personality. It is most probable his personality will be unchanged at the time of his release. He has made comments that he will stab someone with the pen he signs his release paper. i. Mr. Rasho's behavior leading to his discipline was not related to any diagnosis or treatment associated with Dr. Massa. ii. Mr. Rasho's behavior is consistent before he was at Pontiac, while he was at Pontiac, and after he spent time in Mental Health Unit., Mr. Rasho's behavior was the same before, during and after treatment by Dr. Massa. iii. Medication appears to have helped sedate Mr. Rasho on occasion, and may have provided some limited degree of self control. However, there are no FDA approved treatments available for ASP. There is no scientific literature that there is a convincing benefit from medication or a particular type of psychotherapy. iv. Mr. Rasho's mental health providers, including Dr. Massa, had no incentive to misdiagnose him with ASP. Given the marked inadequacy of treatments for ASP, in all respects it would have been much easier for Mr. Rasho's mental health providers to treat him as ifhe had Major depression with psychosis. There is a wide
4

range of effective, inexpensive and approved treatment for Major Depression with and without psychosis. aa. The testimony and records of Dr. Smith establish that Mr. Rasho was cognizant ofhis manipulative behavior. bb. In general, a correctional facility is not the optimum setting to provide or receive mental health treatment. cc. Dr. Massa was not in control of the treatment setting assigned to Mr. Rasho. Dr. Massa's recommendation to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the MHU was ultimately determined by others. dd. It was appropriate and reasonable for Dr. Massa to recommend that Mr. Rasho be transferTed out ofthe MHU. ee. Mr, Rasho's behavior does not appear to have improved with any clinical significance during the time that he was in the Mental Health Unit. This is consistent with ASP, ff. Mr. Rasho's behavior, as noted in his records, appears to coincide with his personal desires to either follow the rules or to not foHow them depending upon what he is seeking to achieve at the time, consistent with ASP. gg. Mr. Rasho has engaged in behavior that is harmful to others while on medication and offmedication consistent with ASP. hh. Medication does not prevent Mr. Rasho fi'om assaulting others consistent with ASP. 11. The treatment provided in the MHU did not prevent Mr. Rasho ii-om assaulting himself consistent with ASP. JJ. Mr. Rasho did not show effort to change his behaviors while in the MHU consistent with ASP. kk. Mr. Rasho will not improve until or unless he assists his mental health providers by choosing to sincerely cooperate with them and actively participate in efforts made to correct his behaviors. 11. Mr. Rasho has had periods of time wherein he reported and exhibited few to no mental health issues or behavior issues consistent with ASP. mm. Mr. Rasho has not consistently cooperated with his mental health providers or assisted them in conecting his behaviors. nn. Mr. Rasho's periods of calm were not dependent upon whether he was in the MHU consistent with ASP. 00. Placement in the MHU should not be a way for Mr. Rasho to avoid discipline for his criminal behavior. pp. Mr. Rasho's mental health status was not clinically improved during the time frames that he was assigned to the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac or the Specialized Treatment Unit at Tamms. qq. It is not reasonable to recommend that Mr. Rasho be released from prison to improve his mental health status. IT. Mr. Rasho's waivering personal opinions regarding where he would like to be placed carry little weight or value as it appears from his records that these are based upon seeondary gain incentives and are not suggested in
5

an effort to improve his mental health status. He may not like a specific placement at any given time. ss. Concerning the issue of damages, there is no evidence to establish that Mr. Rasho has suffered physical or emotional injuries resulting from any actions on the part of Dr. Massa. tt. Dr. Massa's recommendation to move Mr. Rasho out of the mental health unit was reasonable and within the standard of care. Ull. Dr. Massa's documented care and treatment of Mr. Rasho was appropriate and reasonable. vv. Mr. Rasho's documented mental health status is not noted to be clinically significantly different during the timc he was in MHU as compared to his time in North Seg. It is Mr. Rasho's testimony that his mental issues have improved outside the MHU and in North Seg notably under the care of Dr. Mathews. ww. Mr. Rasho expresses personal approval of the care and treatment he was receiving from Dr. Mathews, all of which was provided while Mr. Rasho was in the NOlth Seg Unit at Pontiac. xx. The care and treatment recommendations by Dr. Matthews were also substantially appropriate. yy. Dr. Massa's recommendation to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the MHU in 2006 did not lead to his immediate transfer.
aaa. The recommendation to transfer Mr. Rasho out ofthe MHU was not acted upon until months later. Mr. Rasho's behavior prior to his transfer out of the MHU is well documented to include multiple and recurrent episodes of criminal behavior; this behavior continues while in MHU and after the tnmsfer out ofMHU.
bbb. Mr. Rasho's behaviors were not caused by any recommendation or negligence of Dr. Massa.
ccc. Dr. Massa's care and treatment of Mr. Rasho met the standard of carc for a psychiatrist.
ddd. It was appropriate to weigh the benefits versus the detriment to others concurrently housed with Mr. Rasho in consideration of his placement in the MHU.
eee. The decision to recommend that Mr. Rasho be transferred out of the MHU was appropriately considered.
fff. Mr. Rasho did not benefit from being housed in the MHU. ggg. Mr. Rasho was documented to be a detriment to the care and
treatment of others in the MHU. hhh. It was appropriate to consider the effect ofMr. Rasho's behavior on
the mental health status of others in the MHU when recommending to transfer him to another location. Ill. Mr. Rasho received appropriate mental health access while on North Seg.
6

jjj. Mr. Rasho' s mental health issues were not caused by being incarcerated.
kkk. Mr. Rasho's mental health records document a history of genuine effort to determine medical and mental health issues that are explainable and responsive to treatment.
111. Mr. Rasho's episodes of poor impulse control and depressive symptoms were present both when on medication and when he did not take his medication.
mmm. It is not reasonable to solely rely OIl Dr. Silberberg's one time 4 hour assessment of Mr. Rasho as compared to ongoing assessments and documentation of Mr. Rasho's behaviors and comments over the course of 20 years of mental health care.
nnn. There is no basis not to believe Mr. Rasho's documented explanations for his behaviors over that extended period of time.
000. Dr. Silberberg ofTers a diagnosis for Mr. Rasho not contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-TR.
ppp. Dr. Silberberg offers an opinion substantially different from all of Mr. Rasho's prior treatment providers.
qqq. Mr. Rasho's mental illness/condition cannot be afTectcd in a positive manner without Mr. Rasho's cooperation to change his behaviors. Mr. Rasho's conditions are not the type that can be controlled with medication. They are not of the type that can be controlled with regular access to treatment unless there is a consistent commitment on the part of the recipient to drastically change. Any possible benefit from psychotherapy outside of that commitment, will be transit and limited to having somebody to complain to about his situation.
nT. During the time that Mr. Rasho was in the MHU at Pontiac his behavior was consistent with ASP. Since his actions are not the result of a pervasive mood disorder or psychosis, his actions will vary in accordance to his personality disorder. Therefore his behavior at times will be more appropriate with or without medication, group therapy or psychotherapy. At times he did well, participated in group therapy 'and took his medications. At other times, while in the MHU, Mr. Rasho assaulted staff, threw his feces, refused his medications for the stated reasons of wanting access to audio/visual, wanting a difTerent cell, or wanting to move to Tamms correctional center or elsewhere.
sss. Providing Mr. Rasho with the housing assignment that he is requesting would not end his episodes of poor impulse control or bad/criminal behaviors. This has not been the response in the record. Most likely, Mr. Rasho will behave poorly when he desires some new privilege or request regardless of psychiatric or mental health intervention.
ttt. Mr. Rasho does not cut on himself in an attempt to kill himself. His cutting behavior is an effort to achieve a secondary goal or out of boredom.
7

Ulm. The conditions of North Seg, from my understanding are not described

as being very different from those in the MHU at Pontiac. The

differences between the two facilities relates to the scheduled therapy

for the patients.

vvv. Mr. Rasho could receive adequate therapy from outside the MHU as

demonstrated in part by his acceptance of the therapy he received from

Dr. Matthews.

www.Itis very doubtful that Mr. Rasho experienced hallucinations due to

mental illness as his reports of these fail to be persistently documented

whether or not he is on medication.

xxx. Mr. Rasho's positive behaviors are not limited to periods oftime while

in the MHU or STU.

yyy. Allegations identified in a plaintiff's complaint are not typically relied

upon or served as the basis for a psychiatrist to determine proper

diagnosis and/or course of treatment for a patient.

zzz. Mr. Rasho's diagnosis and treatment has been consistent across many

mental health providers and over many years.

1. Mr. Rasho's behaviors which led to being found guilty in a court of

law and additional sentencing while already imprisoned are not related to his

removal from MHU.

2.

It is not reasonable to assume that every psychiatrist and psychologist

who has treated Mr. Rasho during his incarceration within the IDOC is

incompetent.

3. There is no evidence to support the position that Dr. Massa had any

role in disciplining plaintiff during his incarceration.

4. There is no evidence to support the position that Dr. Massa played a

role in the disciplinary process at Pontiac.

5.

It is not reasonable or appropriate for a physician to equate Pontiac's

disciplinary process to the State of Illinois' criminal prosecution process. It is

my understanding disciplinary actions ("tickets") may result in loss of

privileges but that length of imprisonment can only occur after criminal due

process.

6. There is no evidence in the record to support the position that

employees of the IDOC have the ability to increase a sentence imposed by an

Illinois court.

7. Mr.Rasho's rare complaints of hallucinations and psychosis are

transient and manipulative.

8.

Mr. Rasho rarely complains of depression.

9.

Mr. Rasho does not exhibit symptoms of dementia or head trauma.

10. Mr. Rasho has a long history of the Axis II psychiatric disorder ASP.

This diagnosis is consistent with his vast majority of his mentcll health

treatment providers, including Dr. Massa.

11. There is no evidence that Mr. Rasho survived rabies encephalitis or a

traumatic gunshot wound to the head.

8

12. Personality disorders are genetically driven and early developmentally influenced disorders in temperament and character. 13. Mr. Rasho's personality was developed and expressed before his incarceration. 14. Mr. Rasho's personality was not the result of his incarceration. 15. Personality disorders respond poorly to medications and not at all unless there is a commitment by the individual to change. 16. Mr. Rasho's mental illness is not treatable with psychotropic medication and generally unresponsive to individual or group psychotherapy. 17. Dr. Massa's contacts with Mr. Rasho appear to have been limited to when Mr. Rasho was in the MHU. 18. Mr. Rasho report.s doing his best outside the MHU and housed in Nor Seg. 19. The record does not suppoli the position that placement in the MHU of Pontiac would not have prevented Mr. Rasho from receiving disciplinary tickets. 20. Mr. Rasho was disciplined at times while in the MHU. 21. Mr. Rasho was not benefiting from treatment on the MHU. 22. Mr. Rasho's behavior was negatively impacting the other inmates on theMHU. 23. Dr. Bums opinions are incomplete and in'elevant to the treatment provided by Dr. Massa to Mr. Rasho. 24. The treatment provided by Dr. Massa was consistent with that documented by Dr's Kahn, Kowalkowski, Rhodes, Chandra, Fisher, Fletcher and the therapists Stevens, Peppers, Clover, Smith, Garlick, Keith Frainey, W. Evans, Kristin Kwasniewski, Cheryl Couch and Mathews as well as others referenced in Mr. Rasho's medical and mental health records. 25. It is contrary to common sense to believe that all of the mental health providers who have assessed and treated Mr. Rasho over the course of the past 15 years were incompetent and were purposely making efforts to harm Mr. Rasho. 26. Dr. Massa's recommendation to transfer Mr. Rasho off the MHU was supported by that ofChristil1e Fletcher, MD who made a similar recommendation before Dr. Massa. 27. It is appropriate to consider Mr. Rasho's statements when determining a proper diagnosis for him. 28. It is appropriate to rely upon a patient's documented mental health and medical records when assessing a patient's condition. 29. Mr. Rasho's behavior is directly linked to his requests for privileges, prison transfers or manipulations. They are not associated, by him, to desires to commit suicide or psychosis. "States he wants to go back to Tamms and this is the only way that they'll listen", "Admits that he assaulted RN in order to get transferred out of PonCC", "he does say that he is not suicidal and just wants to get out of cell". Mr. Rasho made statements such as: ''I'm not psychotic, I know I'm a psychopath", "1 got problems but I don't think I have
9

a mental illness", "he received satisfaction that I have the power to !,rive or take a life", "Offender states that he has been 'bored' and has been 'messing with other"" "I'm a cutter. ..Mostly I enjoy cutting... Sometimes I get caught up and go too far", "he recently cut himself in order to move cells" are relevant to his diagnosis. 30. I disagree with Dr. Silberberg's generalized opinions that Mr. Rasho's mental health providers are and were incompetent. 31. I disagree with Dr. Silberberg's specific opinions which criticize the recommendations and tTcatment of Dr. Massa. 32. I disagree with Dr. Silberberg's opinions that Mr. Rasho's mental illness can be effectively treated with psychotropic medication and proper supportive psychotherapies. 33. An in-person evaluation ofMr. Rasho at the present time would not assist me or any mental health provider in assessing Mr. Rasho's clinical status as it existed in 2005 and 2006. 34. A treating mental health provider should review and give weight to a patient's prior history of diagnoses, assessments and treatments when providing a cun'cnt assessment. 35. Mr. Rasho's willingness to cooperate with Dr. Silberberg for a psychiatric evaluation is consistent with the diagnosis ofASP. 36. Mr. Rasho is capable of understanding that Dr. Silberberg has been hired as an expert to SUppOlt the claims he has filed against the defendants. It is consistent with the diagnosis of APSD for Mr. Rasho to act in a manner that he believes would be beneficial to him. 37. Mr. Rasho's overall mental health picture is consistent with ASP. 38. Mr. Rasho had access to mental health care while housed in North Seg. 39. Housing Mr. Rasho in the mental health unit would not have improved his mental health status.
ii) The facts or data considered by the witness in forming his opinions Records reviewed which form the basis of my opinions include: Deposition Transcripts of 1. Ashoor Rasho ii. Dr. Michael Massa iii. John Garlick iv. Wendy Blank v. Eddie Jones vi. Ed Smith
Medical and Mental Healtb Records 1. Plaintiff's Mental Health records from the IDOC from years 1998 through 20 J2 focusing on those years immediately before and after Dr. Massa treated the patient as well as those records
10

documenting Mr. Rasho's behaviors while in specialized treatment units within the lOOC 2. All records provided by plaintiff's counsel to their expert Silberberg 3. Plaintiff's expert's report by Dr. Silberberg
AU facts relied upon were obtained from review of the above documents.
My opinions are based upon my education, training und experience and expertise as a board certified psychiatrist.

Any exhibits tbat will be used to summarize or support them None at this time

Qualifications and public.ations authored in the previous 10 years See CV for my qualification and list of publications

List of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, tbe witness testified as an

expert at trial or bv deposition and

.

See list of cases attached hereto

A statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony See attached fee agreement

Sincerely,

<

~R4~~~=

Michael R. Jarv' ,Ph.D., M.D. Washington U iversity School of Medicine Professor and\/ice Chairman for Clinical Affairs Director, Inpatient Psychiatry

11

Washington University in St.lDuis
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
January 4,2012
Ms. Theresa Powell Heyl Royster PNCBank 1 North Old State Capitol Plaza Suite 575 Springfield, IL. 62701
RE: Rasho v. Massa
Dear Ms. Powell:
This will confirm our agreement regarding my providing forensic consulting services with regard to the above-referenced matter. I will charge an hourly rate of$500.00. It is understood and agreed that timely payment for my service and expenses will be solely the responsibility of the attorney, and is in no way contingent upon the outcome of any litigation or settlement.
Forensic services may include an initial consultation, interview or evaluation, interviews with family members or other persons, consultation with counsel, review ofrecords, and report preparation. Travel expenses will be determined on a case by case basis and may be a flat fee or a portal-to-portal hourly charge. Missed appointments will be charged at the hourly rate for the time allotted, unless 48-hour notice of cancellation is given. It is underst.ood and agreed that you will pay all out-of-pocket expenses in connection with this matter, including secretarial service, postage, literature research, photocopying, long-distance telephone calls, messenger services, etc.
It is further understood and agreed that should a decision be made to call me as a witness at any deposition or court proceeding, compensation for my time in giving testimony shall be at the agreed upon hourly rate. Time spent in preparing for testimony shall be billed at the hourly rate specified above. I shall be given 2 weeks' notice of deposition or trial in order to make adequate preparation.
It is further understood and agreed that failure of any other party or counsel in any litigation to pay expenses or witness fees, expert or otherwise, as prescribed by statute, court rule, court order or agreement shall not relieve your obligation to pay my fees and expenses for time spent in testifying or preparing to testify.
I will send you a monthly statement, setting forth the nature of the services rendered since the prior billing, along with a listing of out.of·pocket expenses. In the event that payment is not received when due, you will be assessed interest charges of 1% per 1110nth on the unpaid balance. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate our work due to nonpayment. In the event that our work is suspended or terminated as a result of non-payment, you agree that we will not be responsible for your failure to meet legal and government obligations, or for penalties or interest that may be assessed against you reSUlting from your failure to meet such obligations.
Washington University School of Medicine at Washington University Medical Center, Campus Box 8134
660 South Euclid Avenue, st. Louis, Missouri 63110-1093, www.wuphvsicians.org. www.wustl.edu

lfthe foregoing fee basis meets with your approval, please so indicate by signing this letter and returning it to me to the following address. Please keep a copy ofthis letter for your records.

Mailing addl'ess:

Washington University School of Medicine Department ofPsychiatry Forensic Service Campus Box 8134, Suite 15340 660 S. Euclid 8t. Louis, MO. 6311 0

Physical acJdl'ess:

Barnes Jewish Hospital 1 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza West Pavilion, Suite 15340 8t. Louis, MO. 63110

Telephone: ~

314-362-1816 314-362-7017

Michael Jarvis, PhD, MD Washington University School of Medicine Professor and Vice Chairman for Clinical Affairs Director, Inpatient Psychiatry
Agreed to with modifications set forth in my January 26, 2012, letter, attached hereto.

Theresa Powell, Attorney

Date

~ WashingtonUniversity in St.louis
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
January 24, 2013
In the past four years I, Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D, M.D. have provided sworn expert testimony in the following cases:
1. John Mosier vs. Plus Communications Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 04~144393 February 6, 2009 Evans & Dixon
2. Debbie Bott vs. Dunn Lawn and Land Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 04~022398 April 13, 2009 Simon and Associates
3. Charles Jones v SEMO Cooperative Missouri Workers' Compensation Injury No: 05~096654 July 2,2009 Andereck, Evans, Milner, Widge & Johnson
4. Richard P Calloway v Findley Industries Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No. 06~060077 July 8, 2009 Holtkamp, Liese, Schultz & Hilliker
5. Thomas Chaney v. Penske Truck Leasing Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 03~000503, 04~05420 1, 04-054193 July 13,2009 Evans & Dixon
6. Benjamin Smith et al vs. St John's Mercy Health System et al Circuit Court of St Louis County, Missouri Case No 077CC~003755 August 24, 2009 Lashley & Baer, Briken & Doyen
Washington University School of Medicine at Washington University Medical Center, Campus Box 8134 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63110-1093, www.wuphvsicians.org., www.wustl.edu

Michael Jarvis, PhD, MD
7. Constance Anderson vs BJC Healthcare Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 04-119690, 05-140731, 05-140783 January 11,2010 Holtkamp, Liese, Schultz & Hilliker
8. Lydia Pace vs Jefferson City Country Club Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 02-118249 March 5, 2010 Van Camp Law Firm
9. Delores Harris v Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. et al Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 03-134987 April 16, 2010 Evans & Dixon
10. Leo Carey vs Fretco, Inc Missouri Worker's Compensation Case No 06-074661 May 24,2010 McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips
11. Robert Treadway vs. Pemiscot Dunklin Electric Cooperative Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 08-037253 June 30, 2010 Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis
12. Sandra Moore vs. Missouri Baptist Medical Center Missouri's Worker's compensation Case 04-148449, 05-071282 July 27,2010 Holtkamp, Liese, Schultz &Hilliker
13. Alima Fajic vs. Bausch & Lomb Missouri Worker's Compensation Case No. 04-114168 August 20, 2010 Lemp & Anthony
14. June A. Davis vs. Missouri Baptist Medical Center Missouri Worker's compensation Case 08-092892, 08-104278 Sept 4,2010 Holtkamp, Liese, Schultz &Hilliker
2

Michael Jarvis, PhD, MD
15. Steven J. Parrella, deceased vs. Whitney Canada et al Circuit Court of Franklin County Case 06AB-CC00300 October 15,2010 Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.
16. Comas et al v Schaefer et al United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, Central Division Case 2-10-cv-04085-FJG October 26,2010 Attorney General of Missouri
17. Gregory Reynolds et. al. vs. Srinivas Chiliakamarri and C. Group/Psychiatric Service Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis Case No. 08SL-CC03712 November 15,2010/ January 28,2011 Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard
18. James Pippen v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Missouri Worker's Compensation Case No. 02-187791 & 03-017442 December 17,2010 Missouri Highway and Transportation
19. Steve Janisch v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital Missouri Worker' Compensation Case 08-067840 March 16,2011 Evans & Dixon
20. John T. Spencer v. John T. Spencer Missouri and Illinois Workers Compensation Missouri Case 09-085071 and Illinois Case 09-WC-44750 May 23,2011 Evans & Dixon
21. Christopher Bauer vs. L. E. Sauer Machine Company Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 03-102284 June 10,2011 Evans & Dixon
22. Serita James v Casey's General Stores Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 08-046304 Sept 16, 2011 Evans &Dixon
3

Michael Jarvis, PhD, MD
23. Lynda Noel v. ABB Combustion Engineering Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 97-447116; 98-171249; 00-001674 November 28,2011 Holtkamp, Liese, Schultz, Hilliker
24. Geoffrey Auer et al v. Kendrall Dupree MD et al Superior Court of the state of Delaware Case K10C-09-023 JTV December 7, 2011 Morris James LLP
25. Gheorghine Ciobaca v. Washington School District Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 08-065541 February 1,2012 Evans & Dixon
26. Rosetta McLeary v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital St. Peters et al Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 07-l34749, 07-116823 February 17,2012 Evans & Dixon
27. James Passer v. Safeco Insurance Company United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri Cause No 4: 1O-CV-02190 TCM February 22,2012/ February 27, 2012 Rouse & Cary
28. Clyde Parmer v. Mo DOT and Missouri State Treasurer Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 03-081200,04-145385,05-015570 April 4, 2012 Missouri Attorney General
29. Tammy Ellison v. NHC West Plains Missouri Worker' compensation Case No: WC 7012008017679 June 7, 2012 Evans & Dixon
30. Larry Turnbough v. Doe Rue Resources Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No:06-047364 August 20, 2012 Evans & Dixon
4

Michael Jarvis, PhD, MD 31. David Hodge v. American General Finance
Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No: 07-113253 October 26, 2012 Evans & Dixon 32. Curtis Robinson v. St Louis Bridge Construction Missouri Worker's Compensation Injury No:02-050413 December 5, 2018 Holtkamp, Liese, Schultz & Hilliker 33. E.K. and G.K. v. Berthold Nursing Center, Inc., Dr Syed et al Circuit Court of the City of St Louis Cause No: 1022-CCOO 127 and 1022-CC02717 December 10, 2012 Husch Blackwell 34. Arnold Johnson vs. The Boeing Company Missouri Worker's Compensation Case 05-142697, 05-144365 January 11,2013 Evans & Dixon
5

CURRICULUM VITAE' Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

DATE: DATE OF BIRTH: CITIZENSHIP: ADDRESS/TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
PRESENT POSITION:
EDUCATION: 1977 1980 1982 1985 1985 -1989

January 24, 2013
June 16, 1955
USA
Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine 660 S. Euclid Campus Box 8134 st. Louis, MO 63110 314-362-1816 314-362-7017 (Fax)
Vice Chairman of Clinical Affairs, Dept. of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO
Professor of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri
Medical Director of Inpatient Psychiatry Barnes-Jewish Hospital St. Louis, Missouri
B.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
M.S., University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
M.D., Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri
. Residency in Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine Barnes Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri

Curriculum Vitae Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

ACADEMIC POSITIONS/ EMPLOYMENT:

2006

Professor of Psychiatry Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO.

1996 - 2006

Associate Professor of Psychiatry Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

1990 -1996

Assistant Professor of Psychiatry Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

1989 - 1990

Instructor Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

1989 -1990

Ch,ief Resident Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

1985 - 1989

Assistant in Psychiatry Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

1983

Summer Research Fellowship Laboratory of Carl F. Pierce, M.D. Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

1978 - 1982

Research Assistant Laboratory of Edward W. Voss, Ph.D. University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois

1976 - 1977

Research Assistant Laboratory of Dennis W. Watson, Ph.D. University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois

Curriculum Vitae Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

UNIVERSITY & HOSPITAL APPOINTMENTS AND COMMITTEES

2012 2010 2010 - 2011 2010 2008 -
2006 -
2006 -
2006 2003 - 2008 2002 - 2007 2002 -
2001 - 2007 1993 1992 2002 - 2004
2000 - 2002
2000 - 2001 1996 - 1998
1996 - 2000
1995 -1998 1995 -1997
1995 -1996 1994 -1996 1992 -1995 1992 -1994
1992 -1994 1990 -1992 1990 -1995
1990 - 1995

Heath Information Management Committee Meaningful Use Work Team . Safety & Quality Council of MEC Psychiatry & Medicine Ad Hoc Team Meeting Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of Barnes Jewish Hospital Vice Chairman of Clinical Affairs, Dept of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine Executive Committee, Dept of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine Director of Electroconvulsive Therapy Medical Staff Performance Improvement OverSight Committee Physician/HIM Process Improvement Team Chair, Health Advisory Committee, Graduate Medical Education Consortium BJ Health Information Management Committee Medical Director of Inpatient Psychiatry, Barnes-Jewish Hospital Psychiatry Residency Education Committee Consultant, Washington University Care Coordination Demonstration Project Care Partners Physician Advisory Committee, Behavioral Health Subgroup BJC Medical Records Committee WUMS Medicare Education Rules Compliance Program Committee Physician Advisory Panel for Barnes-Jewish Hospital Reengineering BJC Medical Cost Management Working Team Barnes-Jewish Electronic Medical Record Development Committee Co-Chair, Barnes-Jewish Utilization Management Committee Patient Care Quality Improvement Committee Chairman, Barnes Hospital Utilization Management Committee Barnes Hospital Quality Improvement Committee and Steering Committee Standing Committee on Hospital Safety Assistant Director of Inpatient Psychiatry, Barnes Hospital Department of Psychiatry Quality Improvement and Utilization Review Committee Emergency Department Committee, Barnes Hospital

MEDICAL LICENSURE AND BOARD CERTIFICATION:

2008 2008 1992
1991 1988 1986

Minnesota Medical License (51375) (Lapsed) Minnesota Telemedicine License (1289) (expired) Added Qualification in Geriatric Psychiatry: American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (expired) Diplomate: American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology Missouri Medical License (R8HOO) Diplomate: National Board of Medical Examiners

Curriculum Vitae
Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.
HONORS AND AWARDS:
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND ORGANIZATIONS:
1987 1987 1995 - 1997 1994 - 1998 1993 - 2003 1991 - 1994 1990 - 2000 INVITED PROFESSORSHIPS AND LECTURESHIPS:

Excellence in Teaching, Residents Class of 2011 Best Doctor, 2006 - 2012 Guide to America's Top Psychiatrists, 2007 Clinical Teacher of the Year Award, Medical Students Class of 2007 Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Barnes-Jewish Hospital Quality Leadership Award, 1995 Osler Institute Teaching Award, 1995 American Psychiatric Association Burroughs Wellcome Fellowship, 1987 - 1989 Sidney I. Schwab Prize in Psychiatry, 1985 Washington University Grant, 1982 - 1985 R. Emerson Memorial Grant for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Within the School of Life Sciences University of Illinois - 1981, 1982 United States Public Health Service Trainingship, 1978 University of Illinois Graduate Fellowship, 1977 - 1978 Graduated Summa Cum Laude - University of Minnesota, 1977 Sigma Xi Outstanding Undergraduate Research Award, 1977 Minnesota State Scholarship, 1973 - 1977 Tozer Undergraduate Fellowship, 1973 - 1977
American Psychiatric Association Eastern Missouri Psychiatric Society Secretary/Treasurer Eastern Missouri Psychiatric Society American College of Physician Executives American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
Rational Suicide Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2011
Suicide of Psychiatric Inpatients Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2009
Fundamentals of Psychotherapy: Series Coursemaster Part 2: Implicit Psychotherapy Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2009

Curriculum Vitae
Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

Disclosure of Adverse Events Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2007
Alternative Therapies in Treatment of Mental Illness Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2006
Psychiatric Illness and Violence "Violence and Mental Illness" United States Attorney's Office Issues in Psychiatric Defenses, 2006
Basic Psychopharmacology Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2005
ECT in a Litigious Society: Medicolegal Principles Procedures for Psychiatric Disorders: Improving the Present, Looking to the Future Washington University School of Medicine, 2005
Psychiatry and Law: Deposition Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2004
Diagnosis and Treatment of Schizophrenia 8th Annual Defense Counsel Seminar BJC & Washington University School of Medicine, 2002
Malpractice: Facts, Opinions, Beliefs Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2002
Electroconvulsive Therapy: Indications and Contraindications: A Clinical Update Washington University School of Medicine, 2002
Pharmacologic Treatment of Behavioral Disorders in Adults With Mental Retardation Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 2000
Opportunities for Improving Patient Care through Social Work Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 1999
... Oh, By the Way, I'm Pregnant, Use of Psychiatric Medication During Pregnancy Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 1998

Curriculum Vitae
Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

Current Psychiatry Quality Improvement Efforts at Barnes-Jewish Hospital Missouri Patient Care Review Foundation Mental Health Topic Development Group, 1996

Predictors of Response & Rapid Cycling in Bipolar Patients, Eastern Missouri Psychiatric Society, 1995

Physician Role in Elder Abuse Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 1995

Treatment of Depression by Primary Care Physician Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 1993 Medical Student Question Bank: Annual Conference of Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry, 1992

Indicators of Psychiatric Hospitalization Wednesday Research Seminar Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 1992

Keeping the Demons at Bay: Maintenance ECT for Unipolar Depression Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine, 1992

CONSULTING RELATIONSHIPS AND BOARD MEMBERSHIPS

2008

Neuronetics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2007 - 2011

Corizan (formerly: Correctional Medical Services, Inc.) Medical Advisory Board St. Louis, Missouri

1992

Osler Institute, Terre Haute, Indiana

RESEARCH SUPPORT:

Governmental:

Systems of Care for New Moms: Integrating Depression Treatment (NUMOMS) National Institute of Mental Health Fund #R34MH083085-01, 8/08 - 07/11

NIMH Optimization of Electroconvulsive Therapy Fund #51679,2/5/01 - 1/31/06

Treatment of Depression in Parkinson's Disease With Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Unfunded, application to FDA for IDE #), 2000

Curriculum Vitae
Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

Non-Governmental: Nitrous Oxide and depression IRB 10 #201204023

Completed Suicide Occurring on the Inpatient Unit HRPO #09-1414 2009

rTMS Study (03-1111) Fund 942107 A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Sham-Controlled, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the . Neuronetics Model 2100 CRS 2004 - 2006

Study of Olanzapine plus Fluoxetine in Combination for Treatment-Resistant Depression, Without Psychotic Features Lilly (Protocol H6P-MC-HDAO) 2002

6-Week, Double-Blind, Randomized Multicenter, Flexible-Dose, Placebo-Controlled Study of Pagoclone in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder Parke-Davis 2000

Placebo-Controlled Olanzapine Monotherapy in the Treatment of Bipolar I Depression Lilly 2000

Open-Label Safety Study of Pregabalin (CI-1008) in Patients with Anxiety Disorders Pfizer (Fund #940869) 1999

A Placebo-Controlled Study of Pregabalin and Paroxetine in Patients with Panic Disorder Parke-Davis 1999

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Comparison of Paroxetine and Fluoxetine in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder, Project Director SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1991

CLINICAL TITLES AND RESPONSIBI LlTI ES:

2006 -

Vice Chairman of Clinical Affairs, Dept of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

2006 -

Medical Director of Electroconvulsive Therapy Service Barnes-Jewish Hospital St. Louis, Missouri

1993 -

Medical Director of Inpatient Psychiatry Barnes-Jewish Hospital St. Louis, Missouri

Curriculum Vitae Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

1990 1990 -1993 1989 - 1990

Attending on Resident Inpatient Service Barnes Hospital St. Louis, Missouri
Assistant Director of Inpatient Psychiatry Barnes-Jewish Hospital St. Louis, Missouri
Chief Resident Department of Psychiatry Washington University School of Medicine

TEACHING TITLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
1990 1990 -
1990 -
1991 -1997
1991 - 1993

Attending Physician on Resident Inpatient Service Barnes-Jewish Hospital
Lecturer Basic Psychopharmacology for Psychiatry Residents Washington University School of Medicine
Attending Physician Third Year Medical Student Psychiatry Rotation Washington University School of Medicine
Coursemaster Introduction to Clinical Psychiatry Second Year Washington University School of Medicine
Lecturer in Advanced Psychopharmacology Washington University School of Medicine

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS:

1. Jarvis MR, Voss EW Jr.: Ligand binding and physicochemical characteristics of an IgMmouse plasmacytoma ABCP-22. Mol. Immunol. 1981; 18:261-175

2.

Jarvis MR, Voss EW Jr.: Speculation: consequences of avidity in lymphocyte receptor-

multivalent antigen binding in affinity maturation. Mol. Immunol. 1982; 19:525-533

3.

Jarvis MR, Voss, EW Jr.: Determination of dissociation constants and ligand specificity of

detergent solubilized surface membrane immunoglobulin A from MOPC-315. Mol. Immunol.

1982; 20; 124-136

4.

Jarvis MR, Wasserman AL, Todd RD: Case study: acute psychosis in a patient with Epstein-

Barr virus infection. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1990; 29:468-469

Curriculum Vitae Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.

5.

Figiel GS, Hasten MA, Zorumski CF, Krishnan KRR, Ooraiswamy PM, Jarvis MR, Smith OS:

ECT induced delirium in depressed patients with Parkinson's disease. J. Neuropsychiatr.

Clin. Neurosci. 1991; 3:405-411

6.

Mattingly GW, Fiegel GS, Jarvis MR, l.orumski, CF: Prospective uses of ECT in the

presence of intracranial tumors. J. Neuropsychiatr. 1991; 3:459-463

7. Jarvis MR, Fiegel GS, Suri RA: Case report: pulmonary embolism and electroconvulsive therapy. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 1991; 3:329-331

8.

Jarvis MR: Clinical pharmacokinetics of tricyclic antidepressant overdose.

Psychopharmacology. Bull. 1991; 27:541-550

9.

Jarvis MR, Todd RD, Hickok JM, Ackerman KE, Sherman WR: Analysis of Myo-Inositol

Monophosphatase from Transformed Human lymphocytes. Lithium 1992;

3:49-54

10. Fiegel GS, Zorumski CF, Ooraiswamy PM, Mattingly GW, Jarvis MR: Simultaneous major depression and panic disorder treatment with electroconvulsive therapy. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1992; 53:12-15

11. Fiegel GS, Botteron K, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR, Doraiswamy PM, Krishnan KRR: The treatment of late onset psychosis with electroconvulsive therapy. Internat. J. Geriatric Psychiatry 1992; 7: 183-189
12. Martin M, Figiel GS, Mattingly GW, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR: ECT-induced interictal delirium in patients with history of a CVA. J. Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 1992; 5: 149-155

13. Jarvis MR, Smith.J, Figiel GS: Case report: Cheyne-Stokes respiration and electroconvulsive therapy. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 1992; 4:181-183

14. Jarvis MR, Goewert A, Zorumski CF: Novel antidepressants and maintenance electroconvulsive therapy. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 1992; 4:275-284

15. Figiel GS, Deleo B, Zorumski CF, Baker K, Goewert A, Jarvis MR, Smith OS, Mattingly G, Ruwitch: Combined use of labetalol and nifedipine in controlling the cardiovascular response from ECT. J. Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 1993; 6:20-24

16. Jarvis MR, Zorumski CF, Goewert A, Rasmussen KG: Maintenance electroconvulsive therapy and seizure duration. Convulsive Therapy 1993; 9:8-13

17. Whiteford HA, Jarvis MR, Stedman TJ, Pond S, Csernansky JG: Mianserin-induced up regulation of platelet serotonin receptors on normal human platelets in vivo. Life Science 1993; 53:371-376

18. Rasmussen KG, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR: Electroconvulsive therapy in patients with cerebral palsy. Convulsive Therapy 1993; 9:205-208

19. Rasmussen KG, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR: Possible impact of stimulus duration on seizure threshold in ECT. Convulsive Therapy 1994; 10: 177-180

20. Rasmussen KG, Jarvis MR, Zorumski CF: Ketamine anesthesia in electroconvulsive therapy. Convulsive Therapy 1996; 12:217-223

Curriculum Vitae
Michael R. Jarvis, Ph.D., M.D.
21. Rasmussen KG, Jarvis MR, Zorumski CF: Naloxone and ECT seizure length. Convulsive Therapy 1997; 13:44-46

22. Rasmussen KG, Jarvis MR, Zorumski CF, Ruwitch J, Best AM: Low dose atropine in electroconvulsive therapy. J. ECT 1999; 15:213-21

23. Isenberg K, Kormos TC, Downs D, Pierce K, Svrakic D, Garcia K, Jarvis M, North C: Low Frequency rTMS Stimulation of the Right Frontal Cortex is as Effective as High Frequency rTMS Stimulation of the Left Frontal Cortex for Antidepressant-Free, Treatment-Resistant, Depressed Patients. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry, 2005; 17(3): 153- 159

24. Zorumski CF, de Erausquin G, Dokucu M, Svrakic D, Garcia K, Jarvis M: Brain Stimulation & the Treatment of Refractory Psychiatric Disorders. Missouri Medicine, 2008; 105(1): 57-61

INVITED PUBLICATIONS:

1.

Jarvis MR: Use of immobilized ligand in the study of solubilized surface membrane

immunoglobulin, in The Fluorescein Hapten as a Molecular Probe in Immunology 1984

(edited by Voss EW Jr.); CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

2.

Jarvis MR, Voss EW Jr.: Fluorescein in kinetic studies of affinity maturation, in The

Fluorescein Hapten as a Molecular Probe in Immunology 1984; (edited by Voss EW Jr.)

CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

3.

Jarvis, MR: An evolutionary perspective of utilization review, St. Louis Metropolitan Medicine

1994: 16:20-21

LETTERS:

1.

Figiel GS, Jarvis MR: Electroconvulsive therapy in a depressed patient receiving Bupropion ..

J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1990; 10:376

2.

Rasmussen KG, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR: Cardiac safety of ECT. Anesthesia and Analgesia

1993; 77: 1307

3.

Lohr WD, Figiel GS, Hudziak JJ, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR: Maintenance electroconvulsive

therapy in schizophrenia. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1994; 55:217-218

4.

Rasmussen KG, Zorumski CF, Jarvis MR: Asystole in ECT. J. of Clinical Psychiatry 1994;

55:313-314

PATENT:
Jarvis MR, Fulton DS, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Spillage detector for liquid chromatography systems. United States Patent: 4,591,838 May 27,1986.

Revised: 7/12/2012

 
 PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-cv-1308 ) ) The Honorable Michael M. Mihm ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFF ASHOOR RASHO’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS WALKER, JONES, ELYEA, NAVARRO, AND GARLICK’S INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho (“Plaintiff”), through his attorneys, and in accordance with

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, hereby submits the following objections and

responses to Defendants Walker, Jones, Elyea, Navarro, and Garlick’s (the “IDOC

Defendants”) Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE INTERROGATORIES

In addition to the objections stated in the specific responses to the Interrogatories, the

following objections (the “General Objections”) apply to all of the Interrogatories. The

following General Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the individual responses

to the Interrogatories, and have the same force and effect as if fully set forth in the responses to

the Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects as follows:

1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that

is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or is not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence.

1
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories as improper and unduly burdensome to the extent that they purport to impose upon Plaintiff any obligations or requirements broader than those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or rules otherwise applicable to this matter.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for information that is a matter of public record or otherwise routinely available to all parties.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are duplicative or designed to harass.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity from discovery. Inadvertent disclosure of any such privileged information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such privileged information.
6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information regarding documents or materials that are not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control.
7. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they state a legal conclusion, or assume or appear to assume that any fact, event, or assumption is true. By responding to any such Interrogatory, Plaintiff does not concede the correctness of any such conclusion or assumption.
8. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that they are unduly burdensome and premature in light of the fact that Plaintiff is still conducting discovery and that many of the facts are already known by the IDOC Defendants and/or are within the IDOC Defendants’ control. Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to respond to each Interrogatory in a
2
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
timely manner. Plaintiff’s responses herein are necessarily based solely on the information that
is available to Plaintiff on the date of these responses. Plaintiff’s investigation is ongoing, and
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, supplement, or withdraw any response or objection to the
Interrogatories as he deems necessary or appropriate in light of information or knowledge
obtained as discovery progresses in this action. In particular, and without limiting the scope of
this objection, Plaintiff observes that he only recently received a complete response from Pontiac
Correctional Center to requests for all of Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records even
though Plaintiff made the requests in July 2011. To the extent that such materials or any other
materials not discussed below are determined to be responsive to the Interrogatories, Plaintiff
will supplement his responses accordingly.
9. In responding to the Interrogatories, Plaintiff does not concede that any of the
information provided is relevant or material to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff reserves the right to object to
the admissibility at trial of any of the information produced in response to the Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1. With what mental disability or disabilities have you been diagnosed?
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set
forth in full herein. Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff states that he has been
diagnosed with the following mental disabilities:
 Dysthymic Disorder  Depressive Disorder  Adjustments Disorder with Depressed Mood Improved  Mixed Personality Disorder  Organic Mood Disorder  Severe Dyslexia  Antisocial Personality Disorder  Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features
3
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
 Strong borderline and antisocial personality disorder traits  History of polysubstance dependence/poly substance abuse  Adult attention deficit disorder  Narcissistic Personality Disorder  Dysthymic Disorder with an intermittent explosive element  Dissociative Disorder, provisional  Borderline Intellectual Functioning  Personality Disorder secondary to trauma, provisional  Borderline Personality Disorder  Psychomotor Epilepsy, provisional  Intermittent Explosive Disorder  Impulse Control Disorder specifically an Intermittent  Explosive Disorder  Malingering  Atypical Psychosis  Psychosis NOS, provisional  Major depressive disorder, recurrent, with psychotic features  Schizophrenia  Schizotypical personality disorder  Dementia  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder  Bipolar Disorder Type I – with childhood onset
Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is
responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery.
Interrogatory No. 2. For each disability, on what date were you first diagnosed as having that
disability?
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set
forth in full herein. Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff states that he was first
diagnosed with the following mental disabilities on the following dates or earlier:
 Dysthymic Disorder – April 24, 1995  Depressive Disorder – July 20, 1995  Adjustments Disorder with Depressed Mood Improved – July 24, 1995  Mixed Personality Disorder – July 24, 1995  Organic Mood Disorder – October 4, 1995  Severe Dyslexia – October 4, 1995  Antisocial Personality Disorder – October 21, 1996  Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features – May 10, 1997
4
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
 Strong borderline and antisocial personality disorder traits – May 10, 1997  History of polysubstance dependence/poly substance abuse – September 8, 1997  Adult attention deficit disorder – April 2, 1997/1998  Narcissistic Personality Disorder – April 2, 1997/1998  Dysthymic Disorder with an intermittent explosive element – June 18, 1998  Dissociative Disorder, provisional – June 18, 1998  Borderline Intellectual Functioning – June 18, 1998  Personality Disorder secondary to trauma, provisional – July 28, 1998  Borderline Personality Disorder – July 28, 1998  Psychomotor Epilepsy, provisional – July 28, 1998  Intermittent Explosive Disorder – August 5, 1998  Impulse Control Disorder specifically an Intermittent – August 7, 1998  Explosive Disorder – August 7, 1998  Malingering – August 23, 1998  Atypical Psychosis – August 25, 1998  Psychosis NOS, provisional – September 2, 1998  Major depressive disorder, recurrent, with psychotic features – April 1999  Schizophrenia – April 1999  Schizotypical personality disorder – April 1999  Dementia – March 31, 2004  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – November 7, 2005  Bipolar Disorder Type I – with childhood onset – November 7, 2005
Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is
responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery.
Interrogatory No. 3. For each disability, who diagnosed that disability?
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set
forth in full herein. Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff states that he was
diagnosed with the following mental disabilities by the following individuals:
 Dysthymic Disorder – Richard Newman, M.D.; Katherine Lingle, LCSW; Jill Stevens, M.A.; Kelly A. Rhodes, PhD; Frank W. Hayes, M.D.
 Depressive Disorder – B. Mark Aaron, MSW-LSW  Adjustments Disorder with Depressed Mood Improved – James E. Adams, M.D.  Mixed Personality Disorder – James E. Adams, M.D.  Organic Mood Disorder – Kenneth Gilbert, M.D.  Severe Dyslexia – Kenneth Gilbert, M.D.  Antisocial Personality Disorder – Jan Stampley, M.D.; Katherine Lingle, MSW,
LSW; Frank W. Hayes, M.D.; Jill Stevens, M.A.; Kelly A. Rhodes, PhD; Dr. Mark
5
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
Fischer; Dr. Rakesh Chandra; Christine L. Fletcher, M.D., Psychiatrist; Robert E. Chapman, M.D., MBA  Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features – Andrew Kowalkowski, M.D.  Strong borderline and antisocial personality disorder traits – Andrew Kowalkowski, M.D.  History of polysubstance dependence/poly substance abuse – Andrew Kowalkowski, M.D.; Kenneth Gilbert, M.D.  Adult attention deficit disorder – Kenneth Gilbert, M.D.; Robert E. Chapman, M.D., MBA  Narcissistic Personality Disorder – Kenneth Gilbert, M.D.  Dysthymic Disorder with an intermittent explosive element – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Dissociative Disorder, provisional – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.; Katherine Lingle, LCSW  Borderline Intellectual Functioning – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Personality Disorder secondary to trauma, provisional – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Borderline Personality Disorder – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.; Kelly A. Rhodes, PhD; Jill Stevens, M.A.; Katherine Lingle, LCSW; Dr. Mark Fischer; Dr. Jose Mathews; Dr. Rakesh Chandra; Robert E. Chapman, M.D., MBA  Psychomotor Epilepsy, provisional – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Intermittent Explosive Disorder – Katherine Lingle, LCSW; Kelly A. Rhodes, PhD; Frank W. Hayes, M.D.; Jill Stevens, M.A.  Impulse Control Disorder specifically an Intermittent – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Explosive Disorder – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Malingering – Jill Stevens, M.A.; Katherine Lingle, LCSW  Atypical Psychosis – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Psychosis NOS, provisional – Frank W. Hayes, M.D.  Major depressive disorder, recurrent, with psychotic features – Kathryn A. Burns, MD  Schizophrenia – Kathryn A. Burns, MD  Schizotypical personality disorder – Kathryn A. Burns, MD  Dementia – Kathryn A. Burns, MD, MPH; Robert E. Chapman, M.D., MBA  Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – Robert E. Chapman, M.D., MBA  Bipolar Disorder Type I – with childhood onset – Robert E. Chapman, M.D., MBA
Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is
responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery.
Interrogatory No. 4. Have you ever received mental health treatment outside of the Illinois
Department of Corrections? If so, state the name of the mental health professional who provided
the treatment and describe the course of treatment.
6
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff states that he has received mental health treatment outside of the IDOC. Plaintiff believes that he received mental health treatment at Chicago-Read Mental Health Center. Plaintiff does not recall the name(s) of the mental health professional(s) who provided treatment, but will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls the name(s) and/or the name(s) are revealed through discovery. Plaintiff recalls receiving psychotropic medication from Chicago-Read Mental Health Center. Plaintiff was first placed on psychotropic medicine at age eight (8). Interrogatory No. 5. Has a mental health professional diagnosed the above psychological problem(s) as being causally related to your incarceration within the Illinois Department of Corrections? If so, state the name of the mental health professional.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to “causally related.” Without waiving the General Objections or these specific objections, Plaintiff states that Kathryn A. Burns, MD, MPH, has stated that Plaintiff’s behaviors while within the IDOC were a result of Plaintiff’s serious mental illness. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery. Interrogatory No. 6. Have you experienced any physical injuries related to any psychological problems you have experienced within the Illinois Department of Corrections? If so, state the date and nature of the physical injury or injuries.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff states that he has
7
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
experienced physical injuries related to psychological problems he experienced within the IDOC. [list]. Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the allegations contained in his First Severed Complaint describe additional information that may be responsive to Interrogatory No. 6. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional incidents that are responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional incidents are revealed through discovery. Interrogatory No. 7. State the date and nature of any punishment you have received from IDOC staff in response to behavior resulting from your mental disabilities.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without waiving the General Objections or this specific objection, Plaintiff states that he has received punishment from IDOC staff in response to behavior resulting from his mental disabilities on multiple occasions. Plaintiff states in 2006 and 2007 he was repeatedly placed on crisis watch and/or suicide watch as punishment for his behavior resulting from his mental disabilities. [convictions while in IDOC]. Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the allegations contained in his First Severed Complaint describe additional instances and means by which he was punished by IDOC staff in response to behavior resulting from his mental disabilities. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional incidents that are responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional incidents are revealed through discovery. Interrogatory No. 8. List each date on which you have been forced to take medications against your will.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is overbroad. Without waiving the General Objections or this specific objection, Plaintiff states that he has
8
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
received enforced medication at various times and as early as 2000 but does not recall the specific dates that he has received enforced medication, nor are the specific dates revealed in the discovery that has taken place at this time. However, the records produced by Pontiac Correctional Center reveal that Plaintiff was on enforced medication as of: June 27, 2003; October 8, 2003; October 15, 2003; November 17, 2003; November 24, 2003; December 22, 2003; and January 19, 2004. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls the specific dates and/or additional the specific dates are revealed through discovery. Interrogatory No. 9. Describe all the relevant information regarding your mental health history that is not included in your mental health records at Tamms Correctional Center.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff is unaware of what, if any, mental health records are at Tamms Correctional Center. Plaintiff has received mental health records from Pontiac Correctional Center and these records have been produced to the Defendants. Furthermore, Interrogatory No. 9 is vague and ambiguous as to “all the relevant information regarding your mental health history.” Plaintiff additionally objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome. Without waiving the General Objections or these specific objections, Plaintiff states that he believes the information described in his response to Interrogatory 4 may also be responsive to Interrogatory No. 9. In addition, Plaintiff has heard voices since approximately the age of thirteen (13). Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the allegations contained in his First Severed Complaint describe additional information that may be responsive to Interrogatory No. 9. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery.
9
701587116

Interrogatory No. 10.

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
List any witness who has information relevant to this case and the

nature of their knowledge.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set

forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is vague and

ambiguous, and premature and unduly burdensome given that discovery is still ongoing and

Plaintiff has not received responses to his outstanding discovery requests. Without waiving the

General Objections or these specific objections, Plaintiff states that he believes the information

described in his response to Interrogatory 3 may also be responsive to Interrogatory No. 9.

Additionally, Plaintiff states that he believes the following individuals may have information

relevant to this case:

 Officer Dustin Baylor (had contact with Plaintiff while at Pontiac)  Lori Hiller (a nurse who had contact with Plaintiff while at Pontiac)  LPN Lisa Beckett (had contact with Plaintiff while at Pontiac)  Lt. Samson (had contact with Plaintiff while at Pontiac)  Alton Angus, MS, LCPC (evaluated Plaintiff while at Pontiac)  Lt. David French (had contact with Plaintiff while at Pontiac)  Dr. Edward Smith, Psy. D. (evaluated Plaintiff while at Pontiac)

Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is

responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery.

Interrogatory No. 11.

What amount of damages are you seeking in this case and what is

the factual basis supporting those claims?

RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set

forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 11 to the extent that is requires the

production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory

No. 11 as premature given that discovery in this case is ongoing, and because Defendants have

10
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
not yet produced all relevant documents and information necessary to determine the amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference. Without waiving the General Objections or these specific objections, Plaintiff states that he believes his suffering as a result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference is ongoing, and that the amount of damages owed to Plaintiff therefore is undetermined and continues to accrue. Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the allegations contained in his First Severed Complaint and his responses to these Interrogatories describe additional factual bases supporting his claims in this case.
11
701587116

Dated: May 11, 2012
Marc R. Kadish Matthew V. Wargin William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 782-0600 (phone) (312) 701-7711 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com mwargin@mayerbrown.com wstone@mayerbrown.com
Alan Mills UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 N. Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmill@aol.com

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
s/ William R. Stone One of his attorneys

12
701587116

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/10/12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on May 11, 2012, he caused the
foregoing Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho’s Objections and Responses to Defendants Walker, Jones,
Elyea, Navarro, and Garlick’s Interrogatories to be served via [] on the following:
Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-785-4555 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us

Dated: May 11, 2012

s/ William R. Stone William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8331 wstone@mayerbrown.com
One of Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho’s Attorneys

701587116

 
 PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-cv-1308 ) ) The Honorable Michael M. Mihm ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFF ASHOOR RASHO’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF, ASHOOR RASHO, BY
DEFENDANT MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D.

Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho (“Plaintiff”), through his attorneys, and in accordance with

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, hereby submits the following objections and

responses to the Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff, Ashoor Rasho, by Defendant Michael F.

Massa, M.D. (the “Interrogatories”).

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE INTERROGATORIES

In addition to the objections stated in the specific responses to the Interrogatories, the

following objections (the “General Objections”) apply to all of the Interrogatories. The

following General Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the individual responses

to the Interrogatories, and have the same force and effect as if fully set forth in the responses to

the Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects as follows:

1
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories as improper and unduly burdensome to the extent that they purport to impose upon Plaintiff any obligations or requirements broader than those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or rules otherwise applicable to this matter.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for information that is a matter of public record or otherwise routinely available to all parties.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are duplicative or designed to harass.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity from discovery. Inadvertent disclosure of any such privileged information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such privileged information.
6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information regarding documents or materials that are not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control.
7. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they state a legal conclusion, or assume or appear to assume that any fact, event, or assumption is true. By responding to any such Interrogatory, Plaintiff does not concede the correctness of any such conclusion or assumption.
2
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
8. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that they are unduly burdensome and premature in light of the fact that Plaintiff is still conducting discovery and that many of the facts are already known by Defendant Michael F. Massa (“Massa”). Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to respond to each Interrogatory in a timely manner. Plaintiff’s responses herein are necessarily based solely on the information that is available to Plaintiff on the date of these responses. Plaintiff’s investigation is ongoing, and Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, supplement, or withdraw any response or objection to the Interrogatories as he deems necessary or appropriate in light of information or knowledge obtained as discovery progresses in this action. In particular, and without limiting the scope of this objection, Plaintiff observes that he did not receive a complete response from Pontiac Correctional Center to requests for all of Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records until April 26, 2012, even though Plaintiff made the requests in July 2011. To the extent that such materials or any other materials not discussed below are determined to be responsive to the Interrogatories, Plaintiff will supplement his responses accordingly.
9. In responding to the Interrogatories, Plaintiff does not concede that any of the information provided is relevant or material to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff reserves the right to object to the admissibility at trial of any of the information produced in response to the Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1. Identify the actions or omissions you claim constitute deliberate indifference on the part of Michael F. Massa, M.D. For each and every act or omission identified, please identify the following:
a. The date(s) each act or omission occurred. b. Who witnessed the occurrence.
3
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
c. What injuries have you sustained as a result of the alleged act or omission. d. Did you experience any physical injuries as a result of any act or omission
on the part of Dr. Massa? If so, identify how you were injured. Did you seek medical attention? If so, on what date. e. Identify each and every witness who will testify that the care and treatment provided by Dr. Massa as a result of any encounter he had with you fell outside the standard of care for a physician in his position under the same or similar circumstances. RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and duplicative. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is premature given that discovery in this case is ongoing. Specifically, and without limiting the scope of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff is not yet required to make the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and (3). Without waiving the General Objections or these specific objections, Plaintiff states that Massa’s knowledge and disregard of Plaintiff’s serious mental illnesses and the risks posed by such illnesses constitutes deliberate indifference. Massa determined to transfer Plaintiff out of the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac Correctional Center and into the North Segregation Unit and refused to have Plaintiff transferred back into the Mental Health Unit. Plaintiff further states that he does not recall and/or does not know the specific dates on which Massa was deliberately indifferent, and does not recall and/or does not know the name(s) of each individual who witnessed Massa’s deliberate indifference. Plaintiff further states that the allegations contained in his First Severed Complaint and the documents and information produced to date by Plaintiff to Massa describe and/or contain additional
4
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
information that may be responsive to Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery. Interrogatory No. 2. Identify the specific date on which you believe MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D. was deliberately indifferent.
a. For each date referenced, identify the complaint voiced by the patient and the care or response which you feel constituted deliberate indifference.
b. For each method of treatment or lack of treatment you find constitutes deliberate indifference, please indicate, if known, what you or your witnesses will assert the proper treatment should have been.
c. State the damages or injuries you claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged deliberate indifference.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is premature given that discovery in this case is ongoing. Specifically, and without limiting the scope of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff is not yet required to make the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and (3), nor have the Defendants produced the information necessary to determine the amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference.. Without waiving the General Objections or these specific objections, Plaintiff states that his response to Interrogatory No. 1 may contain information responsive to Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff further states that the allegations contained in his First Severed Complaint and the documents produced to date by Plaintiff to Massa describe
5
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
and/or contain additional information that may be responsive to Interrogatory No. 2. Plaintiff will supplement this response if Plaintiff recalls additional information that is responsive to this Interrogatory and/or additional information is revealed through discovery. Interrogatory No. 3. Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C), provide the name, address and all information required by Rule for each witness who will offer testimony and state:
a. The subject matter of which the witness is expected to testify. b. The conclusions and/or opinions of the witness and the basis therefore
including reports of the witness, if any. c. The qualifications of each witness including a curriculum vitae and/or
resume if any. d. The identify of any written reports of the witness regarding this
occurrence. RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is duplicative of Interrogatories No. 1 and No. 2. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D), the disclosure of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) is not required until “the times . . . that the court orders.” Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. #23) (the “Scheduling Order”), Plaintiff must make the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by August 17, 2012. Plaintiff will provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) in accordance with the Scheduling Order.
6
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
Interrogatory No. 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), indicate whether or not you intend to call the person to testify at trial and provide all required information.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff hereby incorporates the General Objections stated above as if set forth in full herein. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is duplicative of Interrogatories No. 1 and No. 2. Plaintiff further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that the Pretrial Disclosures provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) are not required to be made until “at least 30 days before trial,” which is currently scheduled for July 29, 2013. Plaintiff will provide the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) in accordance with subsection (B) of that Rule.
7
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12

Dated: May 29, 2012
Marc R. Kadish Matthew V. Wargin William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 782-0600 (phone) (312) 701-7711 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com mwargin@mayerbrown.com wstone@mayerbrown.com
Alan Mills UPTOWN PEOPLE’S LAW CENTER 4413 N. Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmills@comcast.net

__________________________________________ William R. Stone

8
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
VERIFICATION I, Ashoor Rasho, verify that I have read the foregoing Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho’s Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff, Ashoor Rasho, by Defendant Michael F. Massa, M.D. and that the answers contained therein are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on __________________, 2012.
____________________________________ Ashoor Rasho
9
702119642

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MB DRAFT 5/29/12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on May 29, 2012, he caused the

foregoing Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho’s Objections and Responses to Interrogatories Directed to

Plaintiff, Ashoor Rasho, by Defendant Michael F. Massa, M.D. to be served via United States

mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail on the following:

Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-785-4555 hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us chiggerson@atg.state.il.us

Theresa M. Powell David M. Walter Matthew Lurkins HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN Suite 575, PNC Bank Building One North Old State Capitol Plaza P.O. Box 1687 Springfield, IL 62705-1687 217-522-8822 tpowell@heylroyster.com dwalter@heylroyster.com mlurkins@heylroyster.com
Brian Michael Smith (electronic mail only) HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN Suite 300 P.O. Box 129 102 E. Main St. Urbana, IL 61801-0129 217-344-0060 bsmith@heylroyster.com

Dated: May 29, 2012

William R. Stone MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8331 wstone@mayerbrown.com
One of Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho’s Attorneys

702119642

 
 1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8

Page 1 of 23

E-FILED

Wednesday, 31 August, 2011 08:20:50 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, #B38970,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DR. WILLARD ELYEA, DR. WENDY NAVARRO, EDDIE JONES, DR. JOHN GARLICK, and DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,
Defendants.

Law No. 11-cv-1308-MMM-JAG

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SEVERED COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES the Defendant, MICHAEL F. MASSA, M.D., by his attorney, THERESA M.
POWELL, of HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, and for his Answer to Plaintiff’s First Severed Complaint, states:

ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies that any act or omission on his part violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff’s claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 2 of 23 PARTIES
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient personal knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 2. Defendant admits that the Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Pontiac Correctional Center on any occasion that Dr. Massa had professional contacts with him. Defendant admits that Plaintiff’s records reflect references to possible complaints of auditory hallucinations, self-reported suicide attempts and self-mutilation. Defendant denies all remaining allegations of paragraph 2.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that at certain times Roger Walker was the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 3. Defendant denies that paragraph 3 accurately sets forth the duty owed by Mr. Walker to the Plaintiff.
11-cv-1308 Page 2 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 3 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that Dr. Elyea has been the Agency Medical Director for the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 4. Defendant denies that paragraph 4 accurately sets forth the duty owed by Dr. Elyea to the Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that Dr. Wendy Navarro has served in some capacity as a purported employee for the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny her exact titles or legal relationship with the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant denies that paragraph 5 accurately sets forth the duty owed by Dr. Navarro to the Plaintiff.
11-cv-1308 Page 3 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 4 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that at certain times Eddie Jones was the Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center. Defendant denies that paragraph 6 accurately sets forth the duty owed by Mr. Jones, if any, to the Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that Dr. John Garlick worked at the Pontiac Correctional Center in some capacity. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny his specific employment relationship with the Department of Corrections of the State of Illinois. Defendant admits that Dr. Garlick provided mental health services to prisoners. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations as they pertain to Dr. Garlick’s specific job duties and title.
11-cv-1308 Page 4 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 5 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that he worked as a psychiatrist at the Pontiac Correctional Center. Defendant admits that he provided mental health services to some prisoners at the Pontiac Correctional Center. Defendant denies that he saw all prisoners at the Pontiac Correctional Center and further denies that all of his patients were housed in the mental health unit. Defendant denies that he has administered psychotropic drugs to all of his patients. However, Defendant admits that psychotropic drugs may have been prescribed to some mental health patients at the Pontiac Correctional Center.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
ANSWER: Defendant admits that jurisdiction is proper.

ANSWER: Defendant admits that venue is proper.

FACTS

I.

The Failure to Provide Constitutionally-Required Mental Health Care to Inmates in

IDOC’s Custody Generally

11-cv-1308 Page 5 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 6 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 11 and further denies the relevance of this allegation to the claim against Dr. Massa.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 12 as it pertains to sentence one. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 12.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that there are a limited number of beds in the mental health unit at the Pontiac Correctional Center. Defendant would assume that there are a limited number of beds at any facility. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 13.
11-cv-1308 Page 6 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 7 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 14.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies that patients are provided limited and erratic care. Defendant admits that medication is provided to patients who require it. Defendant denies that patients see psychiatrists only once per month and social workers only once per month. Defendant admits that in general, patients can refuse their medications or stop taking their medications. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15.
11-cv-1308 Page 7 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 8 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 16.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 17. ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 18. ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 19.
11-cv-1308 Page 8 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 9 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 20. ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 21. ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 22.
11-cv-1308 Page 9 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 10 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the exact placement of Mr. Rasho at all times relevant to this Complaint. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the cleaning supplies provided by the correctional facility.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 24. II. The Failure to Provide Mr. Rasho with Constitutionally-Required Mental Health
Care While at Pontiac
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the specifics concerning the dates of Mr. Rasho’s incarceration and the correctional facilities where he has been incarcerated. Defendant would admit that Mr. Rasho was incarcerated at the Pontiac Correctional Center at certain times as that is the facility where Defendant Massa saw him for treatment.
11-cv-1308 Page 10 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 11 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the accuracy of the allegations set forth in paragraph 26. Defendant admits that the Plaintiff has a history of complaints and referrals for mental health assessment.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 27 without having access to all of the Plaintiff’s medical records. Defendant cannot admit or deny the exact names of the medications which were prescribed to Mr. Rasho before he was transferred to the Pontiac Correctional Center. Defendant denies that enforcement of medication is due solely to the severity of Mr. Rasho’s mental problems.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 28 without having access to all of the patient’s medical records.
11-cv-1308 Page 11 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 12 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 29 without having access to all of the patient’s medical records.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 30 without having access to all of the patient’s medical records.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 31 without having access to all of the patient’s medical records.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 32 without having access to all of the patient’s medical records.
11-cv-1308 Page 12 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 13 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 33 and further denies that persons who engage in self-harming behavior require placement in the mental health unit.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 34.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 35.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the accuracy of the allegations set forth in paragraph 36. Defendant denies that cutting necessitates placement in the mental health unit.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 37. 11-cv-1308
Page 13 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 14 of 23
ANSWER: Without the Plaintiff’s medical records, Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny whether Mr. Rasho cut himself in August of 2006 and whether he was transferred first to the health care unit or to somewhere else.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 39. ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 40.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 41.
11-cv-1308 Page 14 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 15 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 42. III. Failure to Establish Policies and Protocols
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that he provided treatment to the Plaintiff. Defendant admits that there are mental health protocols. Defendant denies that all mental health decisions are dictated by Illinois Department of Corrections protocols.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 44.
11-cv-1308 Page 15 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 16 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that there are protocols. Defendant denies that the mental health protocols were designed to dictate a specific course of mental health treatment or care for all patients.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 46. IV. Placement of Mr. Rasho In An Environment Toxic to His Mental Health
ANSWER: Defendant Massa admits that Walker and Jones may have some role in determining policies and procedures. Defendant has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the specific allegations set forth therein.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny Mr. Rasho’s exact cell placement at all times.
11-cv-1308 Page 16 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 17 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 49.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 50.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the truth or false of the allegations of paragraph 51. Defendant would not have been provided a copy of all of the Plaintiff’s grievances.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 52.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa has insufficient knowledge regarding the status of Mr. Rasho’s cell assignments at all times. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 53.
11-cv-1308 Page 17 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 18 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 54.
COUNT I (For Compensatory and Punitive Damages Against Defendants Walker, Elyea, Navarro,
and Jones)
11-cv-1308 Page 18 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 19 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa makes no response to Count I of Plaintiff’s First Severed Complaint as Count I is not directed to this Defendant. However, to the extent any allegation set forth therein suggests that Defendant Massa violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Defendant denies said paragraphs.
COUNT II (For Compensatory and Punitive Damages Against Defendants Jones and Walker)
11-cv-1308 Page 19 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 20 of 23 ANSWER: Defendant Massa makes no response to Count II of Plaintiff’s First Severed Complaint as Count II is not directed to this Defendant. However, to the extent any allegation set forth therein suggests that Defendant Massa violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Defendant denies said paragraphs.
COUNT THREE (For Compensatory and Punitive Damages Against Defendants Garlick and Massa)
ANSWER: Defendant Massa reasserts his responses to paragraphs 1 through 10 and 25 through 42 as and for his responses to paragraph 66.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies that Ashoor Rasho suffered from serious medical conditions. Defendant denies that Mr. Rasho suffered from serious mental illnesses at all times.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 68.
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 69.
11-cv-1308 Page 20 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 21 of 23

ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 70.

ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 71.

ANSWER:

Defendant Massa denies the allegations of paragraph 72. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

11-cv-1308 Page 21 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 22 of 23
ANSWER: Defendant Massa denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested.
DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Affirmative Defense No. 1: Defendant Massa is entitled to qualified immunity. Affirmative Defense No. 2: To the extent Plaintiff’s cause of action was filed beyond the statute of limitations, Defendant Massa is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Affirmative Defense No. 3: Plaintiff is not entitled to bring any claims based upon vicarious liability or respondeat superior. Affirmative Defense No. 4: Defendant Massa lacks sufficient personal involvement.
s/ Theresa M. Powell Theresa M. Powell, IL ARDC #: 6230402 Attorney for Defendant Massa Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen Suite 575, PNC Bank Building One North Old State Capitol Plaza P. O. Box 1687 Springfield, IL 62705-1687 217.522.8822 Phone, Ext. 222 217.523.3902 Fax tpowell@heylroyster.com
11-cv-1308 Page 22 of 23

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 8 Page 23 of 23

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 31, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing instrument, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SEVERED COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Alan Mills – alanmill@aol.com Marc R. Kadish – mkadish@mayerbrown.com Matthew V. Wargin – mwargin@mayerbrown.com William R. Stone – wstone@mayerbrown.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Heidi Hildebrand – hhildebrand@atg.state.il.us Christopher L. Higgerson – chiggerson@atg.state.il.us

Attorneys for Defendants Elyea, Garlic, Jones, Navarro, and Walker

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

None

TMP/cs (R6135) 17035715_1.DOCX

s/ Theresa M. Powell Theresa M. Powell

11-cv-1308 Page 23 of 23

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 1 of 27

E-FILED
Friday, 29 April, 2011 10:56:38 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

·(}

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, PATRICE DANIELS, )

GERRODO FORREST, LYNDA SMITH, )

LATERIAL STINSON, and KEITH

)

WALKER,

)

) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JAG

Plaintiffs,

)

) Judge Michael M. Mihm

v.

)

) Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman

DIRECTOR ROGER E. WALKER, JR., )

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERTA FEWS, )

DR. WENDY NAVARRO, DR. SYLVIA )

MAHONE, EDDIEJONES, DR.

)

WILLARD ELYEA, DR. JOHN

)

GARLIC, DR. MICHAEL F. MASSA,

)

and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )

INC.

)

)

)

Defendants

)

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson,

Keith Walker, and additional plaintiffs Phillip L. Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik,

. Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, and Rasheed McGee, prisoners currently

incarcerated in various adult correctional centers of the Illinois Department of Corrections (the

"IDOC"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all inmates with serious mental illness who are

now or will be incarcerated in IDOC adult correctional centers, hereby complain as follows:

1. This is a class action lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983 to redress

violations ofPlaintiffs' and the class members' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free of cruel and unusual punishment while they are

incarcerated in IDOC facilities; to redress violations of their liberty interests under the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 2 of 27

Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (the "Rehab Act"), 29

()

U.S.C. § 794, to address their right to be free of discrimination on account of their disabilities.

2. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendants' conduct unconstitutional and

violative of the ADA and the Rehab Act, and an injunction against Defendants' unlawful

conduct as set forth below.

3. As the U.S. rate of incarceration has soared over the past decade, the number of

inmates with mental illness has soared as well. The IDOC and its contractor for medical and

mental health services, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford"), have failed miserably to deal

with this problem.

4. Mentally ill inmates in IDOC facilities are chronically underdiagnosed and

undertreated. They are subjected to brutality instead of compassion, and housed in conditions

that beggar imagination. If they complain about the quality of their care, they may get no care at

)

all. They are mocked and abused by correctional staff, sprayed with caustic chemicals and

derided for their illness. There are far too few spaces in the mental health care units. Mentally

ill prisoners are routinely sent to segregation instead of mental health care units, although it is

universally known that this can worsen their mental illness. Years are added to their

imprisonment by punishment for behavior due to their serious mental illness, without any

account being taken of their disabilities in the meting-out of that punishment. If they try to

commit suicide by hanging themselves with a sheet from their beds, they will be ticketed for

destruction of state property.

5. Defendants avoid treating inmates with mental illness by failing to identify

inmates with mental illness. Despite an Administrative Directive which requires that "All

offenders [] transferring into a facility shall be screened and, when appropriate, referred to a

- 2-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 3 of 27
··· (}- ·· ·· mental health professional,''-the mental health screening at IDOC adult correctional centers is · arbitrary, haphazard, and riddled with gaps. Most inmates do not receive a meaningful mental health screening upon transfer. 6. Even for those prisoners identified as needing mental health care, the care is grossly substandard. The IDOC's contracts with Wexford, signed year after year by the director of the IDOC, contain no enforceable standards governing the quality of care provided to prisoners. Thus it is no surprise that the State of Illinois pays hundreds of millions of dollars, year after year, for care that violates constitutional standards and established legal norms. 7. One measure of the deficiency in treatment is how few of IDOC's adult correctional centers provide any sort of specialized mental health services at all: The State of Illinois currently has only four adult correctional facilities (out of a total of 28) which offer some form of specialized mental health services to inmates: Dixon Correctional Center, Pontiac Correctional Center, Tamms Correctional Center (the state's "super-max" facility); and Dwight Correctional Center. The available spaces for specialized mental health treatment are minuscule compared to the need: according to the IDOC's Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2007 (the most recent report available), as of June 2007, Pontiac's Mental Health Unit housed 69 inmates, and Dixon's Psychiatric Unit housed 183 inmates. 8. Access to the limited number of specialty mental health units is limited and difficult. The standards for transfer to a facility with a specialty mental health unit are unclear; prisoners with obvious mental health needs may not be transferred to such facilities at all. Even at facilities with specialty mental health units, prisoners are refused assignment to the mental health unit despite requesting it and despite being on, or having been on, potent psychiatric medications.
- 3-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 4 of 27
9. · · · Prisoners-who ask to be transferred to mental health units are refused for reasons · that have nothing to do with mental health treatment considerations (~, too much segregation time). Grievances by inmates as to the quality of care provided in the mental health units are treated not as complaints about care, but as challenges to being assigned there. Prisoners are transferred out of mental health units in retaliation for filing a grievance, assisting other inmates in grieving, or other reasons having nothing to do with psychiatric care. Within the mental health treatment units, patients with a wide variety of problems are grouped together and treated by the same methods without regard for their differing diagnoses.
10. What limited and erratic care there is, is provided chiefly by medication. A prisoner with paranoid schizophrenia may see a psychiatrist once a month, to "re-up" his medications, and a social worker once a month. It can be very easy to get off medications: just ask, or stop taking the medications. There are no adequate mechanisms in place to monitor whether mentally ill inmates are really taking the medications they are prescribed, or to encourage them, through therapeutic contact, to stick with their medication regimes.
11. When prisoners have consultations with mental health professionals, they are often forced to do so in the form of conversations at the cell door, where not only correctional staff but other prisoners can eavesdrop. This severely compromises the ability to treat any mental illness, since it requires a prisoner to identify his symptoms in a setting where other prisoners can readily hear. This gives prisoners an incentive to minimize problems, and gives Defendants a reason not to provide treatment.
12. Prisoners who are transferred from one correctional facility to another may receive radically different qualities of care, or no care; different medications, or no medications at all. Inmates who are transferred from one facility to another may be left without their
- 4-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 5 of 27
·· · ( ) · ·· · · medications because of delay in assessing them or delay in transfer oftheir medical records, putting them in serious, perhaps life-threatening danger. 13. The diagnosis of- or failure to diagnose- inmates' mental health problems by mental health professionals in IDOC facilities, and the day-to-day treatment of mentally ill prisoners by staff, is routinely poisoned by the notion of "offender manipulation," and mentally ill inmates are routinely categorized as uncooperative malingerers. Both regular staff and supposed mental health "professionals" fail to recognize the "uncooperative" and "manipulative" conduct as the symptoms of mental illness which they are. 14. Correctional staff are not trained to deal with the mentally ill. Staff often do not respond to prisoners' threats to harm themselves, and use unnecessary force on mentally ill prisoners. Prisoners on suicide watch are neglected, abused, or both. They can be stripped naked; placed in a cell with no mattress or blankets; put in four-point restraints. In winter, staff in some facilities will open the windows, and then sit and laugh. 15. Inmates who engage in conduct due to their mental illnesses are punished in absurd and irrational ways - for instance, being given a ticket and segregation time for "damage to state property" for destroying a jumpsuit in a suicide attempt. 16. Mentally ill inmates accumulate large amounts of segregation time for disciplinary infractions caused by their mental illness, but their mental illness is not taken into account in the hearings about their infractions. Prisoners are housed in segregation, and given little or no mental health care, despite having, for instance, passionate beliefs that they are subjects of "mind-control" technology experiments by the IDOC. Mentally ill prisoners are sent to Tamms Correctional Center, the "super-max" facility, without regard for the damage the severe social and sensory deprivations of Tamms are likely to have on their psychological state.
- 5-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 6 of 27

···It is well-known that placing mentally ill inmates in segregation-or isolation is highly likely to

/ )

exacerbate their mental illness. Even without mental illness, many prisoners in isolation

experience mental deterioration; isolation is especially dangerous to those who are already

mentally ill. Studies have found that the effects of isolation include: paranoid psychosis and

uncontrolled rage, including increased homicidal and suicidal impulses; frequent schizophrenia;

and impairment of the ability to socially reconnect with others once released. Yet mentally ill

prisoners still accumulate years upon years of "seg" time in the IDOC, or are sent to Tamms.

17. Likewise, prisoners who were originally incarcerated for comparatively minor

offenses (M., burglary) can end up spending more time in prison due only to their mental illness

than those convicted of much more serious offenses.

18. The units in which mentally ill prisoners are housed- both the mental health units

themselves and other locations where they may be placed- are often filthy, vermin-ridden and

filled with human waste. This is true of individual cells and of common areas, such as showers.

Staff do not clean them, and inmates are not able to clean them. In the Pontiac "North

Segregation" Unit, for instance, inmates are given a half cup of green soap once a week to clean

their cells. In the beginning, they are also given a sponge, but once the sponge wears out they

are not given a new one.

19. The experiences ofthe Plaintiffs here are typical of the class members:

20. Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center; he

was previously incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. He has a history of auditory

hallucinations, suicide attempts, and self-mutilation. Despite Mr. Rasho's serious mental illness,

he has been taken on or off medication, put into and then taken out of the Pontiac Mental Health

Unit, and told by correctional officers when he was on crisis watch to call them "when [he] hit an

- 6-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 7 of 27

· (-) )

artery."· Mr, Rasho's 1996 incarceration-for burglary has been greatly prolonged by punishment for infractions related to his mental illness, and his current projected parole date is 2018.
21. Plaintiff Patrice Daniels is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Despite his mental illness, he has been placed in segregation for extended periods; he has repeatedly caused injury to himself and received medical attention for these injuries, but did not receive mental health screening or mental health care. He has requested transfer to a Mental Health Unit but been denied.
22. Plaintiff Gerrodo Forrest is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has a history of mental illness including auditory hallucinations, delusions, and repeated suicide attempts, compounded by limited intellectual and cognitive abilities. He has spent most of his time in prison in segregation due to acting out triggered by his psychological illness and impairments.
23. PlaintiffLaterial Stinson was incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. He has a long history of diagnoses and treatment for mental illness, but his diagnoses and medications constantly changed as he was shifted from doctor to doctor.
24. Plaintiff Lynda Smith is currently incarcerated at Dwight Correctional Center. She has a history of treatment for mental illness, and has also had surgery for a brain tumor. She has been in custody since November 1989 and has spent a total often years since then in segregation. She was not originally placed in the Mental Health Unit at Dwight, and she is not currently there despite her repeated requests that she be transferred there. She believes that her grievances have been destroyed by the doctor at Dwight. Her incarceration has been prolonged due to disciplinary infractions and her current release date is 2030.

- 7-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 8 of 27
-. - 25. PlaintiffKeith Walker is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center.· Despite having mental illness, Mr. Walker has been removed from the Mental Health Unit and has had several of his medications discontinued. Mr. Walker has spent months upon months in segregation for disciplinary infractions related to his mental illness, and has had his incarceration prolonged due to disciplinary infractions related to his mental illness.
26. Plaintiff Phillip L. Abraham is currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center. Due to his mental illness, he was involuntarily committed prior to his incarceration. He has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Since his incarceration, he has had difficulty receiving medication and has been denied treatment for his mental illness. He has been placed in segregation as a result of an altercation with a correctional employee over receiving medication for his mental illness.
27. Plaintiff Otis Arrington is currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center. Previously, he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center and Dixon Correctional Center, where he was placed in the special treatment/mental health units. However, when he refused to take prescribed medications because he had difficulty tolerating them, he was discharged from the special treatment/mental health units.
28. Plaintiff Kenneth Bakalik is currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, in the special treatment unit. Mr. Bakalik was abused as a child, and has a history of hospitalization for mental illness dating back to his childhood, with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Although he has received some treatment for his mental illness in the form of medication, he has received no counseling or therapy to help him deal with his history of having been abused, and the treatment he does receive is inadequate to deal with his serious mental illness which resulted in his incarceration in the first place.
- 8-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 9 of 27
·~·(·) ........ . . 29.. ·· Plaintiff Donald Collins is currently. incmrcerated at Dixon Correctional Center; in the special treatment unit. He has episodes of severe depression. He has been threatened, taunted, and repeatedly abused by correctional personnel, including being sprayed with bleach, and has been refused participation in group counseling programs. 30. Plaintiff Joseph Herman is currently incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. He has a long history of medication for psychiatric disorders, and has received multiple diagnoses of mental illness, including depression and major depression, schizoaffective disorder with psychotic features, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, dysthymic disorder, impulse control disorder, borderline personality disorder with antisocial traits, antisocial personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder. He was previously in the special treatment unit at Dixon Correctional Center and in the mental health unit at Pontiac Correctional Center, where he
) was beaten by correctional personnel. Despite his long history of serious mental illness, he is not in the special treatment unit at Tamms, and has repeatedly and seriously mutilated himself since his transfer to Tamms. Due to his mental illness, he has been involved in prison altercations for which he has been punished without regard for his mental illness, and his current projected release date is 2053, when he will be 79 years old. 31. Plaintiff Henry Hersman is currently incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In the past, he has swallowed razor blades, and attempted to commit suicide by driving a car into a house. Although he was previously placed in the special treatment unit at Dixon Correctional Center, he was transferred out of Dixon to Hill (which has no special mental health treatment unit) for reasons unrelated to his mental health care and in detriment of his mental health care, as
~ 9-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 10 of 27
punishment for a charge of giving false information when he sent a note stating that a gang member intended to attack correctional staff.
32. Plaintiff Rasheed McGee is currently incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center. Prior to being incarcerated, he was involuntarily committed on several occasions. He was previously in the special treatment unit at Pontiac Correctional Center, and was transferred from there to the special treatment unit at Tamms, but thereafter removed from the special treatment unit, supposedly at his "request," when he complained that he was receiving no treatment for his mental illness. He is given involuntary halodol injections, but they do not stop his continuous auditory hallucinations telling him to hurt himself. He has asked to be returned to the special treatment unit, but refused; he has asked to be placed on suicide watch, but staff tells him that they will not do so unless he harms himself. When he does then harm himself, he is left completely stripped.
33. The careless, inconsistent, and indifferent care Plaintiffs have received for their mental illness is emblematic ofDefendants' violations of the constitutional and legal rights of inmates and their deliberate indifference to them. Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer greatly and unnecessarily as a result.
34. The court has jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Venue is proper in the Central District oflllinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least one of the Defendants resides in the District and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in the District.
35. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the IDOC and who, while incarcerated, have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I or Axis II disorder in the
- 10-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 11 of 27
f- -}, - Diagnostic and Statistical-Manual of Mental Disorders,-Fourth Edition (hereafter "DSM-IV"), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction or any form of sexual disorder shall not by itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of this class definition. 36. A class action is proper pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(l) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 37. Members ofthe class on whose behalfPlaintiffs sue are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. According to the !DOC's website in September 2010, the agency was responsible for the management of 45,000 adult inmates, ofwhom more than half likely have, or will have, mental illness. 38. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, authors D. James and L. Glaze, dated September, 2006, revised
) December 14, 2006, stated that "At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons .... These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners ...." (Id. p. 1.) "State prisoners were most likely to report a recent history of a mental health problem[]. About 24% of State prisoners had a recent history
of a mental health problem ...." ilib. p. 2.) However, approximately "3 in 10 State[] prisoners
were found to have symptoms of a mental disorder without a recent history." (Id. p. 3.) Based upon a modified structured clinical interview for the DSM-IV, the report found that over 15% of State prisoners reported at least one symptom of a psychotic disorder; over 70% reported at least one symptom of a major depressive disorder, and almost 74% reported at least one symptom of a
mania disorder. ilib. p. 2.) This compares to 3.1% of the general US population reporting at least
one symptom of a psychotic disorder; 7.9% reporting at least one symptom of a major depressive disorder; and 1.8% reporting a symptom of a mania disorder. (Id. p. 3.)
- 11 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 12 of 27

· 39; ., There are questions of law or fact common to all class members. -The, failure of Defendants to implement policies and procedures - including policies and procedures they already have in place - to identify and care for the large number of mentally ill inmates currently in custody, to help prevent inmates from developing mental illness while incarcerated, or to limit the extent to which mental illness results in extra punishment for inmates, is a violation of Plaintiffs' and the class members' constitutional and legal rights. Plaintiffs' allegations of a broad pattern of discriminatory policies and procedures presumptively create common questions of law or fact.
40. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims ofthe class. They arise from the same practices and courses of conduct that give rise to the claims of the other class members.
41. Plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class members. Plaintiffs have no conflict with the other class members, since both Plaintiffs and the class members share the same interest in receiving appropriate diagnosis and treatment for mental illness and in the implementation of policies to prevent inmates from developing mental illness while incarcerated, and in being free of additional punishment as a result of mental illness. Class counsel are experienced in both civil rights litigation and class action lawsuits.
42. Separate injunctive and declaratory actions maintained by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class, thereby establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. Adjudication regarding individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of or impair the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication or substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.

) ' /

.

- 12-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 13 of 27

-( ']··-- .. · . 43 •... Defendants-have acted orrefused to act-on-grounds,generally applicable to the

class that Plaintiffs represent, thereby making final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief

appropriate for the class as a whole.

COUNT I
(Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Based Upon Failure to Diagnose And Treat Serious Mental Health Needs, for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief against Defendants Walker, Fews, Navarro, and Wexford)

44. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 43 as if alleged

herein.

45. Defendant Gladyse Taylor is the Director of the IDOC; as such, she has overall

_responsibility for IDOC' s policies and procedures and the administration of all correctional facilities in the State. 1

)

46. Defendant Roberta Pews is the Deputy Director of the IDOC Office of Programs

and Support Services. She has responsibility for the office of the Chief of Mental Health and

Psychiatric Services for the IDOC. As such, she has responsibility for policies, procedures, and

general oversight of the care of mentally ill inmates in the IDOC.

47. Defendant Dr. Wendy Navarro reports to Defendant Pews, and is the Chief of

Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC. As such, she has immediate responsibility

for the mental health and psychiatric care of inmates in the custody ofthe IDOC.

48. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which provides health services, including mental health services,

throughout the IDOC by contract with the State of Illinois. The individual mental health

professionals who supply diagnoses and treatment to mentally ill inmates throughout the IDOC

1 Director Taylor is automatically substituted for Roger E. Walker, Jr., the former director ofthe IDOC, pursuant to Rule 25(d).
- 13-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 14 of 27
are almost always Wexford,employees, and Wexford personnel determine what quality-ofcare will be given to IDOC inmates with mental illness?
49. Plaintiffs and the class members have a serious medical need or condition, namely mental illness or mental health conditions, which require treatment.
50. Defendants' policies, practices, and customs are designed to intentionally fail to diagnose or treat large numbers of mentally ill prisoners. Defendants have displayed and continue to display deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' and the class members' mental health needs.
51. Defendants' acts and omissions constitute cruel and unusual punishment of Plaintiffs and the class members and violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
52. Defendants' policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs and the class members at unreasonable, continuing, and foreseeable risk of developing or exacerbating serious medical and mental health problems.
53. Defendants' violations of Plaintiffs' and the class members' constitutional rights have inflicted both physical and mental harm and injury, including by causing avoidable pain, mental suffering, and deterioration of their health. Upon information and belief, in some cases it has resulted in premature death.
54. As a proximate result of Defendants' unconstitutional policies, practices, customs, acts, omissions, and deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and
2 On information and belief, the IDOC directly employs some medical personnel who from time to time may diagnose a prisoner's mental illness.
- 14-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 15 of 27

( ') ··- . emotional injury and the-risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class-members have-no plain,-adequate

or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.

COUNT II
(Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Based Upon Failure To Train Or Supervise, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants Taylor, Fews, Navarro, and Wexford)
55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 54 as if alleged

herein.

56. Defendants fail to adequately train or supervise individuals in their employ or

under their control and supervision as to how to properly respond to and interact with prisoners

with serious mental health needs.

57. Defendants' failure to adequately train or supervise violates Plaintiffs' and the

)

class members' constitutional rights.

58. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to train, Plaintiffs and the class

members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, deprivation of the rights secured under the

Constitution and laws of the United States. Such deprivations are causing and will continue to

cause immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological, and emotional injury

and the risk of death. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete

remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.

COUNT III

(Violation of Liberty Interest Under The Due Process Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against
Defendants Taylor, Fews, and Navarro)

59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 58 as if alleged

herein.

- 15-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 16 of 27
·,·60. · Defendants' policies and procedures and· acts or omissions which- cause· Plaintiffs . ···- ·,/ ) . and the class members to be placed in isolated environments for extended periods impose an atypical and significant hardship on Plaintiffs and the class members in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
61. Defendants' policies and procedures and acts or omissions which fail to take into account Plaintiffs' and the class members' mental illness in imposing additional punishment violate Plaintiffs' and the class members' liberty interests and due process rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
62. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, deprivation of the rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Such deprivations are causing and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiffs and the class members have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein.
COUNT IV (Title II Of The Americans With Disabilities Act, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
against Defendants Taylor, Fews, and Navarro) 63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 62 as if alleged herein. 64. Each of the IDOC facilities housing Plaintiffs and the class members are public entities as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131. All Defendants at all relevant times acted in their official capacities as representatives of at least one of these public entities. 65. Plaintiffs and class members are otherwise qualified individuals with a disability as defined under the ADA and its implementing regulations, including 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) and § 12102(2). Plaintiffs and the class members have mental and/or physical impairments that
- 16-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 17 of 27

') substantially, limit one or more major life activities; or they have records ofhaving such ·· ·

impairments; or they are regarded as having such impairments.

66. Plaintiffs and the class members meet the essential eligibility requirements for the

receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants.

67. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs and class members on the

basis of their disabilities in the following ways:

a) Refusing to provide Plaintiffs and the class members with proper treatment for

their serious mental illness despite knowledge of such serious mental illness;

b) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities

and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their

illness by such methods as placing them in administrative segregation or other

\

isolated environments as punishment;

/

c) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities

and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their

illness by such methods as depriving them of clothes, heat, or sanitary

surroundings; ·

d) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities

by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs and some class members to mental health units

and housing them in elevated security divisions or tiers, or general population

divisions, which are especially chaotic, noisy, isolated and offer less or no mental

health treatment, and also increase the likelihood of serious physical and mental

harm due to the fact that the staff and guards in such divisions are not trained to

interact with seriously mentally ill detainees.

- 17-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 18 of 27

68; · In acting in the manner alleged above, Defendants have unlawfully discriminated ·

,/ · )

against Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of the ADA.

69. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the class

members have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and injury,

including physical, psychological, and emotional injury, including the risk of death. Plaintiffs

and the class members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs

described herein.

COUNTV
(Violation of Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants Taylor, Fews, and Navarro)
70. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 to 69 as if alleged

herein.

71. Upon information and belief, the IDOC receives federal financial assistance, thus

)

making it subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and§ 705(20).

72. Each Plaintiff and each class member is an otherwise qualified individual with a

disability as defined in the Rehabilitation Act and implementing regulations. Plaintiffs and the

class members have mental and/or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more

major life activities; or they have records of having such impairments; or they are regarded as

having such impairments.

73. Plaintiffs and the class members meet the essential eligibility requirements for the

receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants.

74. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs and class members based

upon their disabilities in the following ways:

- 18-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 19 of 27

. -a).. "'... Refusingto provide-Plaintiffs and the class members with-proper. treatment for

their serious mental illness despite knowledge of such serious mental illness;

b) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities

and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their

illness by such methods as placing them in administrative segregation or other

isolated environments as punishment;

c) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities

and instead discriminating against them in ways that increase the severity of their

illness by such methods as depriving them of clothes, heat, or sanitary

surroundings;

d) Failing to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs' and class members' disabilities

)

by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs and some class members to mental health units

and housing them in elevated security divisions or tiers, or general population

divisions, which are especially chaotic, noisy, isolated and offer less or no mental

health treatment, and also increase the likelihood of serious physical and mental

harm due to the fact that the staff and guards in such divisions are not trained to

interact with seriously mentally ill detainees.

75. In acting in the manner alleged above, the Defendants have unlawfully

discriminated against Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

76. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the class

members have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm and injury,

including physical, psychological, and emotional injury, including the risk of death. Plaintiffs

- 19-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 20 of 27
·.·· and the class members have no plain; adequate, or complete remedy· at law to address the wrongs · ··· -." · ) ·. .
described herein. COUNT VI
(Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho for Compensatory and Punitive Damages against Defendants
Walker, Navarro, Mahone, Jones, Elyea, Garlic, and Massa) 77. Plaintiff Ashoor.Rasho realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 76 as if alleged herein. 78. At all times relevant to this damage count, Defendant Roger E. Walker Jr. was the Director of the IDOC. He had overall responsibility for the administration of all correctional facilities with the State, as well as personal, first-hand knowledge of the operations of Pontiac Correctional Center. 79. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. Willard Elyea was the Medical Director of the IDOC and, as such, had overall responsibility for providing health care, including mental health care, to prisoners of Pontiac Correctional Center. 80. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. Wendy Navarro was the Chief of Mental Health and Psychiatric Services for the IDOC and as such had overall responsibility for providing mental health care to prisoners of Pontiac Correctional Center.
'\
81. At all times relevant to this damage count, Defendant Dr. Sylvia Mahone was the medical director of Pontiac Correctional Center.
82. At all times relevant to this damage count, Eddie Jones was the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. As such, he had ultimate responsibility for the entire operation of the institution, including implementing all state law and the !DOC's policies, practices and procedures affecting prisoners confined at Pontiac Correctional Center, its mental health unit and its segregation units.
-20-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 21 of 27
-- - 83. --- At-alHimes relevantto this damage count; Dr. John Garlic was-the Su_f)ervising -· Clinical Psychologist at Pontiac Correctional Center. Garlic provided mental health services to prisoners at Pontiac Correctional Center and oversaw the mental health staff who serve as the prison mental health professionals.
84. At all times relevant to this damage count, Dr. Michael F. Massa was one of the psychiatrists at Pontiac Correctional Center. Dr. Massa provided mental health services to prisoners at Pontiac Mental Health Unit and administered psychotropic drugs to them.
85. PlaintiffRasho has been incarcerated in the IDOC since 1996 and was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center in November 2003. Mr. Rasho arrived at Pontiac with a welldocumented history of serious mental illness, including self-mutilation, suicide attempts, and auditory hallucinations. He had been treated with a wide variety of psychotropic medications, ) including Sinequan, Wellbutrin, Prozac, Remeran, and BuSpar.
86. For some period of time at Pontiac, Mr. Rasho's mental health was reasonably stable. However, in spring 2004, Mr. Rasho stopped taking his medication and began cutting himself again. He then was transferred to Pontiac's mental health unit by then-Pontiac psychiatrist Dr. Kowalkowski. He resumed medication and stabilized. However, he then ceased taking medication, and resumed self-mutilating.
87. Between November 2004 and October 2005, Mr. Rasho cut himself on five occasions, requiring between 6 and 16 stitches on each occasion.
88. Despite Mr. Rasho's history of mental illness and self-destructive behavior, reflected in his records and in his conduct at Pontiac under their watch, in 2006 Dr. Massa and the other members of the Pontiac psychiatric team, including Dr. Garlic, determined to transfer Mr. Rasho out of the mental health unit and into the "North Seg[regation]" unit, because he
- 21 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 22 of 27
····compl-ained·about staffbehavior in themental health unit; and..not foranyJegitimate-medical or therapeutic reason. They did this although they were well aware of Mr. Rasho's history of serious mental health problems and the fact that he still had serious mental illness and repeatedly harmed himself by cutting large, deep wounds on his arms. 89. As a result of this transfer, Mr. Rasho's mental state deteriorated further. In August 2006, Mr. Rasho cut himself again and was transferred to first to the health care unit,
. where he was put on crisis watch. There, the staff told him to "call when he hit an artery" and left him alone as he was in the act of cutting himself. When he triggered the sprinkler head in the cells, he was removed, and received 15 stitches. Despite this incident, thereafter he was returned to North Seg per Dr. Massa's and Dr. Garlic's instructions.
90. Mr. Rasho repeatedly requested transfer back to the mental health unit, but his pleas were disregarded by Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlic. Despite refusing to place Mr. Rasho in the Pontiac mental health unit except in extreme circumstances, the Pontiac mental health staff, including Dr. Massa and Dr. Garlic, consistently prescribed powerful combinations of antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs for Mr. Rasho. Thus they were aware of and acknowledged his serious mental illness even as they denied him treatment, denied him access to programs available in the mental health unit, and exacerbated his mental illness by placing him in a segregation environment.
91. Mr. Rasho's grievances regarding his placement in North Seg, rather than the mental health unit, were disregarded by Warden Jones; despite the obvious risks of harm to this seriously mentally ill person from being placed in a segregation unit instead of a specialty mental health care unit, his grievances were denied, and he was told that the "nature of his grievance could not be determined."
-22-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 23 of 27

92. Mr. Rasho' s privacy was invaded by his treatment at Pontiac, in that he was

forced to have conversations with mental health staff within the hearing of non-mental-health

professionals, including correctional staff and other prisoners.

93. Finally, Defendant Jones repeatedly adjudicated disciplinary charges against Mr.

Rasho without making allowance for his mental illness, of which he is well aware, causing Mr.

Rasho's sentence to be unjustly prolonged due to conduct that was the result of his serious

mental illness.

94. In so doing, defendants Walker, Navarro, Mahone, Jones, Elyea, Garlic, and

Massa have violated Mr. Rasho's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his liberty interests

under the Fourteenth Amendment.

)

REQUEST FOR RELIEF:

Wherefore, Plaintiffs and the class members request that this Court:

(a) Declare that Defendants' actions and inactions are unlawful and unconstitutional

for the reasons specified above;

(b) Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Defendants to provide:

1. Mental health training for correctional staff as part of their initial training and as a required element of their annual training, including training on: signs of mental illness; treatments for mental illnesses; side-effects of medications used for the treatment of mental illness; effective interaction with mentally ill prisoners and defusing potentially escalating situations; suicide prevention training; safe use of physical and mechanical restraints for mentally ill offenders; how to distinguish between conduct that reflects a serious mental illness and conduct that deliberately breaks prison rules; and compassion for the mentally ill.
2. That all inmates shall receive (1) an initial mental health screening upon admission to an IDOC facility; (2) a detailed mental health screening by a mental health professional within two weeks of arrival at any IDOC facility (unless such inmate is already on the mental health caseload as a result of screenings at a prior facility); and (3) an appropriate mental health classification.

-23-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 24 of 27

"' · ·· 3. ···<·'That-initial-and detailed mental health screenings·must·become part ofan inmate's permanent file.
4. That inmates identified as in need of evaluation through the screening process will receive a complete mental health evaluation by a mental health professional within 14 days.
5. That any institution employee may also refer an inmate for a mental health evaluation based upon observation of the inmate's behavior.
6. That every inmate on the mental health caseload will receive an evaluation update at least once annually.
7. That each inmate with a mental illness classification shall have a written treatment plan, updated annually.
8. For any inmate with known/reported history of mental health treatment who is transferred, procedures to ensure that inmate's complete mental health records are transferred to the new institution within 48 hours.
9. Procedures for removal from mental health caseload.
10. That inmates in segregation units or other isolation environments will be reviewed at least once per week by mental health professional.
11. That inmates entering segregation or other isolation environments will be promptly screened for suicide potential.
12. That no inmate with a mental illness classification shall be incarcerated at Tamms or placed in segregation for longer than 20 consecutive days and no more than 40 days total per year.
13. Procedures for identifying, monitoring and treating inmates with suicide potential, including provision of suicide-resistant gowns and blankets for inmates on suicide watch.
14. Protocols for administration and monitoring inmates on psychotropic medications, including protocols for involuntary administration.
15. Protocols for inmates on suicide watch.
16. Moving the supervision of mental health treatment from the director of programs to the medical director of the IDOC.
17. A qualified expert to supervise and report to Court on implementation of the procedures and programs included herein.
18. A documented external peer review program for mental health professionals.

( )···

-24-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 25 of 27

. ('). . 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

A quality improvement program for inmate mental health care as part of any contract·with a third-party contractor.
Regular performance evaluations of mental health services by independent qualified professionals.
Internal quality review mechanisms including independent reviews of any third-party contractors.
Requirements that independent contractors providing mental health services pay workers at levels comparable to community mental health settings.
Increased numbers of hospital beds and acute-care facilities for treatment of mental illness.
Increased numbers of intermediate care facilities for mental illness.
A presumption in any disciplinary hearing involving an inmate with a mental illness classification that the disciplinary incident was caused by mental illness.
(c) Award Plaintiffs and the class members their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
I )
(d) Award Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho compensatory and punitive damages for the

violations of his constitutional and legal rights as to Count VI;

(e) Award any such further relief as the Court may deem just.

Respectfully submitted,

April29, 2011

Is/ Harold C. Hirshman
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Harold C. Hirshman (ARDC #1226290) Camille E. Bennett (ARDC #6224457) SNR Denton US LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 876-8000 (phone) (312) 876-7934 (fax)
harold hirshman@snrdenton. com camille. bennett@snrdenton. com

Marc R. Kadish Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown. com

- 25-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 26 of 27

Alan Mills· Uptown People's Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alanmills@comcast. net
Barry G. Lowy (ARDC #6196719) Equip for Equality 235 S. Fifth St. Springfield, IL 62705 (800) 758-0464 (phone) (217) 523-0720 (fax) contactus@equipforequality. org

. ·~·-

. . - . '~. ' .

. : . ' . ..., -· ·- . ' .

-26-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM -JAG # 95 Page 27 of 27

··CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ···

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on April29, 2011, she caused

the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system,

which will send notice of electronic filing to:

Heidi Hildebrand Christopher L. Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S. Second St. Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-9029 hhildebrand@atg.state.il. us chiggerson@atg. state.il.us

Theresa M. Powell

David M. Walter

Brian Michael Smith

HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN

National City Bank Building

)

Suite 575 One N. Old State capitol Plaza

P.O. Box 1687

Springfield, IL 62705

tpowell@heylroyster.com

dwalter@hey lroyster .com

bsmith@heylroyster.com

Is/ Camille E. Bennett

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1091 Page 1 of 5

E-FILED
Tuesday, 03 January, 2017 10:37:27 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR JOl-IN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants

No.1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH
Judge Michael M. Mihm
Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley

AGREEMENT AS TO ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES This Agreement ("Agreement"), is made and entered into by and between counsel for the plaintiffs, Dentons, LLP, Uptown Peoples Law Center, Equip for Equality, and Mayer Brown, LLP, and the Defendants, John R. Baldwin, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
RECITALS WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, entitled Ashoar Rasho, eta/. v. Director .John R. Baldwin, et al., Number 07-1298, (hereinafter referred to as "Action") alleging violations of rights protected by federal statute(s), regulation(s), common law, the Constitution of the United State of Illinois and/or the Constitution of the United States. WHEREAS, that action has been resolved by an Amended Settlement Agreement filed May 23, 2015 with the Court (Document #711-1) and the Court approved that settlement after a hearing.

Page 1 of5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1091 Page 2 of 5

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs have subsequently filed a petition for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Section XXXIII of the Amended Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Petition"); and
WHEREAS, that Settlement Agreement specifically provided for attorneys' fees in Section XXX!II because "Plaintiffs are the prevailing party" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Court is to determine the amount of fees and costs. One-half of the Court determined amount shall be payable 120 days after the Court determines the amount of fees and costs and one-half will become immediately payable in the event that the Court enters an order under Section XX!X(g) of Document 711-1.

WHEREAS, so as to avoid further expense and in recognition of the positions of

the parties to the above case, the Parties wish to settle and compromise the pending claim

for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

WHEREAS, Defendants have provided Exhibit A (Leter from Illinois Department

of Corrections) and Plaintiffs' counsel are relying on that letter in entering into this

Agreement.

IT IS HEREBY AGREED, by and between the parties as follows:

I. In consideration for the full and complete settlement of the claim for

attorney fees and costs, the parties agree that the sum of $3,800,000.00 (Three million,

eight hundred thousand, and 00/1 00 dollars) shall be considered to be a reasonable the

amount due pursuant to the plaintiffs' attorneys and the parties will so represent that to the

Court pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties further agree that the sum of $1 ,900,000.00

(One million, nine hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall be paid to Equip for

102::!01JS7W·I

Page 2 ofS

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1091 Page 3 of 5

Equality (FEIN #36-3361312) to be distributed to Plaintiffs' counsel under

Section XXXIII of Document 711-1. In the event the Court enters an order under Section

XXIX(g) of Document 711-1, another payment of $1,900,000.00 (One million, nine

hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall become due and owing under the terms of

Section XXXIII of Document 7 I I-1. The parties understand that the entire amount

payable under this Agreement is subject to state law governing the State Comptroller's

obligation to withhold funds that Plaintiffs' counsel may owe to other persons or to state

agencies. The validity of these claims may be contested through applicable state

procedure.

2. The amount payable under this Agreement shall be paid from

appropriations already made to the Illinois Department of Corrections. (See Exhibit A.)

3. The Illinois Department of Corrections will submit the documents to

effectuate payments to the Illinois Comptroller within 30 days of a finding by the Court

that the petition for attorneys' fees is reasonable to the members of the class.

4. In the event that the Court finds that the petition for attorney's fees is not

reasonable to members of the class, this Agreement will become null and void pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(h).

5. It is expressly agreed that the Defendants in their individual capacities shall

not be responsible for payment of any sum under this Agreement.

6. It is further understood and agreed that the above-tendered consideration is

not be construed as an admission of any liability therefore, such liability having been

expressly denied. No inducements or representations have been made by any agent or

attorney of any party hereby released as to the legal liability or other responsibility of any

party claimed responsible, and it is agreed that this release is intended to be a full and

Jo::::oJJSiW-1

Page 3 ofS

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1091 Page 4 of 5

complete disposition of the entire claim for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses pursuant to XXIII of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
7. The Parties agree that they will present this Agreement to the Court within ten (10) days of full execution of this Agreement.
8. No promise has been made to pay or give the Plaintiffs or their attorneys any greater or further consideration other than as stated in this Agreement. All agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, oral or written, of the Parties hereto, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement are contained in this Agreement. No other agreements, covenants, representations or warranties, express or implied, oral or written, have been made by any party hereto to any other party concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous negotiations, possible and alleged agreements, representations, covenants and warranties, between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement are merged into this Settlement Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties.
9. The Plaintiffs and their attorneys enter into this Agreement as a free and voluntary act with full knowledge of its legal consequences. The Plaintiffs and their attorneys have not relied on any information or representations which are not contained in this Agreement except Exhibit A.
10. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Jaws of the State of Illinois, without regard to principles of conflict of Jaws.
II. This Agreement may not be changed, modified or assigned except by written agreement of the Plaintiffs and their attorneys, the Illinois Department of Corrections, and the Illinois Attorney General.

10:<2013$1\V·I

Page 4 of5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1091 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Harold C. Hirshman Harold C. Hirshman - signature redacted
/s/ Alan Mills Alan Mills - signature redacted
/s/ Amanda C. Antholt Amanda C. Antholt - signature redacted
/s/ Marc R. Kadish Marc R. Kadish - signature redacted
/s/ John Baldwin John Baldwin - signature redacted
Director

 
 1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10

Page 1 of 9

E-FILED

Friday, 30 September, 2011 09:32:21 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ASHOOR RASHO, #B-38970, Plaintiff, vs.
ROGER WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL NO. 11-1308

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANT GARLICK’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SEVERED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Defendant, DR. JOHN GARLICK, by and through his

attorney, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General for the State of Illinois, and hereby files his

Answer to Plaintiff’s First Severed Complaint.

1. This paragraph requires no response.

PARTIES

2. Defendant admits plaintiff has been housed at Pontiac and Tamms and

is currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center. Defendant lacks sufficient

knowledge to admit or deny plaintiff’s specific history.

3. Defendant admits defendant Walker was the Director of IDOC at some

times relevant to this case and during that period had general oversight of the

Department. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

4. Defendant admits defendant Elyea was the Medical Director of IDOC

at some times relevant to this case and had general oversight of the medical services

provided to inmates. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in this

paragraph.

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 2 of 9

5. Defendant admits defendant Navarro was the Chief of Mental Health

for IDOC at some times relevant to this case and had general oversight of the mental

health services provided to inmates. Defendant denies the remaining allegations

contained in this paragraph.

6. Defendant admits defendant Jones was the Warden of Pontiac

Correctional Center at some times relevant to this case and had general oversight of

the facility. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.

7. Defendant admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.

8. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the specific

treatment provided by defendant Massa, but otherwise admits the allegations

contained in this paragraph.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

10. Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph.

FACTS

I.

The Failure to Provide Constitutionally-Required Mental Health Care to

Inmates in IDOC’s Custody Generally.

11. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

12. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

13. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

14. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

15. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.

2

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 3 of 9
16. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 17. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 18. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 19. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 20. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 21. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 22. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 23. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph. 24. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. II. The Failure to Provide Mr. Rasho with Constitutionally-Required Mental Health Care While at Pontiac. 25. Defendant admits that plaintiff Rasho was readmitted to IDOC in 1996 and transferred to Pontiac on November 7, 2003. Defendant admits plaintiff remained at Pontiac until he transferred to Stateville on March 22, 2011. 26. Defendant denies that this paragraph completely and accurately states plaintiff Rasho’s history of mental health issues and treatment, but admits Rasho has had periods of apparent stability, has refused to take medications, and has cut himself. 27. Defendant denies this paragraph completely and accurately states how plaintiff was treated. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny how other institutions or medical personnel have treated plaintiff.
3

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 4 of 9
28. Defendant is unable to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph because they are vague.
29. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.
30. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.
31. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.
32. Defendant admits plaintiff cut himself during the period described, but lacks knowledge as to the exact number or severity of the incidents.
33. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 34. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 35. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 36. Defendant denies that plaintiff was improperly transferred within Pontiac. 37. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 38. Defendant admits the allegations in this paragraph. 39. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny interactions between plaintiff and other individuals. To the extent this allegation is directed against defendant, he denies the allegations. 40. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 41. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
4

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 5 of 9
42. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. III. Failure to Establish Policies and Protocols
43. Defendant admits he has treated plaintiff, and that protocols exist which guide this treatment. Defendant denies all treatment is determined by the protocols.
44. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 45. Defendant denies the protocols prevent the proper placement and treatment of inmates. 46. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny what other defendants knew, but denies that conditions at Pontiac are properly characterized in this paragraph. IV. Placement of Mr. Rasho In An Environment Toxic to His Mental Health 47. Defendant denies that this paragraph accurately describes defendants Jones’ and Walker’s roles regarding Pontiac. 48. Defendant is unable to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph because they are vague as to date. 49. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 50. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 51. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. Additionally, it is unclear what plaintiff means by “numerous.” 52. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 53. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.
5

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 6 of 9
54. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. COUNT I
(For Compensatory and Punitive Damages Against Defendants Walker, Elyea, Navarro, and Jones)
55-61.This count is directed against other defendants. COUNT II
(For Compensatory and Punitive Damages against Defendants Jones and Walker)
62-65.This count is directed against other defendants. COUNT III
(For Compensatory and Punitive Damages against Defendants Garlick and Massa)
66. Defendant reasserts his responses to paragraphs 1 to 10 and 25 to 42. 67. Defendant denies that plaintiff suffered from serious mental illnesses at all relevant times. 68. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 69. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 70. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 71. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph. 72. Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief in this matter.
6

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 7 of 9
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. At all times relevant herein, defendant acted in good faith in the performance of his official duties and without violating plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Defendant is therefore protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2. To the extent Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as is required prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C. 1997) and Perez v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999), his claims are barred. 3. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States’ Constitution prohibits the Plaintiff from obtaining injunctive or declaratory relief, except to the extent necessary to stop an ongoing violation of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. 4. To the extent that Plaintiff challenges the allocation of state funds, his claims are barred by sovereign immunity. 5. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity. 6. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks mental or emotional damages and his claims fail to make the prerequisite showing of a physical injury, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e) bars the Plaintiff from receiving such damages. 7. To the extent that Plaintiff bases his claim on the length of his
incarceration, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
7

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 8 of 9

Christopher L. Higgerson Assistant Attorney General 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 (217) 782-9014 Telephone (217) 782-8767 Facsimile

Respectfully submitted, DR. JOHN GARLICK,
Defendant, LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General, State of Illinois,
Attorney for Defendant,
By: \s\ Christopher L. Higgerson Christopher Higgerson #6256085 Assistant Attorney General

8

1:11-cv-01308-MMM-JAG # 10 Page 9 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ASHOOR RASHO, #B-38970,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

vs.

)

)

ROGER WALKER, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL NO. 11-1308

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 30, 2011, I electronically filed an Defendant Garlick’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Severed Complaint with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Alan Mills alanmills@comcast.net

Theresa Powell tpowell@heylroyster.com

Marc R. Kadish mkadish@mayerbrown.com

David M. Walter Dwalter@heylroyster.com

William R. Stone Wstone@mayerbrown.com
Brian Michael Smith bsmith@heylroyster.com

and I hereby certify that on September 30, 2011, I mailed by United States Postal Service, the document to the following non-registered participant: NONE.
\s\ Christopher L. Higgerson Christopher Higgerson #6256085 Assistant Attorney General

9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH

)

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.

)

Hawley

)

)

)

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………… 4 METHODOLOGY/MONITORING ACTIVITIES …………………………………………… 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………. 9 DETAILED FINDINGS ……………………………………………………………………… 16
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING ………………. 17 V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS ……………………………. 22 VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION …………………………………… 26 VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW ……………………………… 27 VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS 33 IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF ………………………………………….35 X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE ……………………………………………………………37 XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING ………………………………………………………44 XII: MEDICATION ……………………………………………………………………….. 46 XIII: OFFENDER FORCED MEDICATION ………………………………………………49 XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS ………………………………………………………….53 XV: SEGREGATION ……………………………………………………………………….55 XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION …………………………………………………………….70 XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES ………………79 XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS ……………………………………………………………..83 XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY ………………………………………………………………..85 XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION …………………………………………………89 XXI: STAFF TRAINING ………………………………………………………………….89
2

XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS ………………………………………. 91 XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY …………………………………………………. 92 XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE …………………………………………. 93 XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS ………………… 102 XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ……………………… 109 XXVII: MONITORING ……………………………………………………………………. 110 XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING …………………………………………111 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………. 113
3

BACKGROUND
IDOC: IDOC consists of 25 adult correctional facilities. Among these are four maximum security facilities (including a facility for women), and two women’s facilities. Four of the facilities have Reception and Classification units where inmates are received into IDOC. Two of the facilities have Residential Treatment Units. All facilities have crisis care beds as well as having some form of segregation, including administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, and investigative status.
Settlement: The original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The Amended Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) was approved May 23, 2016. It covers a range of issues affecting inmates with mental illness or serious mental illness:
• Policies and procedures • Intake screening • Medication continuity on arrival • Referrals • Mental health evaluations • Crisis Intervention Team • Licensure • Inmate orientation • Treatment plans and updates • Psychiatric evaluations • Follow-up after discharge from specialized treatment settings • Staffing plans and hiring • Bed, programming, and office space for residential treatment units, inpatient
facilities, and crisis beds • Administrative staffing • Medication administration, documentation, evaluations, lab work, side effects
monitoring, informed consent, noncompliance follow-up • Forced medication • Housing assignment notice and recommendations • Treatment, housing conditions, and out-of-cell time in segregation and
investigative status • Review of segregation terms length • Suicide prevention • Restraints for mental health purposes • Mental health care records and forms • Confidentiality • Change of Seriously Mentally Ill designation • Staff training • Nondiscrimination in program participation • Records and medication continuity on inter-facility transfers • Use of force and verbal abuse • Mental health input into discipline
4

• Continuous quality improvement • Terms of monitoring this Settlement • IDOC reporting
Deadlines: Deadlines in the Settlement range from immediate to the year 2020, and a number of deadlines on critical issues are contingent upon the approval of a state budget. The team reviewed each provision of the Settlement per the specific deadlines identified in the Settlement. Of note, there are many provisions for which the deadline is “as agreed upon” between the parties but for which the monitoring team did not receive a schedule of specific agreed-upon dates. For these particular issues, the assigned compliance ratings reflect the current status of the issues.
The following table lists the requirements in order of their deadlines to be accomplished. Of the 25 items with deadlines in or before May 2017, 16 have reached Substantial Compliance. Ratings are also indicated for those items to be accomplished “in a reasonable time,” in the event that it is determined that a reasonable time is now at hand. A more detailed summary of the compliance status of all Settlement Agreement provisions can be found in the Executive Summary.

Amended Settlement Agreement provision

Timeline1

Substantial Compliance?

Crisis Beds are to be outside Control Units (except

May 2016

Y

Pontiac)

Regional Director hires

June 2016

Y

State employee at each facility to supervise State clinical June 2016

N

staff, monitor and approve vendor staff

Architectural plans to Monitor

July 2016

Y

12 Mental Health Forms in use

July 2016

Y

Treating mental health professionals2 disclose information July 2016

N

to patient

Medical Records and medication transferred with patient August 2016

N

Intergovernmental Agreement with Department of Health August 2016

Y

Services

Medication delivery, recording, side effects monitoring, August 2016

N

lab work, patient informed, noncompliance follow-up

Propose any amendment to Staffing Plan

August 2016

Y

Any objections to proposed amended Staffing Plan

October 2016 Y

All policies/procedures/ADs specified in Settlement

November 2016 N

Agreement – drafts to Plaintiffs and Monitor

(unless otherwise

1 Dates are calculated from the approval date of the Amended Settlement Agreement, May 23, 2016. If the parties intended for dates to be calculated from the approval of the original Settlement Agreement, January 21, 2016, these will be adjusted. 2 Referred to throughout the Settlement Agreement and this report as MHP
5

Confidentiality: records, mental health information, policies and training Behavior Treatment Program pilot Quality Improvement Manager hire Review Committees for SMI Disciplinary Segregation terms Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 8 hours out of cell time weekly Inmate Orientation policy and procedure Crisis beds at Pontiac moved to protective custody Suicide Prevention measures Physical Restraints measures Staff Training plan and program developed Discipline: policies related to self-injury Mental health staff Training plan and program developed Transfers: consults and notification

specified) November 2016 N

November 2016 N February 2017 Y February 2017 Y

May 2016-May Y

2017

May 2017

Y

May 2017

Y

May 2017

N

May 2017

Y

May 2017

Y

May 2017

N

May 2017

Y

May 2017

Y

Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 12 hours out of cell time weekly Mental health referrals and evaluations Staffing to run RTU at Joliet Central office staff hires for policies and recordkeeping Screening conducted with sound privacy Training for all State and vendor staff with inmate contact Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 16 hours out of cell time weekly Inpatient Facility – transfer ownership and expand, policies Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 20 hours out of cell time weekly Segregation and Temporary Confinement for mentally ill: housing decisions, MHP review, treatment and out-of-cell requirements Develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations Screening on arrival at reception Psychotropic medications continued on arrival, reviewed, and related documentation Inmate Orientation Treatment Plans Psychiatry Review frequency Follow-up after Specialized Treatment Settings Forced Medication SMI Housing Assignment information and consultation

June 2017-May 2018 November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 May 2018 May 2018 June 2018-May 2019 November 2018
June 2019-May 2020 May 2020
After IGA is signed Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time

Y N
Y N N N no rating N

6

Change of SMI designation only by treatment team (or treating MHP before teams are operating) Mental illness does not prevent access to prison programs Use of Force and Verbal Abuse Discipline system conforms to AD 05.12.103 Discipline in RTU or inpatient is carried out in a mental health treatment context Quality Improvement Program implemented Staffing hires – Dixon, Pontiac, Logan
Staffing: quarterly hiring reports, meeting targets RTU Bed Space
RTU Programming and Office Space Inpatient Bed Space construction
MHP review within 48 hours after Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement placement

Reasonable time Y

Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time

Y N N no rating

Reasonable time N 6-12 months after budget contingent approval date Quarterly thereafter 6-15 months after budget contingent approval date 6 months thereafter 9 -16 months after budget contingent approval date 12 months after budget contingent approval date

METHODOLOGY / MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This report was prepared and submitted by Pablo Stewart, MD, Reena Kapoor, MD, and Virginia Morrison, JD, with additional data-gathering and analysis having been provided by Aaron Zisser, JD.
To accomplish the monitoring obligations, the monitoring team sought information in a variety of ways. The monitoring team conducted 19 site visits to a variety of IDOC facilities, where interviews of administrators, staff, and offenders were conducted. While on site, the monitoring team would meet with the administrative and clinical leadership of the facility and then tour the facility. The tour would include observing general population units, segregated housing units, crisis care units, infirmary areas including medical records and restraint rooms, working spaces for the clinical staff, group therapy areas (if present), as well as any other area associated with the provision of mental health services. The monitoring team also extensively toured the Residential Treatment Units at Logan and Dixon. The monitoring team also inspected the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac on three separate occasions.
7

During the monitoring period, the Monitor personally met with the Director and Assistant Director, as well as the Chiefs of programming, operations, mental health, psychiatry and legal on several occasions. The Monitor also met with counsel for the plaintiffs on several occasions. The Monitor received and considered reports prepared by counsel for the plaintiffs regarding IDOC’s response to the Settlement Agreement, as well as receiving and considering reports prepared by counsel for the defendants. Of note, over the course of the monitoring period, various members of the monitoring team interviewed and reviewed the medical records of several hundred offenders. This number of offenders evaluated represents a sufficiently robust sample of the mental health population of the IDOC. Therefore, the opinions presented in this monitoring report are based on a substantial-sized clinical sample of offenders.
In advance of the site visits, a variety of materials were requested. These materials included policies, procedures, training materials, a variety of clinical data, internal audits and reports, inmate grievances, incident reports, Internal Affairs investigations, and other materials.
Monitoring began immediately following the approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. However, pursuant to Section XXVII(c) of the Settlement, the Monitor requested additional staff for the monitoring team. One individual was not accepted by IDOC; Aaron Zisser, JD was accepted and began work July 1, 2016. Reena Kapoor, MD was also accepted and began work September 20, 2016. When Mr. Zisser left the team in January 2017, the monitor proposed Mr. Thomas Nolan, a psychologist/attorney with extensive experience monitoring prison conditions. IDOC rejected this proposed staffing, and eventually approved Virginia Morrison, JD as an assistant monitor. She began work on May 1, 2017. The monitoring team was purposefully kept small in consideration of the budgetary issues facing Illinois in general and IDOC in particular. Due to the delays in IDOC’s approving additional members of the monitoring team, an already lean team was therefore short-staffed for more than three months, significantly hampering the monitoring process.
As a monitoring team, we made multiple visits to every maximum security facility and visited every Reception and Classification (“R&C”) unit and the two Residential Treatment Units (“RTUs”) in operation during the monitoring period. Additionally, visits were made to selected medium security facilities based on mental health performance data provided by the defendants.
8

The monitoring team made the following site visits:

Dixon 6/13/16 Dr. Stewart
9/26/16 RTU Dr. Stewart, Dr. Kapoor 11/14/16-11/15/16 RTU
Dr. Kapoor 1/12/16-1/13/16 RTU Dr. Kapoor and Mr. Zisser

Logan 9/8/16 R&C Dr. Stewart, Mr. Zisser
12/12/16-12/13/16 Dr. Stewart, Dr. Kapoor, Mr. Zisser
4/4/17 Dr. Stewart

Pontiac 8/26/16 Dr. Stewart 11/21/16-11/22/16 Dr. Stewart, Mr. Zisser 3/3/17 Dr. Stewart

Graham Including the R&C 1/10/17 Dr. Stewart

Menard Including the R&C 10/7/16 Dr. Stewart 11/2/16-11/3/16 Mr. Zisser 2/16/17-2/17/17 Dr. Kapoor
Pinckneyville 2/7/17 Dr. Stewart

Stateville 6/14/16 Dr. Stewart
9/7/16 R&C Dr. Stewart, Mr. Zisser 10/19/16-10/20/16 Mr. Zisser
1/31/17 Dr. Stewart

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Throughout the first year of implementing the Settlement, IDOC leadership has been generally cooperative and helpful with the work of the monitoring team. The Director and Assistant Director, as well as the Chiefs of Programming, Operations, Legal, Mental Health and Psychiatry have made themselves available to the Monitor regarding the implementation of the various requirements of the Settlement. In addition to this cooperation and availability, numerous IDOC staff members encountered during the monitoring efforts have demonstrated a willingness for implementing the requirements of the Settlement.
Many significant improvements to the mental health care delivery system in IDOC have occurred during this first year of the Settlement. At all four of the R&Cs, mental health and suicide screenings occur in a timely manner in confidential settings. Mental health referrals and assessments are being accomplished within the required 14-day timeframe for offenders housed in the R&Cs. Mental health services orientation is occurring at all IDOC facilities. Segregation Review Committees were formed and significantly reduced the segregation terms of SMI offenders with more than 60 days left on their segregation terms. Structured out-of-cell activities have begun to occur in the RTUs and the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac. Staff have also begun to offer similar activities to offenders on the mental health caseload living in segregated housing units for greater than 60 days, and in some select facilities, to those in the unit for less than 60 days. Unstructured out-of-cell activities are also being offered and currently meet or exceed the requirements of the Settlement.

9

IDOC has been extremely hampered in its efforts to implement the requirements of the Settlement by the absence of a budget from the state. This has prevented IDOC from initiating or completing numerous capital projects and hiring the additional staff as directed by the Settlement, and these in turn have limited IDOC’s ability to meet clinical requirements of the Settlement. IDOC has been able to partially meet several of the budget-contingent items of the Settlement, however, in the absence of formal budget approval. These include hiring an additional regional psych administrator, construction projects on the four RTUs3 as well as the new inpatient unit, moving the bulk of crisis beds out of the North House at Pontiac, and the provision of enhanced mental health treatment services to offenders designated to receive inpatient level of care.
Despite the substantial improvements to the mental health care delivery system, IDOC continues to have challenges in meeting the first-year requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Among IDOC’s challenges is the grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services. This overwhelming shortage and lack of standards undermines all of the efforts of IDOC to meet the first-year requirements of the Settlement. These psychiatric services deficiencies include but are not limited to problems with the proper continuation of medications for offenders entering IDOC, lack of timely follow-up for offenders prescribed psychotropic medication, dangerous practices related to the use of psychotropic medications including those offenders on forced medication, lack of following standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, extreme delays in obtaining psychiatric evaluations, non-participation of psychiatrists in the treatment planning process, lack of timely psychiatric follow up for offenders assigned to crisis beds, and problems related to those offenders designated as requiring inpatient level of psychiatric services. Of note, the overall quality of the psychiatric services provided to the mentally ill offenders of IDOC is exceedingly poor and often times dangerous. IDOC leadership is well aware of the problems related to the insufficient amount of psychiatric services and has taken decisive action to address this issue, but this has not yet been effective. At the time of the submission of this report, however, the lack and quality of psychiatric services negatively impacts all aspects of the Settlement and contributes to IDOC being non-compliant in the vast majority of areas of the Settlement.
Custody staff was noted to be acting as “gate keepers” when a mentally ill offender requested to be seen by the Crisis Intervention Team. Although this issue significantly improved over this monitoring period, it remains a concern, particularly as there were reports that the teams themselves had begun not to respond to urgent complaints that did not involve suicidality. The current system of treatment planning is not working and needs to be completely rethought. IDOC has not been able to perform its required treatment plan reviews and updates for mentally ill offenders assigned to RTU, segregation or crisis housing.4 IDOC is also not meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement regarding the transition of offenders from specialized treatment settings.
There remains an absence of “aggressive treatment” for mentally ill offenders assigned to a crisis level of care as the bulk of the treatment activities are limited to daily cell side visits by an MHP. In the facilities monitored, the procedures for forced medications were being followed.
3 To date, IDOC is operating 625 RTU beds at Dixon and 80 RTU beds at Logan. 4 This is not a budget contingent item.
10

Significant problems were noted in prescribing psychotropic medications for these offenders, however. Questions also exist regarding the system-wide application of these procedures.
The conditions of segregation for mentally ill offenders remained problematic throughout the monitoring period. Challenges were observed in ensuring that these offenders continued to receive the treatment outlined in their Individual Treatment Plans. Also, there was no formal mechanism for identifying those mentally ill offenders who were decompensating while on segregation status. The only established mechanisms are the weekly segregation rounds, which are conducted at the cell front, and the Crisis Intervention Team. Given the problems with the Crisis Intervention Team, the main recourse available for mentally ill offenders who are decompensating while in segregation is to behaviorally act out, which can result in greater segregation time.
Overall, IDOC is following its own procedures regarding suicide prevention. As previously noted, however, significant problems persist with the Crisis Intervention Team and the treatment afforded suicidal offenders on crisis watch. The current format for reviewing suicides should be redone to emphasize corrective action. Also, IDOC is generally following its own procedures regarding the use of restraints.
IDOC has successfully implemented the use of standardized forms for a variety of clinical tasks such as progress notes, treatment plans and suicide evaluations. Notwithstanding the use of these forms, the medical records, except for the electronic medical records found at Logan, are poorly organized. This disorganization makes it very difficult to adequately follow the clinical care of a mentally ill offender.
Confidentiality is an evolving concept for IDOC. At the beginning of the monitoring period, it was almost nonexistent but has steadily improved. Significant challenges remain, however. The Monitor only recently approved the policy and procedure regarding confidentiality, well past the deadline of November 23, 2016. Although the policy was only recently approved, staff has been trained regarding the requirements of confidentiality. On the other hand, the physical plants are not conducive to providing sound confidentiality, and custody staff continues to be reluctant to move mentally ill offenders to confidential settings and insists that the doors to the treatment rooms remain open while staff stands within hearing distance. Problems with the provision of informed consent are also widespread in the department. Of note, IDOC has reportedly trained 13,000 employees about mental illness.
Although, for the most part, IDOC is following its own procedures about use of force, the number of offender complaints raises serious questions about the application of use of force. Also, the monitoring team observed several incidents of verbal abuse. Both of these issues will be closely monitored going forward.
Disciplinary procedures with mentally ill offenders need refinement as IDOC enters the second year of monitoring. The major concern is that MHPs are not sufficiently advocating for the mentally ill offenders in the disciplinary process. Problems also exist on the custody side of this process. The Chiefs of Mental Health and Operations are well aware of these problems and have assured the monitoring team that this will be addressed going forward.
11

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) is a key element in an adequately functioning correctional mental health system. Although data has been collected this first year of the Settlement, there is a lack of robust corrective action based on the data. The CQI manager was hired on February 16, 2017.
A significant administrative problem has plagued the monitoring team throughout the first year of the Settlement. Unacceptable delays in reimbursement for travel have forced the monitoring team to carry these legitimate charges on their personal credit cards. The current backlog for travel reimbursement is more than eight months with IDOC being unable to state when payment will be received.
A summary of compliance findings is as follows:

Requirement
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
(IV)(a), (b) (IV)(c) (IV)(d), (e) (IV)(f), (g)
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
(V)(a) (V)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) (V)(g) (V)(h), (i) (V)(j)
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
(VI)(a), (b)

Compliance Status
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial Compliance Noncompliance Substantial Compliance Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Noncompliance Substantial Compliance Noncompliance Substantial Compliance Deadline November 23, 2017
Overall: Substantial Compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance

VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
(VII)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance

12

Requirement
VIII: TRANSITION FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
(VIII)(a) (VIII)(b)(i) (VIII)(b)(ii)

Compliance Status
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance Noncompliance No rating at this time

IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
(IX)(a) (IX)(b) (IX)(c) (IX)(d) (IX)(e) (IX)(f)

Overall: Budget contingent Subfindings supporting overall finding: Budget contingent November 23, 2017 deadline Substantial Compliance No rating at this time Substantial Compliance Target date not arrived

X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
(X)(a) (X)(b)(i) (X)(b)(ii) (X)(c)(i) (X)(c)(ii) (X)(d) (X)(e) (X)(f) (X)(g) (X)(h) (X)(i)

Overall: Budget contingent Subfindings supporting overall finding: Budget contingent Substantial Compliance Budget contingent Substantial Compliance Budget contingent Budget contingent Budget contingent Noncompliance Budget contingent Budget contingent Substantial Compliance

XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
(XI)(a), (b) (XI)(c) (XI)(d)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial Compliance Noncompliance November 23, 2017 deadline

XII: MEDICATION

Overall: Noncompliance

13

Requirement
(XII)(a) (XII)(b) (XII)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
XIII: OFFENDER FORCED MEDICATION
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
(XIV)(a) (XIV)(b) (XIV)(c)
XV: SEGREGATION
(XV)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vi), (vii) (XV)(b)(i) (XV)(b)(ii) (XV)(b)(iii) (XV)(b)(iv), (v), (vi)
(XV)(c)(i) (XV)(c)(ii) (XV)(c)(iii) (XV)(c)(iv) (XV)(c)(v) (XV)(c) (sic) (XV)(d)
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
(XVI)(a), (b)

Compliance Status Subfindings supporting overall finding: No rating at this time Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: No rating at this time
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance Substantial compliance No rating at this time Noncompliance Substantial Compliance
Noncompliance Budget contingent Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance First year requirements not met; overall deadline is May 23, 2020
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance

XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL Overall: Substantial compliance

HEALTH PURPOSES

Subfindings supporting overall

finding:

(XVII)(a), (b), (c)

Substantial compliance

14

Requirement (XVII)(d)
XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS
(XVIII)(a) (XVIII)(b)
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
(XIX)(a) (XIX)(b) (XIX)(c) (XIX)(d)
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION XXI: STAFF TRAINING
(XXI)(a) (XXI)(b) (XXI)(c)

Compliance Status Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance No rating at this time
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: No rating at this time
Overall: Substantial Compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance Deadline May 23, 2018 Substantial Compliance

XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS

Finding: Substantial Compliance

XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
(XXIII)(a) (XXIII)(b) (XXIII)(c)

Overall: Substantial Compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance Substantial Compliance Substantial Compliance

XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE Finding: Noncompliance

15

Requirement
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
(XXV)(a) (XXV)(b) (XXV)(c) (XXV)(d)

Compliance Status
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Noncompliance Noncompliance No rating at this time Noncompliance

XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(XXVI)(a), (b)
XXVII: MONITORING

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance
Finding: No rating at this time

XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING Finding: Noncompliance

DETAILED FINDINGS
This Section details the Monitor’s findings for each provision of the Settlement.
Overall structure: This Section is organized along the same structure as the Settlement; each major section below corresponds with a substantive section of the Settlement. That said, the Settlement includes provisions that appear multiple times across different sections. The Monitor attempts in this report to address each substantive requirement in that section of the Settlement where it appears.
Compliance with specific provisions of policies or law incorporated by reference: Unlike the Settlement itself, the report lays out the specific provisions of the various Administrative Directives (“ADs”), administrative code (“Code”), or the Mental Health Standard Operating Protocol Manual (“Manual” or “SOP Manual”) that are incorporated by reference in the Settlement. This significantly lengthens the report, but it is critical that the team evaluates these substantive requirements, especially given that many of them are central to providing the kind of treatment, out-of-cell opportunities, conditions, and protection from harm contemplated in the Settlement. For example, it is in the ADs and the Manual that one finds detailed requirements on suicide prevention, including crisis placement, crisis intervention teams, and
16

suicide reviews. However, the team will apply the compliance/non-compliance rating only to the provision of the Settlement, not to individual provisions of ADs or the Manual or Code incorporated by reference. In this way, IDOC may be out of compliance with one or two provisions of the cited AD, for example, but, depending on the severity (including the importance of the particular provision of the AD) or how widespread that non-compliance is, nonetheless may be in substantial compliance with the provision of the Settlement.
Compliance ratings: As discussed above, the team institutes the “Substantial Compliance” and “Noncompliance” ratings for each provision, as specified in the Settlement. In actual fact, these may mask true performance. In practice, IDOC has made significant progress on a number of requirements. These would be more accurately described as “partially compliant,” but by the terms of the Settlement, those provisions must be found in Noncompliance.
Section II (t) of the Amended Settlement Agreement defines “Substantial Compliance” as follows: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOC-wide or at specific facilities. For the purposes of this first report, compliance ratings will be IDOC-wide. This was done because the changes to the mental health delivery system contemplated in the Settlement represent a major shift in both the clinical care provided to the offenders and the overall culture of the IDOC. As the monitor of this seismic shift for IDOC, the Monitor felt it more appropriate to consider system-wide compliance prior to evaluating the compliance of specific facilities. As IDOC makes progress with these changes, the Monitor anticipates that subsequent reports may include compliance ratings for specific facilities.
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
Summary: At all four R&Cs, screenings were conducted on a timely basis by appropriate staff in confidential settings, though there were problems with thoroughness. Medication bridge orders were sometimes not written or filled, or orders were discontinued without the required explanation. A number of orders that were written reflected questionable psychiatric practice. Fairly often, prior mental health records were not available. Suicide screening forms were generally completed except for prisoners transferred to Stateville on a writ.
(IV)(a): Specific requirement: All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at pg. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101(II)(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as
17

required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100 (II)(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
Findings: In all cases reviewed at the four R&C centers, mental health screenings occurred on the day of the inmate’s arrival to the facility. The Monitor personally visited IDOC’s four Reception and Classification units to assess compliance with the requirements of this section of the Agreement. The Monitor found that screenings are conducted on a timely basis by appropriate staff in confidential settings. The Monitor noted, however, significant difficulties with medication bridge orders, thoroughness of the screenings, and consideration of prior mental health records.
(IV)(b): Specific requirement: The mental health screening conducted upon admission to IDOC shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional [MHP]5 and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement.
Findings: This requirement was satisfactorily met at all of the R&C facilities.
(IV)(c): Specific requirement: Offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
Findings:
• At Stateville, no suicide screenings were conducted for those inmates at the R&C on writ from another IDOC facility.
• At Dixon and Menard, the charts the monitoring team reviewed did contain suicide assessments completed upon transfer to Dixon from Reception & Classification or from another IDOC facility.
• At all other facilities inspected, offenders transferred from a R&C facility that have been screened and referred for further mental health services were administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential using IDOC Form 0379.
(IV)(d): Specific requirements: In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
Findings: At each facility, intake screenings occurred in a confidential setting that
5 The Settlement uses MHP to indicate Mental Health Professional. This report adopts that convention as well.
18

provided sound confidentiality.
(IV)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
Findings: AD 04.04.101, effective date of 5/1/2016, provides the Mental Health SOP Manual with the authority to fulfill this requirement. The Mental Health SOP Manual clearly states on page 78 “for those offenders who arrive at an IDOC facility on verifiable, prescribed psychotropic medication, the psychotropic medication shall be continued (bridged) for up to 30 days or until such time as a psychiatric provider can evaluate the inmate for ongoing psychotropic medication. This evaluation may be no more than 30 days from arrival into an IDOC facility.”
(IV)(f): Specific requirement: Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist, and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
Findings: Numerous concerns regarding the procedures for addressing the continuation of medication were identified.
At Menard, in one of two cases involving medications, proper procedure was followed. The inmate had three different psychotropics in jail prior to arriving to Menard; upon arrival, there was no break in medication, as the inmate was seen by a nurse practitioner on the day he arrived. A bridge order had been completed upon arrival, and he was waiting to see the psychiatrist. In the other case at Menard, however, the medication was discontinued without documentation explaining the discontinuation. The intake screening did not pick up the fact that the inmate was previously treated with two different psychotropic medications and that he had a history of mental health treatment in IDOC (Centralia 2010). The Monitor noted him to be very anxious and unable to sit calmly during the Monitor’s interview. He had a referral for a mental health evaluation, but no urgency level was noted. Although not strictly a psychotropic medication issue, in the same case, the inmate had been prescribed a variety of medications for serious medical issues. But he went four days without his medication for diabetes and hypertension, as well as a blood thinner. This inmate should have had those medications continued without interruption. The lack of such medications for four days could have resulted in serious medical complications.
Medication bridge orders at Stateville and Logan R&Cs did not provide adequate explanations of discontinuation. At Logan, bridge orders often entailed hurried “rubberstamping” of multiple, powerful psychiatric medications by a physician assistant who did not indicate whether he had actually visited with the inmate. To the extent a note existed, it was not
19

easy to find in the mental health record. Also, the bridge order itself did not indicate if the physician assistant actually saw the patient.
At Logan, there were a number of examples of inadequate bridge orders:
• An offender experienced a nine-day break in her medications as there was no bridge order written. A medication order was subsequently issued but only after the offender made a request to have her medications restarted.
• An offender had her Xanax discontinued without a clinical explanation being documented in the medical record. Also, no alternative medication was provided.
• An offender had a bridge order for a tremendously large dose of psychotropic medication. Medical staff should have questioned the clinical appropriateness of this excessive dosage and called for an immediate psychiatric evaluation.
• Another offender was receiving a very high dosage of a medication, which should have prompted a review by a psychiatrist. Of note, the dosage did not appear to be justified by the inmate’s clinical presentation or mental health records.
At Stateville, because of inadequate access to prior mental health records (discussed below), inmates may receive different medicines than they received before arriving. In many cases, bridge orders were done appropriately. The following several cases, however, are illustrative of improper procedures being followed:
• There is no explanation as to why a different medication is prescribed.
• There were no notes indicating staff considered a different medication or treatment for a detainee who was noted to have hoarded his medications.
• A progress note documented that staff intended to order medication on August 12, but the actual medication order was not written until August 18.
• No explanation was provided as to why Prozac and Trazodone were not continued.
During the November 2016 visit to Pontiac, the Monitor evaluated an inmate who reported that upon entry into the facility he was being treated with antipsychotics, antidepressants, and an antihypertensive, but medication orders could not be located in the medical record.
At Graham’s R&C, bridge orders were generally completed. However, in one case during the Monitor’s January 10, 2017 visit, the Monitor noted that an inmate arrived to the facility on November 30, 2016. The screening listed medications, but a bridge order was not written until a week afterwards. The medication orders were eventually written but only after an inmate initiated request for the medications.
(IV)(g): Specific requirement: Screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or
20

history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening).
Findings: The screenings lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes according to both offenders and screening staff. Although the screenings generally addressed the topic areas outlined in this section, there were consistent deficiencies noted with the thoroughness in what was recorded of the screenings, especially as relates to the mental status examinations (MSE).
o At Menard, MSEs usually entailed just a single word or brief phrase, such as “I’m good,” “I’m cool,” “I’m all right,” “OK,” “Tired,” “Alright, content,” and “OK, but a little nervous.”
o At Stateville, MSEs read “Stressing,” “Moody,” and “Despondent and hungry.” o At Logan, where the screenings often lasted only five or seven minutes per the
offenders, the MSEs included ones that read “Depression and anxiety are bad” and “Not happy, sad.” o At Graham mental status examinations were similarly limited in scope.
The apparent brevity of the screenings at the R&C facilities can lead to missing mental health issues including suicidality, past treatments including medications and other vital psychosocial information.
Specific requirement: The screening process shall also include review of the records, which accompany the offender.
Findings: At Menard, a serious problem regarding the availability of prior mental health records was noted. Medical records were not available to R&C staff for detainees coming from county jails. Records from prior IDOC placements were also not available to the staff conducting the screenings.
At Stateville, intake staff does not have access to mental health records on those inmates sent to Stateville on writs as well as records on newly admitted offenders from counties other than Cook County. Cook County will forward mental health records for those offenders receiving mental health services. Cook County will also alert IDOC staff to the presence of any challenging mental health cases prior to their arrival at Stateville. There was a problem with the organization of the medical records for the offenders assigned to the R&C unit. The files consisted of loose and disorganized sheets of paper, which made it very difficult to follow the assessment process.
At Graham and Logan, mental health screeners were equally hampered by not having access to the mental health records on detainees arriving from county jail. Also, screening staff did not have access to the medical records of those offenders who have previously been housed in IDOC.
The R&C facilities are de facto control (or segregation) units as defined in Section II (g). Although not specifically required in the Settlement Agreement, it is the Monitor’s strong recommendation that offenders on the mental health caseload housed at the various R&C facilities be afforded the same level of structured and unstructured out of cell time as those who
21

are housed in a segregation unit. It is the Monitor’s further recommendation that both structured and unstructured out of cell time begin as soon as offenders are placed on the mental health caseload and not after they have been on the unit for greater than 60 days.
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
Summary: Policy is in place and referral procedures generally are being followed. The required forms are in use and offenders were aware of self-referral procedures. Evaluations were completed by MHPs, but sources conflicted as to whether the 14-day requirement was met. All responses to referrals were timely in the charts reviewed, but inmates indicated extended response times to their self-referrals and IDOC data showed a backlog for evaluations at some facilities.
Custody and mental health staff sometimes failed to appreciate the growing severity of a situation and intervene before it becomes an actual emergency. Staff does, however, routinely respond to emergencies, but it appeared that some custody staff inappropriately acts as a barrier to requests to call the Crisis Intervention Team, though improvement was evident during the first year. IDOC reports having mechanisms to field external requests for referral; IDOC has been actively working on capturing that in policy, which is currently in draft form.
(V)(a): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.
Findings: The monitoring team found that IDOC is fulfilling the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement for mentally ill offenders in the R&C units. This same attention to providing timely mental health evaluations does not equally exist in the general population and control units. Also, the Monitor found that both custody and mental health staff are slow to provide “an alternative response in case of emergency.” That is, staff routinely responds to “emergencies” but fail to appreciate the growing severity of a situation and intervene before it becomes an actual emergency. This lack of timely “pre-emergency” intervention by staff is most likely due to being overcommitted because of insufficient staffing levels.
(V)(b): Specific requirement: Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
Findings: This requirement has been inconsistently met during this monitoring period. When referrals are made, they are documented on IDOC forms 0387 and 0434. Offenders report that although referrals are made, it remains difficult to actually be seen by an MHP. The monitoring team through its chart reviews and offender interviews has confirmed this complaint. Dr. Kapoor, however, found inmates at Dixon were aware that they could access mental health
22

services by submitting a written request or by asking an officer to call a mental health professional on their behalf. This probably reflects the fact that Dixon has a longer history of dealing with mentally ill offenders than the remainder of the system. Also, the Warden at Dixon has impressed the Monitor by his enthusiasm and leadership in the area of providing quality mental health services to mentally ill offenders.
(V)(c): Specific requirement: IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
Section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) provide:
(a) The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall ensure a procedure for referring offenders for mental health services is established. (1) Referrals from staff shall: (a) Be initiated on the Mental Health Services Referral, DOC 0387; (b) Be submitted to the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management through the chain of command; and (c) Include a copy of the Incident Report, DOC 0434, if applicable.
(2) The facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in the offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others, if not treated immediately.
(b) Procedures for self-referrals by offenders for mental health services shall be provided in the offender handbook. The offender will be encouraged to submit their requests on the Offender Request, DOC 0286.
Findings: IDOC reports that AD 04.04.101, effective date 5/1/2016, provides the Mental Health SOP Manual with the authority to fulfill the procedural aspects of this requirement. The Mental Health SOP Manual clearly states on page 23: “Offenders may be referred for mental health services by staff, or may submit a request. Requests to see the Psychiatric Provider are routed through the MHP. Staff should use the Mental Health Services Referral Form (DOC 0387).” The monitoring team found that the procedure for referrals was generally being followed. As noted in other parts of this report, problems have existed during the first year of the Settlement Agreement with the Crisis Intervention Team.
(V)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
Findings: The monitoring team found that all offenders transferred into the custody of IDOC received a screening as described in Section IV, above.
23

(V)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a recordkeeping mechanism for requests, which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
Findings: IDOC reports that family members may make referrals via the website and by calling the facility. These referrals are then submitted to mental health staff. The department has developed an AD and provided it to the Monitor for approval. The department has submitted additional changes based on the Monitor’s feedback. The Monitor has approved the department’s changes to the AD. At the time of the submission of this report, the AD remains in draft form.
(V)(f): Specific requirement: Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral.
Findings: In all cases reviewed, the mental health evaluations were generally completed within this 14-day timeframe. In the 30 charts Dr. Kapoor reviewed at Dixon, for example, all contained complete Mental Health Assessments that were completed by an MHP within 14 days of arrival at Dixon, and in many cases within 48 hours. The evaluation forms included relevant clinical information such as past psychiatric history, suicide assessments, medications, and diagnoses. Offenders reported that they were able to see an MHP for routine concerns within a reasonable time frame, typically about a week, when they were referred by staff or upon their own request. At Menard, in general, the 12 reviewed charts contained complete Mental Health Assessments within 14 days of arrival at the facility. Also, at the four R&C units, all mental health evaluations occurred within 14-day timeframe.
Then again, the latest IDOC quarterly report indicates that there is a backlog of mental health evaluations at certain facilities.
(V)(g): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.
Findings: There have been significant problems with IDOC’s ability to fulfill this requirement during the first year of the Settlement. The Monitor first noted serious problems with this issue during an August 26, 2016 tour of Pontiac. Every one of the offenders the Monitor interviewed that day said that custody staff routinely ignored their requests to be seen by the facility Crisis Intervention Team. Of note, a mentally ill offender had committed suicide the evening prior to the tour, which may account for some of the intensity of reactions from the offenders. However, after a more thorough review of this particular issue, it was the Monitor’s firm opinion that custody staff was inappropriately acting as “gate keepers” to the facility’s Crisis Intervention Team. The Monitor formally reported these concerns to Chief Hinton in an email dated September 1, 2016.
Over the next several months, the monitoring team continued to hear similar complaints about custody staff acting as gatekeepers for the Crisis Intervention Team at a variety of facilities
24

toured. Among eight inmates interviewed in Menard segregation, they reported that they could not see an MHP for crisis services unless they were actively trying to injure themselves. In another example, Dixon inmates and staff both reported that they could access a mental health professional during crises such as suicidal thoughts or actions, usually within minutes. However, many inmates reported that officers, and later Crisis Intervention Teams themselves, interpreted “crisis” narrowly, saying that a mental health professional could only be called if an inmate said specifically that he wanted to hurt himself. Requests such as “I’m not okay; I need to talk to someone before I do something stupid…” would not result in a call to the Crisis Intervention Team. This practice appeared to be a result of understaffing and a lack of clarity among officers (some of whom work with mentally ill offenders only occasionally) about the crisis intervention policy. The Settlement Agreement is very clear regarding this issue. It requires that the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems and not be limited to suicidal thoughts or actions. In order to fulfill the spirit of provision (g), “crisis” should be interpreted in a manner that allows mental health intervention before an inmate gets to the point of self-harm.
The Monitor personally met with Director Baldwin on November 10, 2016 to share his concern about this very serious issue. The Director gave his assurances that he would take care of this problem. Of note, the Monitor received almost no complaints about this issue over the course of the Monitor’s next several tours. The Monitor appreciates Director Baldwin’s straightforward handling of this issue. In such an important matter, which really reflects a cultural shift for IDOC, however, ongoing supervision and training of custody staff is imperative.
During the Monitor’s tour of Stateville proper on January 31, 2017, the Monitor encountered a slightly different problem with the facility’s Crisis Intervention Team. The Monitor received several credible complaints from offenders housed in the segregation unit about a particular staff member. This staff member would threaten the offenders with being written up if he called for the facility Crisis Intervention Team and the offenders were not placed on a suicide watch. Another serious example that this requirement was not being met at Stateville proper involved an offender with multiple serious medical problems including diabetes and heart disease resulting in his being confined to a wheel chair. This offender experienced a variety of significant psychosocial stressors including the death of his mother. His request to speak with the Crisis Intervention Team was denied due to his not being frankly suicidal. This offender petitioned the Court on this matter, which directed plaintiffs’ counsel to investigate his claims. The net result was the offender’s being placed on a crisis watch by the time of the Monitor’s visit to Stateville on January 31, 2017.
All the needless suffering experienced by this offender could have been avoided if staff had properly carried out the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Again, the requirement for this subsection clearly states, “the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems” and not just for suicidal offenders. In later site visits, it was troubling to hear that some Crisis Intervention Teams had begun to adopt the narrower view and were not responding to calls about urgent complaints that did not concern suicidality.
Overall, the Department is making progress in its ability to fulfill the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. At the time of the submission of this report, however,
25

the Department still has a way to go in meeting this requirement. The Monitor is aware that the Settlement Agreement sets a November 23, 2017 deadline for the department to fulfill its obligation regarding this requirement. This extremely important issue will be a continuing focus of future monitoring efforts.
(V)(h): Specific requirement: The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(3).
Findings: Form 0374 is routinely used by mental health staff to record the results of a mental health evaluation throughout all the facilities monitored.
(V)(i): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by mental health professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D./Psy.D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.
Findings: This requirement is being met throughout the facilities monitored.
(V)(j): Specific requirements: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: As previously noted, the department is making progress towards fulfilling the requirements of this Section but is not yet in substantial compliance.
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
Summary: The required policy has been in place since at least 2013. Each facility produces its own orientation manual, but all reviewed manuals satisfy this requirement. A comprehensive orientation program was present at each facility monitored.
(VI)(a): Specific requirement: In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, § II (G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.
26

Findings: IDOC does not utilize a department-wide orientation manual. Each facility produces its own orientation manual. The Monitor reviewed the orientation manuals from each IDOC facility and found them all to fulfill the requirements of this section.
(VI)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC has AD 04.01.105, effective date 7/1/2013, which governs facility orientation. This AD states “The Department shall establish a comprehensive orientation program for incoming offenders at all correctional facilities that shall include the distribution of an orientation manual prepared in a format consistent throughout the Department.” A comprehensive orientation program was present at each facility monitored.
VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
Summary: Reviewed medical records contained treatment plan forms with the required fields. However, it was common for the content not to be individualized and to omit key information such as recommendations about the frequency of clinical contacts or goals. It was apparent that the form was often completed without benefit of team input. The Logan RTU implemented a system to remedy this; the Monitor looks forward to that bearing fruit.
As to plan timeliness, there were instances of backlog and erratic timing of completion. In all crisis bed records reviewed, the offender’s treatment plan was not reviewed and updated upon entrance nor updated weekly or upon discharge. The Dixon STC (RTU level) exceeded timeliness standards; the Logan RTU was beginning to comply but was not yet successful. Segregation requirements were not being accomplished in any IDOC facility monitored. Annual outpatient plans were generally timely.
IDOC has not met its requirement to conduct timely psychiatric evaluations of mentally ill inmates who are prescribed psychotropic medications; only Dixon STC (RTU) was successful. There were thousands of psychiatric evaluations and follow-up appointments delayed or not completed, with staff reports of sixmonth waits at some locations. IDOC reports indicated noncompliance at 22 facilities. Psychiatric care heavily relies on tele-psychiatry, even for initial evaluations, crisis care and RTU evaluations. As of the most recent data, there were 3,658 backlogged psychiatry appointments.
The Monitor noted progress notes in the charts of SMI offenders but was unable to determine if these progress notes reflected the actual number of clinical contacts. There was significant variability in the frequency of recorded contacts.
27

(VII)(a): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (II)(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.
Findings: During visits to Dixon, the team reviewed the medical records of more than 30 SMI inmates; all contained a treatment plan, however, several contained plans that were mostly left blank or were not signed by critical members of the treatment team, such as the psychiatrist. They did not routinely contain specific recommendations about the frequency of clinical contacts or goals other than medication compliance and symptom reduction. Overall, it appeared that the plans were being completed by a mental health professional in a rote, “cut and paste” manner, without multidisciplinary input from members of the team.
Similarly, the 12 reviewed records at Menard contained a treatment plan, and the most recent revision of the form contains the elements required by the Settlement Agreement (e.g., goals, interventions, frequency, responsible staff). However, treatment plans appeared to be completed essentially at random intervals. The mental health staff said that they completed treatment plans “when they could,” and the charts contained plans as infrequently as once per year. Menard did not appear to have an organized system for the completion of treatment plans, nor were the plans individualized to the needs of the particular inmate. In the case of a Pontiac inmate housed in the RTU, the inmate was being treated with three different psychotropic medications, none of which were reflected in the treatment plan at the time of the Monitor’s visit in November 21, 2016.
Overall at the facilities monitored, the treatment plans, when completed, were “boiler plate” in nature. That is, almost all the treatment plans reviewed contained the same generic language regardless of the psychiatric condition of the offender. The treatment plans were not routinely prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team. Rather, an individual staff person completed them without apparent input from other members of the treatment team. That is, at times an MHP completed the treatment plan without input from other staff. At other times, the psychiatrist would complete only the psychiatric portions of the treatment plan again without input from other staff. It became clear during the review of several hundred-treatment plans that these documents did not facilitate the delivery of mental health services. Rather, their appearance suggested they were viewed as yet another requirement imposed upon the mental health and psychiatric staff that needed to be “checked off.”
At the beginning of the monitoring period, there was a backlog noted in completing the treatment plans. The Monitor encountered cases in which there was no treatment plan in the inmate’s chart and other examples of treatment plans being completed well after the inmate arrived at the facility. As noted above, the treatment plans were not comprehensive in nature and usually did not integrate the psychiatric treatment of the mentally ill offender. The treatment plan often omitted mention of medication interventions that were supposedly occurring. The Monitor also encountered several cases of gross misdiagnosis. Several cases were encountered where an offender was overtly psychotic but was instead diagnosed as suffering from non-psychotic conditions.
28

Over the course of the first year of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC has made attempts to have the treatment plans prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team. For example, Logan implemented a system of multi-disciplinary treatment plan meetings with RTU offenders in December 2016. These efforts were significantly hampered by the absence of a sufficient number of competent psychiatrists. At the end of this monitoring period, the treatment plans still did not reflect a team approach to care and the plans remained nonspecific documents that did not contribute to the mental health care of offenders.
(VII)(b): Specific requirement: The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on form 0284 or its equivalent.
Findings: IDOC Form 0284 is consistently being used for treatment planning and reviews throughout the facilities monitored. The form does contain the required items. Records at Dixon, Menard, Pontiac and Logan support this. As noted above, however, the treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities are being completed in a generic manner that does not facilitate the provision of mental health services.
(VII)(c): Specific requirement: Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes).
Findings: The monitoring team found that this requirement was generally being accomplished.
Specific requirement: Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: IDOC does not currently provide any formal inpatient care. There is a cohort of severely mentally ill offenders that has been designated as requiring inpatient level of services. Although not specifically required by the Settlement, IDOC is providing enhanced services to these offenders. These services include: weekly visits by a psychiatrist; individual sessions with an MHP as tolerated; “enhanced” out of cell activities; and weekly visits by an MHP.
A review of the designated inpatient offenders at Pontiac and Logan revealed that these offenders are extremely ill and require immediate placement in a psychiatric hospital. This review also demonstrated that IDOC is inconsistently providing the enriched services noted above. A significant problem noted with this cohort of offenders is that the majority of them present with multiple acute psychiatric symptoms. The presence of these symptoms is a direct reflection of the poor psychiatric care they are receiving. So, it is in the context of this poor psychiatric care that IDOC is attempting to provide additional services to their designated inpatient offenders. The Monitor is well aware that these services are not a requirement of the
29

Settlement Agreement. The variable quality of the services provided, however, are demonstrative of the current deficiencies in the mental health treatment system within IDOC and the need for an inpatient treatment facility.
This crisis care requirement is not being accomplished in any IDOC facility. When an offender is placed into crisis care, a “Crisis Care Plan” is completed. This crisis care plan governs the particular care that an offender receives while receiving crisis level care. This crisis care plan is not the treatment plan. Throughout IDOC the offender’s treatment plan is not reviewed and updated upon entrance into crisis level of care nor was it updated weekly or upon discharge in all cases reviewed.
For example, at Pontiac in November 2016, the Monitor encountered inmates in crisis for prolonged periods that had no treatment plans. The Monitor also encountered an inmate who had been on crisis for ten days with an outdated treatment plan. Also, another inmate in crisis for a lengthy period had no treatment plan. These types of problems (i.e., prolonged crisis placement without updated treatment planning) were noted at all the facilities monitored.
Also, during a monitoring visit to Logan on December 12, 2016, a psychotic mentally ill offender was placed in crisis care due to being suicidal. Her previous treatment plan was scanned into the record without any changes to address her worsening psychosis or her suicidality.
Specific requirement: For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: This is starting to occur at the RTUs at Dixon and Logan.
At Dixon, inmates in STC did generally have plans updated monthly – more frequently than mandated -- but plans for inmates in X House did not meet the timeliness requirement. Plans also were not reviewed upon RTU discharge. The IDOC leadership has stated that Dixon is working to meet or exceed the treatment plan requirements outlined in the Settlement Agreement within the next year. The goal is for all patients in an RTU setting (both STC and X House) to have monthly treatment plan reviews. However, Dixon currently does not have adequate mental health staff (MHPs and behavioral health technicians) to complete treatment plans on the required schedule.
The monitoring team noted during a December 2016 tour that Logan had not yet implemented policies to comply with the provisions of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Logan began to comply with this requirement later in the monitoring period.
Specific requirement: For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: This requirement is not being accomplished in any monitored IDOC facility.
(VII)(d): Specific requirement: Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the
30

following:
(i) For offenders at the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.
(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.
(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days with no extension of the follow-up appointments.
Findings: IDOC has not met its requirement to conduct timely psychiatric evaluations of its mentally ill offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications. Throughout this first year of the Settlement Agreement, there have been thousands of psychiatric evaluations and follow-up appointments that have been delayed or just not completed. This places the mentally ill offenders in the IDOC at great risk of harm. This fact first came to the Monitor’s attention during a monitoring visit to Logan in December 2016. At that time 82 psychiatric evaluations and approximately 600 psychiatric follow-up appointments were backlogged at this facility alone. As IDOC relies upon a vendor, Wexford Health, to provide psychiatric evaluations, the Monitor requested that Wexford come up with a plan to reduce this backlog at Logan. The plan provided was exceedingly insufficient to deal with this backlog. As of January 27, 2017, there remained approximately 3,000 psychiatric evaluations and follow-up appointments backlogged in IDOC.
The plan provided by Wexford to address this backlog relied heavily on the use of telepsychiatry. Tele-psychiatry is a modality that has been shown to be effective in providing psychiatric care in correctional settings but with certain limitations. Tele-psychiatry is not authorized, as a matter of best practice, for initial psychiatric evaluations, for use in emergency psychiatric situations, and is never to be used in residential or inpatient settings. It is only authorized for “routine follow-ups.” In the IDOC system of care, this translates to mentally ill inmates who are assigned to the outpatient level of care. During the monitoring period, telepsychiatry has been used for initial evaluations as well as crisis care and RTU evaluations. At many IDOC facilities, including Graham, for example, all the psychiatric visits are done via telepsychiatry. This does not meet best practice standards and should stop immediately as it places the mentally ill offenders at great risk for harm.
Another important aspect of the proper use of tele-psychiatry is that the tele-psychiatrist must have the patient’s complete medical and mental health record in front of him/her during the course of the psychiatric visit. Logan is the only IDOC facility using an electronic medical record. Tele-psychiatry is an unauthorized modality within IDOC with the exception of Logan. This assumes that the tele-psychiatrist has complete remote access to Logan’s mentally ill offenders’ medical and mental health records.
31

At Pontiac, the Monitor found that, in some cases, offenders were not even seen every 60 to 90 days. Staff was writing prescriptions for six months, apparently in the belief that more frequent follow-up is not required. In other settings, psychiatric visits routinely exceeded the 30day limit. The most significant finding at Logan during the December 12, 2016 visit was the tremendous backlog in psychiatric care, including both psychiatric follow-up visits and new intake evaluations. Staff reported that there was a six-month wait for a routine psychiatric follow-up visit. As of that visit, 594 follow-up visits and 82 new intake evaluations were pending. The Monitor did see a few examples of inmates in the Pontiac RTU receiving psychiatric evaluations at the required intervals.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, during the Monitor’s November 21, 2016 visit to Pontiac, he reviewed the case of an inmate who had been on crisis since August 29, 2016. A psychiatrist had not seen him while he was in crisis care. A psychiatrist saw him August 14, and the inmate received a diagnosis of unspecified depressive disorder, for which he was being treated with an anti-depressant. The note stated the inmate would be followed up with by psychiatry in three months, though this had not occurred by the time of monitoring visit. Of note, the inmate’s medication order had expired on November 14, but he continued to receive the antidepressant medication.
As of January 3, 2017, Graham was behind on 56 psychiatric follow-ups. At Menard, inmates who were prescribed psychotropic medications did not see a psychiatrist every 30 days. In most of the charts reviewed, the psychiatrists’ notes stated that follow-up in 30 days was indicated, but then two to three months elapsed before the next appointment without documentation of a clinical reason for the delay. When asked during the site visit, the psychiatrist stated that lapses between psychiatric appointments were typically a result of understaffing. The facility leadership reported that they had a backlog of 105 psychiatric appointments as of February 16, 2017 and were operating with roughly 3.5 of the 6 FTE psychiatrists allotted to the facility.
In the Dixon RTUs, psychiatric evaluations were reliably completed according to policy (every 30 days) in the STC, but not in the X House. Of note, the Settlement Agreement allows for the frequency of psychiatric assessments to decrease from every 30 days to every 60 or 90 days once clinical stability has been documented in the medical record. None of the charts the monitoring team reviewed contained such a notation, suggesting either that the psychiatrists were unaware of the policy or that no patients were stable enough to reduce the frequency of contact.
In a supplement to the quarterly report of March 23, 2017, IDOC reported that “Psychiatrists are typically evaluating offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications at appropriate intervals in the following facilities: IL-River, Stateville, Vienna. Those facilities with a backlog are being triaged. Typically, the backlog is attributed to staffing challenges.” This translates to 22 IDOC facilities not meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. This is consistent with the findings of the monitoring team. Of note, as of March 31, 2017, there was a backlog of 3,658 new and follow-up psychiatric visits. The Monitor notes that this requirement is not budget contingent.
(VII)(e): Specific requirement: Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps
32

to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.
Findings: This is generally occurring throughout IDOC. In the Dixon RTUs, all the charts reviewed contained documentation of clinical contacts by mental health professionals. The charts of patients in the STC contained notes at least on a weekly basis, and usually much more often (e.g., daily group therapy notes). In the X House, charts were noticeably less complete. Notes of clinical contacts were sporadic, and the charts contained no group notes at all. When completed, the notes did contain clinically relevant information and plans for follow up.
The Monitor observed progress notes in the charts of SMI offenders but was unable to determine if these progress notes reflected the actual number of clinical contacts. As described throughout this report, the medical records are extremely poorly organized often with loose documents and pages filed out of order. It was very difficult to follow the clinical care of a particular SMI offender and find necessary clinical information due to the disorganized condition of the medical records. Finally, the progress notes themselves were generally of poor quality.
VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
Summary: MHPs were involved in the decision to return crisis bed patients to general population; it was a treatment team decision only at Dixon. Five-day follow-up occurred at Stateville but not at the other locations monitored. Follow-up suicide risk evaluation was variable but generally noncompliant. The Monitor conducted a limited review of 30-day follow-up for general population prisoners and those cases were compliant.
(VIII)(a): Specific requirement: SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team. The Settlement provides a definition of “Specialized Treatment Setting”: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
Findings: This requirement is being met at all the facilities monitored. Dixon was the only facility where the decision to move an offender from RTU or crisis care was the product of a multidisciplinary treatment team.
(VIII)(b)(i): Specific requirement: For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form, which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor.
33

Findings: During the Monitor’s January 31, 2017 tour of Stateville, he found that these 5-day, daily follow-ups were occurring. However, at Pontiac, Dixon, Menard, Logan, Graham and Pinckneyville the monitoring team found that five days of daily follow-ups were not occurring. IDOC reported in its first three quarterly reports: “The requirements of subsection (b)(i) are currently being done in some cases and will be done on a widespread basis once staffing increases. IDOC is actively working on recruitment and hiring efforts in order to fully meet the requirements.” IDOC goes on to state in a supplement to the quarterly report of March 23, 2017: “The criteria in this section requires a substantial increase in mental health staffing, which remains a challenging obstacle.” The monitoring team notes, however, that these requirements are not budget-contingent. Finally, the monitor has not approved the required form used in these follow-ups.
Specific requirement: This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from crisis watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
Findings: At Pontiac, the monitoring team found that, while the suicide risk evaluation was being conducted within seven days of discharge from crisis care, the monthly evaluations were not occurring. At Logan, the seven-day follow evaluations were not being conducted, and while monthly evaluations were conducted for some period of time, they were not conducted each month for a full six months. Neither Dixon nor Menard had implemented policies required by provision (b)(i) of this section; suicide evaluations are not completed within seven days or monthly for six months.
(VIII)(b)(ii): Specific requirement: Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within 30 days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (F)(2)(c)(4)(c).
Findings: As an initial matter, the term “specialized/residential treatment facility” is not defined in the Settlement, and the monitoring team interprets this term to be synonymous with “specialized treatment setting,” the definition of which is discussed above.
IDOC, in a supplement to the quarterly report of March 23, 2017, states: “The transition of offenders from an RTU setting to an outpatient setting is being followed in accordance with stated directives.” The monitoring team did not specifically review this particular cohort for the purposes of this report.
The monitoring team found that offenders in general population at Menard and Logan did receive follow-up care from an MHP within 30 days of release from crisis watch or the infirmary. This has not been the general practice in IDOC during the monitoring period, however.
34

This requirement will be closely evaluated during the next monitoring period.
IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
Summary: Understaffing is very evident at all but one IDOC facility monitored and this was identified as a key reason a number of other Settlement provisions have not been met. Turnover is reported as high. Without a state budget, the requirement is held in abeyance as the budget contingent approval date has not occurred. Four key positions have been hired to support the opening of an RTU at Joliet. IDOC did not take advantage of its option to submit a proposed staffing plan amendment; the window for submitting that proposal is closed. IDOC has been providing quarterly hiring reports.
(IX)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates: Dixon Correctional Center and Logan Correctional Center – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date; Pontiac Correctional Center – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: IDOC’s quarterly reports indicate that the targets in the Remedial Plan have not been met. Because the state budget has not been passed, the budget-contingent approval date has not yet occurred, so the Settlement does not yet require IDOC to meet Remedial Plan standards.
At the time of this report, Dixon was understaffed 1.65 psychologists, 17 mental health professionals, 14 behavioral health technicians, and 8.75 psychiatrists. This understaffing of mental health professionals was a major concern during the monitoring team’s Dixon visits. The RTUs in the STC, which are arguably the best-staffed areas of the facility, were functioning with 40% fewer mental health staff than IDOC’s staffing plan requires. Each RTU in the STC is slated to have 2 mental health professionals and 3 behavioral health technicians (to care for approximately 80 SMI inmates), but as of November 2016, only 1 mental health professional and 2 behavioral health technicians staffed 4 of the 5 units. Because of the understaffing, groups were frequently cancelled if the group leader was called to manage a crisis, since no other staff member was available to cover.
Inadequate staffing levels are the main reason that some policies required by the Settlement Agreement have not yet been implemented at Dixon. In addition, the Monitor’s interviews with staff revealed that understaffing is a major cause of burnout in clinicians, ultimately causing high levels of turnover in the mental health staff. The MHPs indicated that their pay and benefits are comparable to non-DOC positions (if not higher), and most clinicians enjoy working with the inmate population. However, mental health professionals frequently
35

leave their DOC positions because they cannot keep up with the workload, which they say has steadily grown in the past few years.
Pontiac and Logan were similarly understaffed. At the time of this report, Pontiac was understaffed 1.15 psychologist, 2.5 behavioral health technicians, 1.5 registered nurses, and 2.9 psychiatrists. Logan was understaffed 3.21 psychiatrists. Logan was unique in that its staffing exceeded the requirements specified in the Remedial Plan by 1 psychologist, 6.5 MHPs, 5 behavioral health technicians, 1 registered nurse and 1 recreational therapist.
As with other IDOC facilities, understaffing of mental health professionals was a major concern during the monitoring visits to Menard. The staffing plan calls for 6 full-time psychiatrists, but only 3.5 were in place. Staffing of behavioral health technicians and MHPs was somewhat better: 2 of 15 MHP positions were unfilled, and 1 of 9 behavioral health technician positions was unfilled. Inadequate staffing levels have led to a backlog of psychiatric appointments and sporadic completion of treatment plans. In addition, some practices required by the Settlement, such as follow-up after crisis placement, simply cannot be implemented with current staffing levels.
The Monitor is acutely aware that in the absence of a budget, IDOC is not required to meet the requirements of this section. IDOC has exceeded the requirements of the Settlement Agreement in those cases where hiring has occurred.
(IX)(b): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: As noted above, IDOC has until November 23, 2017 to fulfill the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement. To date the following positions for the Joliet Treatment Center have been filled: warden, assistant warden for programs, a social worker, and psych administrator.
(IX)(c): Specific requirement: Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.
Findings: IDOC did not provide any proposed amendment to the staffing plan, nor has IDOC indicated it intends to do so.
(IX)(d): Specific requirement: To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.
36

Findings: The monitoring team did not evaluate this particular requirement.
(IX)(e): Specific requirement: In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.
Findings: IDOC includes quarterly hiring reports in its quarterly reports.
(IX)(f): Specific requirement: In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX.
Findings: The target dates as specified in the Settlement have not yet arrived.
X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
Summary: This requirement is held in abeyance as there is no budget contingent approval date. Nevertheless, the facilities have been identified and various construction projects have occurred at each facility despite no appropriations having been made. Architectural plans were submitted and are consistent with the requirements of the Remedial Plan.
Dixon has the full complement of RTU beds and the most recent data indicates 470 beds were filled. It has adequate space to conduct group therapy and private clinical meetings, but site visits revealed that some of the clinical space is not being used, compromising confidentiality. Contracts for construction of additional treatment and staff space is out to bid as of this writing. As expected, RTUs are not yet operating at Pontiac or Joliet. A contract for the major renovations at Pontiac is being put out to bid.
Construction of the first 80 RTU beds and adequate space for programming and confidentiality at Logan was completed in October 2016 and the unit is fully occupied. The second phase of construction is projected to be complete in September 2017 and will create 10 more beds than required.
Though not complete, there are good steps toward providing RTU-level care and out of cell time at these facilities. Still, the absence of an adequate number of RTU beds in the system is causing very lengthy stays in crisis beds, an inappropriate setting for such patients.
Crisis cells were not located in control units, except at Logan, where the prisoners remain in their “SMI Segregation” housing unit for crisis watch. The Pontiac crisis cells were moved out of its control unit by the deadline, but conditions in the interim were highly antitherapeutic. The care provided in crisis beds falls far short of the expected “aggressive intervention,” and stays are commonly much longer, than Settlement requirements. An IGA is signed for access to inpatient beds at DHS; related construction has not begun.
37

(X)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.
Findings: Additional appropriations have not been made for these renovations, upgrades and retrofits. These four facilities have in fact been identified and various construction projects have occurred at each facility. The monitoring team notes that the construction projects that have been accomplished to date exceed the requirements of the Settlement.
(X)(b): RTU beds for male offenders
(i): Specific requirement: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
Findings: IDOC has identified these units of RTU bed space for male offenders.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately 626 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;
(B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYCJoliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: As to (A), IDOC in a supplement to its quarterly report of March 23, 2017, reported that Dixon currently operates an RTU program with 470 participating offenders. Dr. Kapoor on her monitoring visit to Dixon in January 2017 noted that Dixon had 625 RTU beds. Each of Dixon’s RTUs has adequate space to conduct group therapy and private clinical meetings between mental health staff and offenders. However, not all assessments of inmates were conducted in a confidential setting. In Dixon’s RTU called X House, several inmates noted that the psychiatrist sees them cell-side or at a table in the middle of the day room, and they worried about disclosing sensitive information within earshot of other inmates. A room for confidential group therapy exists in the X House, but none of the inmates interviewed had ever been inside. Group sessions are generally conducted in the day room. In contrast, inmates and staff in the other RTU, called STC, reported that their individual clinical meetings occur in a confidential setting. Community meetings are conducted in the day room of the housing unit, but group therapy sessions occur in a confidential setting in Building 65. The facility leadership indicated that they are running out of space in Building 65 as the group program expands, and a
38

second location for groups (the former dietary center) will be created after budget approval. Construction for additional treatment and staff space went out to bid on April 13, 2017. The Department only received one bid and because it was so high, the contract will be put back out for bidding.
As to (B), currently, Pontiac is not operating an RTU. There is a Mental Health Unit at Pontiac, which operates similar to an RTU but IDOC has made it very clear to the Monitor that this unit is not an RTU. IDOC has completed some work at providing improved treatment spaces in the vicinity of the Mental Health Unit but the contract for the major renovations will be put back out to bid.
The relatively large number of seriously mentally ill offenders at Menard who require RTU placement underline the urgency of bringing RTU beds online. These Menard offenders experience long delays in transfers. During the site visit, the mental health staff noted that transfers of SMI prisoners to an RTU bed (usually at Dixon) routinely take one to two months. In the interim, the inmate is usually held in a crisis cell. In one particularly difficult case, an inmate had been refused by Dixon for more than six months and was held in the infirmary during that time under conditions that were essentially 23-hour lockdown. While in the infirmary, the inmate had a brief evaluation by an MHP daily, but otherwise he had no access to groups or any other treatment that might help break his cycle of self-injury. During the exit interview, the monitoring team briefly discussed this case with Chief Hinton and the other IDOC and Wexford leadership. Although the team acknowledges the complexity of managing an individual with chronic self-injury and a personality disorder diagnosis, the discussion did not clarify why the inmate would not be eligible for transfer to an RTU.
(X)(c): RTU beds for female offenders
(i): Specific requirement: IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108 female offenders at Logan CC.
Findings: IDOC has identified 108 RTU beds for female offenders at Logan Correctional Center.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: Logan RTU Phase I was complete in October 2016. It is currently fully occupied. Phase II is set for substantial completion on September 21, 2017. Logan will have created 118 RTU beds, 10 more than the 108 required by the Settlement Agreement. The beds are divided among five housing units. Staff and offenders alike stated that the housing units provide adequate programming space and confidentiality of sound and sight.
(X)(d): Specific requirements: The facilities and services available in association with
39

the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains an RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
Findings:
Dixon RTU: During monitoring team visits to Dixon, it became clear that IDOC began modifying its practices to comply with the Settlement in stages. At Dixon, there are two RTUs: STC, which houses approximately 350 inmates with mental illness and provides a residential (“group home”) level of care; and Dixon Psychiatric Unit (DPU, also known as the X House), which houses approximately 110 inmates with mental illness and provides a residential level of care for higher-security inmates than those housed in STC. The STC underwent changes first, beginning its RTU program in March of 2015. Overall, the STC’s compliance with the Agreement is significantly better than the X House, which began implementing RTU programming only in November 2016.
As to Dixon’s RTU programming in segregation, the facility began providing structured programming in September 2016, with the full RTU program implemented in November 2016. Based on a review of daily group schedules and examples of out-of-cell tracking for offenders, and interviews of offenders and clinical staff, the team determined that at the time of the November site visit, the RTUs in STC had already implemented 15 hours per week of structured programming, while the X House had implemented 5 hours per week. However, by the January 2017 site visit, the X House offered approximately 5 hours of structured activity and 10 hours of unstructured activity per week. The structured programs included Community Meeting, Bipolar Group, Anxiety Group, Relationships and Problem Solving Group, and work assignments. Inmates reported that the programs are run by caring clinicians and are relevant to the offenders’ needs, though they did not occur in a confidential setting. Some offenders reported that they were also receiving individual therapy with an MHP. The inmates generally regarded the increased programming and emphasis on mental health treatment as a positive development, though many of the changes were too new to assess fully. At the time of the November site visit, all groups were offered to all offenders in segregation, regardless of how long they had been in segregation. The facility had just begun tracking the number of hours per week that each offender spent out of cell. Anecdotally, the MHPs who work in the X House reported that six to eight offenders at a time attended their groups, and about 50% of the offenders in segregation never attended groups even though they were offered.
Pontiac Mental Health Unit: The Mental Health Unit at Pontiac, as described above, is not currently functioning as an RTU unit. As such, it is not as well developed as the RTU at Dixon. This is due in large part to the fact that the Pontiac Mental Health Unit has just begun operating in earnest during the monitoring period. This program has had to develop its own treatment spaces and is heavily dependent upon the willingness of security staff to move the
40

offenders for group and individual meetings. The Monitor personally observed custody staff’s reluctance about moving mentally ill offenders from the Mental Health Unit to locations where confidential interviews could take place. There are newly remodeled confidential group and individual therapy rooms. There was no evidence of functioning mental health treatment teams as the facility is exceedingly short of psychiatric services. Of note, data provided by the facility demonstrated that 31 of 36 offenders in the Mental Health Unit received one to nine hours of structured out-of-cell time a week.
Logan RTU: At the time of the December site visit, Logan Correctional Center had implemented an RTU program that was clearly beginning to improve the mental health of mentally ill offenders. Offenders housed in the RTU were being offered 12 hours per week of structured programming. Inmates and staff reported that, although the changes were fairly new, they had already noticed several benefits: less frequent crises, more positive contact between staff and offenders, and greater offender investment in treatment. However, the reforms are still a work in progress, and many provisions required by the Settlement have not yet been implemented.
(X)(e): Inpatient beds
Specific requirement: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (‘IGA’) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget approval contingent date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
Findings: IDOC has entered into this IGA with the Illinois Department of Human Services. The remainder of the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement are budget contingent.
(X)(f): Crisis beds
Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of
41

the Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
Findings: As noted above, the Settlement permits crisis cells at Pontiac to be located in a Control Unit for the first year after approval. During the Monitor’s initial visit to Pontiac on August 26, 2016, the Monitor inspected the crisis cells located in the North House. The Monitor found this unit to be the most chaotic and anti-therapeutic prison unit the Monitor has ever toured in 30 years of working in correctional psychiatry. The Monitor immediately shared these serious concerns about housing mentally ill offenders requiring a crisis level of care on the North House to the Chiefs of Mental Health and Legal, both verbally and in writing. To the Monitor’s dismay, this situation was unchanged on the Monitor’s follow up visit of November 21, 2016. The Monitor personally interviewed several of the mentally ill offenders housed at that time in crisis cells on the North House. Their collective responses confirmed the Monitor’s clinical hunch that due to the extremely chaotic nature of the North House, potentially suicidal offenders would feign being non-suicidal just to get off the North House. Finally, on a March 3, 2017 visit, the Monitor was informed that a new crisis area had recently opened and North House was only being used as an overflow site for offenders requiring crisis care. Of note, it took six months to complete this move.
In the remainder of the facilities monitored, the crisis cells were not located in control units. The one exception was noted during a site visit to Logan in December 2016. Logan has a designated “SMI Segregation” housing unit. When these offenders are placed on a crisis watch, they do not physically move to another location; their status is simply changed on a white board, and they receive a suicide smock instead of regular clothing.
Specific requirement: Section II (e) of the Settlement Agreement states in part: Crisis beds are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.
Findings: Crisis beds are an integral part of a well-functioning correctional mental health treatment system. As stated in the Settlement, they are meant to provide an acute and aggressive level of care designed to rapidly stabilize mentally decompensated offenders. If, due to the severity of their mental illness, the offenders are not able to stabilize in a relatively short period of time, which is defined as “generally no longer than 10 days,” then they need to be transferred to a higher level of care. In all fairness to IDOC, it currently does not have a well-functioning correctional mental health treatment system. The number of mentally ill offenders continues to overwhelm the resources available in the current mental health treatment system. Of note, there are no inpatient services available. This results in extremely ill offenders being housed in the RTUs, Control Units, General Population Units, and R&C Units. There are not sufficient services available to adequately address the needs of this extremely ill population. All of this results in seriously mentally ill offenders being placed in crisis beds, which represent the highest
42

level of psychiatric care currently available to mentally ill offenders in the IDOC. The crisis beds have become de facto inpatient care.
The level of services provided to offenders in crisis care is woefully inadequate to meet their treatment needs. Basically, offenders in crisis care only receive a non-confidential visit with an MHP on a daily basis. The only exception to this non-confidential MHP visit is at Pontiac, which began confidential visits in March 2017. A psychiatrist does not evaluate the offenders to determine if their medications should be adjusted or changed. These mentally ill offenders do not receive any “aggressive mental health” interventions. During a November 2016 Pontiac visit, the Monitor reviewed the case of an inmate who was in crisis care since August 29, 2016. A psychiatrist had not seen him while he was in crisis care. A psychiatrist saw him August 14, 2016 and the inmate received a diagnosis of unspecified depressive disorder, for which he was being treated with an antidepressant. The note stated the inmate would be followed up by psychiatry in three months, though this had not occurred by the time of monitoring visit. Of note, the inmate’s medication order had expired a week before the visit, but he continued to receive the anti-depressant medication. During the same visit, the Monitor also encountered an inmate in crisis care who was overwhelmingly psychotic, i.e., responding to internal stimuli and being internally preoccupied. Six days prior to placement on crisis, a psychiatrist diagnosed the inmate with adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and the inmate was being treated with an antidepressant. The Monitor found no evidence in the inmate’s chart that the psychiatrist was aware of the patient’s psychotic symptoms.
Another egregious example of the inadequate care that mentally ill offenders receive while in crisis care occurred in Stateville proper. During the Monitor’s January 31, 2017 tour of the crisis cells, the Monitor noted an offender covered in feces that was being “hosed off” by the custody staff. When the Monitor interviewed this offender, he said he had been covered in feces for over a week. He went on to state that the only reason staff cleaned him up was because “they heard you was coming.” Also, all the mentally ill offenders in crisis cells that the Monitor interviewed stated the MHPs always just asked the same four questions on their daily cell front visits: are you suicidal, are you homicidal, do you have something in your cell to harm yourself, and are you taking your medication. These four questions were the extent of the visit.
“Aggressive” intervention, required by the Settlement, cannot be provided simply by virtue of placement into a crisis cell and cell-side monitoring. This will not accomplish the aim of “reducing the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilizing the offender.” Inmates in crisis watch need actual treatment, such as one-to-one and group therapies as well as an aggressive reevaluation of the patients’ prescribed psychotropic medication. It seems offenders may receive more treatment in segregation than in crisis care, though additional out-of-cell time is provided for those in crisis for prolonged periods.
(X)(g): Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own ADs, forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.
43

Findings: This requirement is budget contingent.
(X)(h): Specific requirement: The treatment and other space required by subsections (d)-(g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.
Findings: Although this subsection references both the budget contingency requirement of (X)(a) and a specific date deadline, for purposes of this report, the Monitor will interpret this requirement as being budget contingent.
(X)(i): Specific requirement: Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.
Findings: Chief Lindsay sent the required floor plans to the Monitor within the time frame specified in the Settlement. These floor plans are consistent with the requirements of the Remedial Plan.
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
Summary: IDOC hired three regional directors, who are licensed psychologists, and they were in place prior to the filing of the Settlement. A Statewide Quality Improvement Manager was hired timely in February 2017; however, at the time of the submission of this report, he also remains in the position of central regional director. At the facilities toured, there were MHPs serving in the role of Clinical Supervisor and hiring was reportedly ongoing in other locations. Although the deadline for hiring central office staff has not passed, only 3 of 10 contemplated positions have been hired.
(XI)(a): Regional Directors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.
Findings: IDOC actually hired three regional directors who are licensed psychologists and they were in place prior to the filing of the Settlement. They were:
• Dr. Horn, northern regional director, who was hired March 2014 • Dr. Sim, central regional director, who was hired January 2015
44

• Dr. Reister, southern regional director, who was hired December 2014
(XI)(b): Statewide Quality Improvement Manager
Specific requirement: IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This position was initially posted during July 2016. The first candidates were interviewed during September 2016. The position had to be reposted because the first candidates turned down the position. Subsequent interviews were conducted during January 2017. Dr. Jeff Sim, who assumed the duties of statewide Quality Improvement Manager on February 16, 2017, filled the position. It is unclear, however, how much time Dr. Sim is actually dedicating to this position as, at the time of the submission of this report, he remains the central regional director.
(X)(c): Clinical supervisors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOCoperated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.
Findings: At the facilities toured, there were MHPs serving in the role of Clinical Supervisor. At the time of this report, Clinical Supervisor vacancies were present throughout IDOC. IDOC reports, however, that it is making progress on this requirement as hiring is ongoing.
(X)(d): Central office staff
Specific requirement: IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facilityspecific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC reports that it has hired a Mental Health Training Coordinator, Chief of Psychiatry and CQI Manager. The Monitor is well aware that the deadline for this requirement is not until November 23, 2017. It is reasonable to expect, however, that some additional hiring of central office staff dedicated to “implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement” would have been accomplished by one year into the monitoring process.
45

XII: MEDICATION
Summary: The contemporaneous recording of medication administration has increasingly been met during the monitoring period. The frequency of psychiatric follow-up was variable but generally poor, including in situations calling for increased contact. Medication orders sometimes expired for weeks. The timing of medication passes is a major deterrent to medication compliance. Medication efficacy and side effects information often was not recorded, even where side effects were evident in prisoners the Monitor interviewed. Blood tests and neurological tests were sometimes conducted but do not appear to be routine practice. Informed consent reportedly is not practiced. Records do not seem to reflect a system for following up medication noncompliance.
For many of these practices, performance was much better at Dixon.
(XII)(a): Specific requirement: In accordance with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
Findings: This requirement has increasingly been met during the monitoring period. The monitoring team will pay special attention to this important requirement during the next monitoring period.
(XII)(b): Specific requirement: Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5) provides: Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, subject to the following:
(a) For offenders in the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for the extension of follow-up appointments may be considered, with no follow up appointment to exceed 90 days.
(b) For offenders at a Special/Residential Treatment Unit level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending
46

psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments may be considered with no extension to exceed 60 days.
Findings: The monitoring team did not systematically assess whether inmates starting new medications had two psychiatric visits within 60 days as this data was not available. The charts reviewed at Dixon by Dr. Kapoor contained psychiatric notes at least every 30 days indicating a renewal of medications. Among the cohort of offenders reviewed by Dr. Kapoor were numerous cases where there was a new prescription for psychotropic medication.
Dr. Kapoor’s observations at Dixon are in stark contrast to the rest of IDOC. At Logan, offenders were not being seen as required. Due to this lack of appropriate follow-up, a significant number of offenders just stopped taking their medications. Even when nurses noted significant medication noncompliance, a psychiatrist still did not see the offender as required by Section XII (c)(vi) of the Settlement. At Pontiac on March 2, 2017, there was a backlog of approximately 250 psychiatric follow-up appointments. This means that this cohort of mentally ill offenders who had been prescribed psychotropic medications was not being seen in a timely manner. Again, among this cohort of offenders were numerous cases where there had been a new prescription for psychotropic medication. Due to the extreme lack of competent psychiatrists at all facilities monitored, offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications are not being seen every 30 days, or documented as stable and being seen every 60 to 90 days, as is required by AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5).
(XII)(c): Specific requirement: In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:
(i): Specific requirement: The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
Findings: There are two aspects of this requirement that the monitoring team encountered. The first was the often chaotic and unpredictable nature of the psychiatric care throughout IDOC. Medication orders often expired and the offender may or may not continue receiving his or her medication. This problem was noted at all the facilities monitored, with the exception of Dixon, but was especially prevalent at Pontiac and Menard. At Menard, psychotropic medication orders were allowed to expire, and often staff did not correct the problem until an inmate had already missed a week or two of medication. This can result in these offenders suffering needlessly from withdrawal symptoms as well as a worsening of psychiatric symptoms.
The second aspect is that medications are passed at times that may be convenient for the staff but certainly not for the offender. For example, the morning medication pass at Graham was 2:00 am. This extremely inappropriate time to pass medications results in significant numbers of offenders refusing their “morning” dose of medication. This is not just a problem at Graham. The monitoring team noted inappropriate medication pass times throughout IDOC. This is a problem that requires immediate attention.
47

Overall, when a given offender had a valid prescription, there was reasonable assurance that he or she would at least be offered the proper medication, albeit on an inappropriate schedule. The monitoring team did find some positive examples, however. At Menard, all 8 segregated inmates interviewed reported that a nurse administered their medications in a timely manner.
(ii): Specific requirement: The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskenesia [sic], high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
Findings: This requirement was not consistently being met throughout IDOC. The one exception was at Dixon. The psychiatric notes at Dixon contained clinically relevant information about medication compliance, response, and side effects. In the remainder of the facilities monitored, there were few examples of proper charting regarding medication efficacy and side effects. In the overwhelming majority of the cases reviewed, there was little to no attention paid to either the efficacy or the side effects of the prescribed medications. In a significant number of cases, the Monitor noted the offender to be displaying overt signs of medication side effects with no mention of this found in the medical record.
(iii): Specific requirement: Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
Findings: The monitoring team found no evidence that adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects was occurring on a regular basis. There was some evidence of an occasional blood test being obtained. These blood tests were not obtained routinely or certainly not on the entire cohort of offenders who require these blood tests as part of their treatment with psychotropic medications. There was evidence that certain neurological evaluations were being done but again not routinely or on all the offenders who required them as part of treatment.
(iv): Specific requirement: The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
Findings: As noted above, this lab work was not routinely obtained or reported. For example, at Menard, the 12 medical charts reviewed indicated that lab tests, AIMS exams, and metabolic monitoring were completed sporadically.
(v): Specific requirement: That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanation from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
Findings: This requirement is not being met in IDOC with the exception of Dixon. At Dixon, offenders in the STC reported that they were given an opportunity to discuss medication options with the psychiatrist in a confidential setting, but patients in the X House noted that they were seen cell-side and often felt uncomfortable discussing medication issues in that setting. For the remainder of IDOC, visits with a psychiatrist, when they occur, reportedly are rushed and
48

very superficial. The monitoring team interviewed hundreds of offenders as well as reviewing their medical records to ascertain if this requirement was being met. The overwhelming majority of the offenders reported that their visits with the psychiatrist only last a few minutes and that they are often not allowed to ask questions. This was consistent with the medical records where little to no documentation was present to satisfy this requirement. It is also important to note that during the monitoring period, there was a backlog of over 3,000 psychiatric follow-up visits. This means that the offenders prescribed psychotropic medication were never afforded the opportunity to discuss medication issues with their prescribing psychiatrist.
(vi): Specific requirement: That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
Findings: There was no evidence that this was occurring in IDOC. The monitoring team found numerous examples of medication noncompliance with offenders housed in control units for which nothing was done. That is, there was no documentation in the offenders’ medical records that the MHP was aware of these noncompliance issues or that the offender was referred to a psychiatrist. In fact, there were examples of the psychiatrist discontinuing the offenders’ medications without a visit if noncompliance was reported.
XIII: OFFENDER FORCED MEDICATION
Summary: In all cases reviewed, the treating psychiatrist initiated the involuntary medication request for an appropriate clinical reason, and IDOC’s policies and procedures were subsequently followed. However, there are allegations to the contrary that bear examination. It may be unusual that enforced medication orders may remain in place indefinitely.
Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70. The cited provision of the Administrative Code is lengthy and includes numerous detailed provisions:
a) Administration of Psychotropic Medication 1) Psychotropic medication shall not be administered to any offender against his or her will or without the consent of the parent or guardian of a minor who is under the age of 18, unless: A) A psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that: i) The offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) The medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) The offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others; and B) The administration of such medication has been approved by the Treatment Review Committee after a hearing (see subsection (b) of this Section). However, no such approval or hearing shall be required when the
49

medication is administered in an emergency situation. An emergency situation exists whenever the required determinations listed in subsection (a)(1)(A) of this Section have been made and a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that the offender poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm to self or others. In all emergency situations, the procedures set forth in subsection (e) of this Section shall be followed. 2) Whenever a physician orders the administration of psychotropic medication to an offender against the person’s will, the physician shall document in the offender’s medical file the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination that the standards in subsection (a)(1) of this Section have been met and: A) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be notified as soon as practicable; and B) Unless the medication was administered in an emergency situation, the Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee shall be notified in writing within three days. b) Treatment Review Committee Procedures The Treatment Review Committee shall be comprised of two members appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer, both of whom shall be mental health professionals and one of whom shall be a physician. One member shall serve as Chairperson of the Committee. Neither of the Committee members may be involved in the current decision to order the medication. The members of the Committee shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall designate a member of the program staff not involved in the current decision to order medication to assist the offender. The staff assistant shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 2)The offender and staff assistant shall receive written notification of the time and place of the hearing at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The notification shall include the tentative diagnosis and the reasons why the medical staff believes the medication is necessary. The staff assistant shall meet with the offender prior to the hearing to discuss the procedural and mental health issues involved. 3) The offender shall have the right to attend the hearing unless the Committee determines that it is likely that the person’s attendance would subject the person to substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm or pose a threat to the safety of others. If such a determination is made, the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination shall be documented in the offender’s medical file. The staff assistant shall appear at the hearing whether or not the offender appears. 4) The documentation in the medical file referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this Section shall be reviewed by the Committee and the Committee may request the physician’s personal appearance at the hearing. 5) Prior to the hearing, witnesses identified by the offender and the staff assistant may be interviewed by the staff assistant after consultation with the offender as to appropriate questions to ask. Any such questions shall be asked by the staff assistant unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility.
50

6) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses be interviewed by the Committee and may submit written questions for witnesses to the Chairperson of the Committee. These questions shall be asked by the Committee unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. If any witness is not interviewed, a written reason shall be provided. 7) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses appear at the hearing. Any such request shall include an explanation of what the witnesses would state. Reasonable efforts shall be made to have such witnesses present at the hearing, unless their testimony or presence would be cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility, or for other reasons including, but not limited to, unavailability of the witness or matters relating to institutional order. In the event requested witnesses are unavailable to appear at the hearing but are otherwise available, they shall be interviewed by the Committee as provided for in subsections (b)(6) and (9) of this Section. 8) At the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may make statements and present documents that are relevant to the proceedings. The staff assistant may direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing. The offender may request that the staff assistant direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing and the staff assistant shall ask such questions unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 9) The Committee shall make such investigation as it deems necessary. The staff assistant shall be informed of any investigation conducted by the Committee and shall be permitted to direct relevant questions to any witnesses interviewed by the Committee. The staff assistant shall consult with the offender regarding any statements made by witnesses interviewed by the Committee and shall comply with requests by the offender to direct relevant questions to such witnesses unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 10) The Committee shall consider all relevant information and material that has been presented in deciding whether to approve administration of the medication. 11) A written decision shall be prepared and signed by all members of the Committee that contains a summary of the hearing and the reasons for approving or disapproving the administration of the medication. Copies of the decision shall be given to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Any decision by the Committee to approve involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be unanimous. The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Committee. 12) If the Committee approves administration of the medication, the offender shall be advised of the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Agency Medical
51

Director by filing a written appeal with the Chairperson within five days after the offender's receipt of the written decision. c) Review by Agency Medical Director 1) If the offender appeals the Treatment Review Committee’s decision, staff shall continue to administer the medication as ordered by the physician and approved by the Committee while awaiting the Agency Medical Director’s decision on the appeal. 2) The Chairperson of the Committee shall promptly forward the written notice of appeal to the Agency Medical Director or a physician designated by the Agency Medical Director. 3) Within five working days after receipt of the written notice of appeal, the Agency Medical Director shall: A) Review the Committee’s decision, make such further investigation as deemed necessary, and submit a written decision to the Chief Administrative Officer; and B) Provide a copy of the written decision to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chairperson of the Committee. 4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Agency Medical Director. d) Periodic Review of Medication 1) Whenever any offender has been involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication continuously or on a regular basis for a period of six months, the administration of such medication shall, upon the offender’s written request, be reviewed by the Treatment Review Committee in accordance with the procedures enumerated in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section. Every six months thereafter, for so long as the involuntary medication continues on a regular basis, the offender shall have the right to a review hearing upon written request. 2) Every offender who is involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, and the psychiatrist shall document in the offender's medical file the basis for the decision to continue the medication. e) Emergency Procedures Subsequent to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in an emergency situation: 1) The basis for the decision to administer the medication shall be documented in the offender's medical file and a copy of the documentation shall be given to the offender and to the Agency Medical Director for review. 2) A mental health professional shall meet with the offender to discuss the reasons why the medication was administered and to give the offender an opportunity to express any concerns he or she may have regarding the medication. f) Copies of all notifications and written decisions shall be placed in the offender’s medical file. g) Grievances An offender may submit a grievance concerning the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication directly to the Administrative Review Board in accordance with
52

20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Subpart F. In considering the grievance, the Board shall confer with the Agency Medical Director.
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed 6 cases at Dixon in which offenders were receiving enforced medications. In each of these cases, the treating psychiatrist initiated the involuntary medication request for an appropriate clinical reason, and IDOC’s policies and procedures were subsequently followed. One aspect of IDOC’s practices around enforced medication seemed unusual. IDOC allows an enforced medication order to remain in place indefinitely, whereas in other states (such as Connecticut and California), the order is timelimited (e.g., 6 or 12 months) and can only be renewed after another hearing.
At Menard, Dr. Kapoor reviewed the chart of an offender at the facility receiving forced medication. In that case, the inmate had been in the infirmary essentially continuously for about 6 months because of self-injury. Despite a forced medication order, medication changes were not actively being made, nor was a psychiatrist seeing the inmate every 30 days to assess the efficacy of the treatment plan.
At Pontiac, as well as other facilities monitored, the overall procedures for the administration of forced medication were being followed. Significant problems existed in the actual prescription and follow up for psychotropic medications, however. Medically unauthorized and inappropriate uses of psychotropic medication were noted in the overwhelming majority of the cases reviewed. In addition to this substandard usage of psychotropic medications, psychiatrists were not seeing the offenders every 30 days as is required by the Settlement.
Finally, the Monitor received from plaintiffs’ counsel several allegations that the procedures for offender forced medications were not properly followed. The Monitor takes these allegations very seriously. This issue will continue to be closely monitored during the next monitoring periods.
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
Summary: IDOC’s reports suggest that notice to clinicians is not occurring, and no system for this appeared to be in place in the facilities monitored. The team learned of security-clinician collaboration, but it was individual-driven. Neither were there procedures for consulting on post-segregation housing, except where Pontiac was transferring prisoners to other facilities. The team did not encounter any instances of recorded reasons for rejecting an MHP’s housing recommendation.
(XIV)(a): Specific requirements: Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns
53

regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
Findings: IDOC reported in its quarterly report: “While recruitment initiatives are proceeding, additional staff will be needed in order to meet the 24-hour requirement.” The monitoring team notes that, in the Settlement, the deadline for compliance with this requirement is not tied to staffing levels.
During monitoring visits, the monitoring team found that no procedure for this requirement was in place at Stateville, Menard, Logan, or Pontiac. At Logan, staff reported that there is consultation if an inmate is coming to or leaving the RTU. The team found that mental health staff do, in some instances, work collaboratively with security staff to address housing concerns. However, without a formal procedure in place, implementation is scattered and dependent on the personal proclivities of individual staff members.
(XIV)(b): Specific requirement: For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII (a)(v)(F), below.
Findings: During our monitoring visits, staff reported that there is no procedure in place at Stateville, Logan, or Menard. At Pontiac, staff reported that this type of consultation does happen because, unlike in other facilities, every transfer out of segregation entails being transferred to another facility. Therefore, staff feels obligated to provide information to the receiving facility. At Dixon, when inmates are released from segregation, the facility follows the general policy that SMI inmates return to the RTU unit from which they came. If no bed is available in that RTU, the MHP finds a bed in another RTU unit that is staffed by the same psychiatrist in order to maintain continuity of care to the extent possible.
(XIV)(c): Specific requirement: If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation.
Findings: Because no procedure is in place to ensure consultation with MHPs regarding their recommendations for post-segregation housing, facilities also do not routinely record justifications for any disagreements with MHPs’ recommendations.
XV: SEGREGATION
54

Summary: The Monitor received one facility policy governing segregation and protective custody placement and it appeared compliant. Staff at three facilities reported a common practice of consulting MHPs about double-celling. All of the segregation units inspected met the minimum requirements for living conditions and privileges. The noisy and chaotic environments, though, are inappropriate for housing the seriously mentally ill. Some SMI inmates were living in Menard’s Enhanced Security Status.
Mentally ill offenders in segregation did not consistently continue to receive the treatment specified in their treatment plans and Pontiac reportedly denies access to group therapy as a disciplinary measure. IDOC reports that MHPs are not reviewing prisoners within 48 hours of placement nor updating treatment plans on schedule. Treatment plans were continued, but the team encountered no evidence of enhanced therapy. Weekly rounds occurred except for certain units at Pontiac. In most facilities, records reflected either monthly supportive counseling or none. Treatment teams have not been established.
After a steady increase during the monitoring period, facilities now offer 10 hours of unstructured out-of-cell time; most facilities house few, if any, inmates more than 60 days in segregation. Refusals, which can be a significant indication of mental deterioration, are not followed up.
MHPs did appear to have discretion to place segregated inmates in crisis cells, though the revolving door between those settings, with lengthy crisis stays, was of concern.
Review Committees were constituted and reportedly completed their work, and substantial amounts of segregation time were cut. It appears that 300 and 400 level tickets were eliminated from SMI inmates’ records; with other tickets, it was unclear how fully mental health input was taken into account.
Compliance with requirements for Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement are largely consistent with segregation compliance statuses. By the end of the monitoring period, structured out-of-cell time exceeded requirements at Logan and Dixon, but fell far short at Pontiac.
XV(a)(i): Specific requirement: Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally
55

ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
Of note, AD 05.03.107 provides: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility with segregation and protective custody units designed to double cell offenders shall develop a written policy that includes, but is not limited to, the following for routine segregation and protective custody placement:
• Segregation placement • PC placement • Documentation • Review of documentation and final determination • Compatibility contraindications • Review with other inmates • Upon determination to double-cell:
o Documentation o Suitability review following placement o Documentation upon release • Documentation and Reassessment for disciplinary report
Findings: The Monitor requested a copy of the written policy from each facility with segregation and protective custody units designed to double cell offenders, but received only the policy from Pinckneyville. This particular policy did fulfill the requirements of this section of the Settlement, but for Pinckneyville alone.
At Dixon, according to security and clinical staff, security staff consults with mental health staff regarding housing decisions, such as whether an individual needs a single cell or can be safely housed in a double cell. Two of the RTU units (approximately 100 beds) contain single cells exclusively, and MHPs have input into decisions about who is housed there.
Although none of the mental health and psychiatric staff at Menard knew of a formal policy that dictates the practice, they said security staff routinely consults with mental health staff regarding housing decisions, such as whether an SMI individual needs a single cell or can be safely housed in a double cell.
At Stateville proper, custody staff in the segregation unit was familiar with a requirement of having to consult with mental health staff prior to double celling offenders.
XV(a)(ii): Specific Requirement: Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670. Section 504.620 is detailed and covers a number of issues regarding conditions in segregation: double celling, secure fastening of the bed, clean bedding, running water, lighting, placement above ground with adequate heat and ventilation, food passage and visual observation, use of restraints inside the cell, cleaning materials, showers and shaves, toiletries, clothing and laundry, dentures, glasses and other hygienic items, property and commissary, food, visits, medical, chaplain and correctional counselor visits, programs, exercise, phone calls, mail privileges and reading materials. Section 504.630 provides for the same conditions and services
56

in investigatory status as in segregation status. Section 504.670 addresses recreation, including requiring five hours of recreation for inmates who have spent 90 or more days in segregation, yard restrictions, and related documentation.
Findings: In general, all the segregation units inspected met the minimum requirements of this section of the Settlement. That being said, all of the segregation units were filthy, noisy and inappropriate for housing the seriously mentally ill. At Pontiac, segregation was especially chaotic and noisy, making it impossible for staff to provide valid and reliable mental health or psychiatric assessments and treatment.
Also of note, Menard seems to be unusual, and perhaps unique, among IDOC facilities in its use of “enhanced security status,” which appeared to be a level of restriction even beyond segregation. The warden stated that this status is used to manage inmates who have repeated behavioral problems while in segregation. It involves 2:1 staffing and the use of leg restraints when an inmate leaves his cell. A committee reviews this status every 90 days. At the time of the site visit, five inmates were on that status, two of whom were designated SMI.
In the quarterly report dated March 23, 2017 in the section dealing with segregation, IDOC stated “Additionally, IDOC has proposed changes to Departmental Rule 504.” In the supplement to this quarterly report dated April 28, 2017, IDOC stated “Additionally, IDOC made changes to Departmental Rule 504.” Since the Settlement expressly relies on the terms of Departmental Rule 504 as it was written at the time the Settlement was signed, changes to the Rule can potentially undermine what the Settlement was designed to accomplish. It is concerning that IDOC changed the Rule without discussion with the Monitor or plaintiffs’ counsel as to the potential impacts on this Settlement’s terms. The Monitor strongly advises IDOC to notify the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel, in more detail, in advance of relevant rule or policy changes, so that potential Settlement impacts can be identified and avoided. As to this particular rule change, the Monitor requests that IDOC explain which provisions were changed and the purpose of those changes.
XV(a)(iii): Specific requirement: Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
Findings: The mentally ill offenders in segregation did not consistently continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their treatment plans. At Pontiac, numerous mentally ill offenders complained of not being allowed to attend groups if they received any disciplinary tickets. If this alleged action is accurate, it runs counter to good mental health treatment. That is, if an offender is acting out to such an extent that he is written up, then it is a strong indication that he requires more and not less treatment.
The individual treatment plans, however, of all the offenders in segregation were found to be inadequate. As noted in Section VII, above, the treatment plans were very non-specific, often using the identical treatment approaches regardless of the offenders’ diagnoses. In the majority of the segregation units inspected, there was less than adequate space for confidential treatment
57

to occur and there were significant problems noted with medications. The problems with medications are explained in detail in section XII of this report.
At Menard, the monitoring team observed group therapy and spoke with inmates and staff about it. An adequate group therapy space for segregated prisoners has been used since approximately November 2016, when Menard began providing structured programming. At the time of the February site visit, the facility offered six hours per week of structured programming, comprised of four 90-minute groups per week. Among the eight inmates interviewed, they reported that the therapy groups are well organized and helpful. This supports any treatment plan that contains a recommendation for group therapy. One small issue arose during the site visit regarding eligibility for group therapy in segregation. The group leaders interpreted the Settlement to mean that SMI inmates became ineligible when they only had 60 days of segregation time remaining. This seemed a curious interpretation of the Agreement and inconsistent with practices at other IDOC facilities. The monitoring team raised the issue during the exit interview, and the facility leadership agreed that inmates become eligible for groups after 60 days of segregation placement, and they remain eligible for the duration of their segregation time.
XV (a)(iv): Specific requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
Findings: This procedure is not, as a general matter, being implemented in the IDOC. IDOC reported in its quarterly report of March 23, 2017 that the requirements regarding MHP reviews within 48 hours will be implemented once staffing is increased. The monitoring team notes, however, that this requirement is not budget-contingent under the Settlement.
XV (a)(v): Specific requirement: As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: These procedures are not being implemented in the IDOC. IDOC reported in its quarterly report that the requirements regarding updates to treatment plans within seven days and monthly will be implemented once staffing is increased. The team notes, however, that these requirements are not budget-contingent under the Settlement.
XV(a)(vi): Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP
58

E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings:
Continuation of ITP with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation: The treatment plans were continued, if they previously had been prepared for the offenders. There were many cases reviewed where an offender in segregation did not have a treatment plan or it was extremely outdated. In one case of an offender who arrived at Pontiac on October 25, 2016, the Monitor found no evidence of a treatment plan. Upon interviewing this offender, the Monitor noted that he was suffering from significant psychotic symptoms. There was no documentation in his medical record regarding his psychosis. Also, the monitoring team found no evidence at any of the facilities monitored of mentally ill offenders receiving “enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.”
Rounds: Weekly rounds of mentally ill offenders in segregation were initiated during this first monitoring year. This requirement was inconsistently accomplished at first but by the end of this monitoring period, weekly rounds were occurring on a regular basis at all the facilities monitored. At Stateville, rounds were occurring, though the records were disorganized. Eleven charts reviewed at Menard indicated that mental health rounds are completed by an MHP every seven days. At Pontiac during the November 2016 visit, the Monitor reviewed North House and the South House mental health unit; rounds were occurring in those areas. Rounds were also occurring in the segregation unit at Logan.
Dixon inmates reported that rounds do occur on a routine basis, but this was not consistently documented in the medical charts the monitoring team reviewed. IDOC’s quarterly report indicated that this provision was not implemented at Pontiac and the team confirmed during the site visit that rounds were not being conducted in all portions of the facility. Rounds were occurring in the North and South Houses but not in East and West Houses.
Pharmacological treatment: As with other populations, poor handling of pharmacological treatment was evident in segregation cases reviewed. Offenders were not seen every 30 days as required by the Settlement. Medications were allowed to expire with the offenders going weeks at a time without their medications. Protocols regarding laboratory and side effect monitoring were not being followed.
Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP: Offenders universally complained about the lack of counseling while being in segregation. This was confirmed by the monitoring team’s review of medical records of offenders housed in segregation. The usual
59

frequency of counseling visits by an MHP was monthly if at all. This issue was especially problematic at Pontiac. This lack of supportive counseling is one of the reasons there is such a demand placed on the Crisis Intervention Team. The offenders report that the only way to speak with any mental health staff is by asking to see the Crisis Intervention Team.
Several SMI inmates at Menard, however, reported that they were receiving individual therapy with an MHP on a weekly or semi-weekly basis.
Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established: Over the course of the monitoring period, the monitoring team did not encounter a functioning multidisciplinary team in any of the segregation units visited.
MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing: Please see (XIV)(b), above.
Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record: Please see (VII)(e), above.
Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation: The Monitor is aware that the majority of IDOC facilities do not house offenders in segregation for longer than 60 days. In those facilities that do, the amount of out-of-cell time offered to these offenders has steadily increased over the monitoring period. At the time of the submission of this report, mentally ill offenders in segregation are routinely offered 10 hours of unstructured out-of-cell time per week. Offender refusals, however, continue to present difficulties. Simply documenting that the inmate refused and not doing anything about it is inadequate. Refusals can be a significant indication of mental deterioration and should be considered a serious psychiatric symptom.
The actual schedule of unstructured out-of-cell time is also problematic. Stateville has been providing 10 hours of yard time per week, but this was broken down into five hours on Saturday and five hours on Sunday, with no yard time during the week. In large part, as a result of this heavy concentration of recreation time, Stateville was seeing a significant amount of refusals. The yard was a very limited area, with limited activities, and no toileting facilities. Once an inmate was out for yard, he was required to remain outside for the full five hours.
At Menard, inmates received 7 to 7.5 hours of yard per week; in the team’s early site visits, this was distributed across three days a week, but as of the February site visit, this was consolidated to a five-hour block and a two-hour block. The facility was employing individual runs to further facilitate yard time. However, Menard’s documentation made it very hard to track serial refusers, which can be common when yard time is offered in one lengthy block of time.
The Monitor’s concern about refusers is that repeated refusals may indicate improperly treated mental illness. An inmate may be psychotic and not want to go out because of unwarranted fears that other inmates may hurt him during yard time, or he may be depressed and require clinical interventions.
60

XV(a)(vi):6 Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-ofcell time in accordance with subsection (c) below.7
Findings: In all segregation facilities monitored, mentally ill offenders who had been in administrative or disciplinary segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days do not receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below. Requirements regarding unstructured out-of-cell time were being met at the end of the monitoring period. Structured out-of-cell time was being offered but did not meet the requirements of subsection (c), below.
XV(a)(vii): Specific requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP8 unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: For the most part, there is no formal procedure for mental health staff to identify inmates for removal from segregation, other than through weekly segregation rounds and/or calls for a Crisis Intervention Team. This is particularly a problem in combination with no 48-hour, seven-day, or monthly reviews or treatment plan updates for new segregation placements. There is a heavy reliance on segregation rounds, which are extremely cursory and conducted at the cell front, and crisis placements.
There are numerous instances of mentally ill offenders being removed from segregation into crisis watch for prolonged periods, only to be returned directly from crisis watch back into segregation. The vast majority of placements into crisis watch for ten or more days (ten out of 14 at Stateville and 19 out of 23 at Menard) were from segregation.
• Stateville: Of the ten offenders coming out of crisis watch in July through September 2016 after ten or more consecutive days in crisis watch, and who had been in segregation when put into crisis watch, all but one were placed directly back into segregation from crisis watch. The only one not placed back into segregation had been on crisis watch for five months. In two other cases, the offenders were placed into segregation directly from long periods in crisis watch, including one period that was 1.5 months.
• Menard: For offenders for whom information is available, all but one of the inmates placed from segregation into crisis watch for a period of ten or more days were then
6 This numbering from the Settlement Agreement is in error but this report will continue to use it to remain consistent with the numbering in the Settlement Agreement. 7 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on page 20 of the Settlement Agreement 8 IDOC’s compliance with the portion of this provision regarding MHP recommendations for placement into crisis care is discussed elsewhere this report.
61

returned to segregation. This is particularly problematic where staff has not provided input regarding current mental health status as part of the Segregation Review Committee process (see discussion below, XV(b)(iii)).
• Pontiac: While crisis watch seems like a frequent recourse, it is positive that there appears to be an increasing use of RTUs following lengthy stays in crisis watch. There also were many instances in which a mentally ill offender was quickly transferred from crisis to the RTU. But it appears that, like the other facilities, staff identify an offender as requiring removal from segregation only after an actual crisis.
XV(b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
XV(b)(i):Specific requirements: IDOC will organize Review Committees (‘Committees’) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
Findings: In the quarterly report of March 23, 2017, IDOC indicated “those reviews have occurred for SMI offenders and are complete at all facilities.” Consistent with this, Dixon, Logan and Menard security staff informed the team that each of their facilities had created a SMI Review Committee, which reviews all cases of segregated SMI prisoners. The quarterly report and information provided ahead of and during the monitoring team’s site visits indicated that substantial amounts of time were cut.
XV(b)(ii): Specific requirements: The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
Findings: IDOC purports to have met this requirement. The monitoring team will evaluate this issue going forward.
XV(b)(iii): Specific requirements: With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed this requirement at Logan, Menard, and Pontiac. Here, the segregation review process was flawed by not fully considering current mental health, weighing current symptoms in favor of segregation retention, and documentation suggested reviews were cursory or may not have taken MHP input into account.
At Menard, while MHP input was accepted, the facility failed to consider factor (5), the offender’s current mental health status, that is, the potential impact of segregation on the offender’s mental health. The focus – in terms of the way that an offender’s mental health factored into the committee’s decision – was instead entirely on the role of the offender’s mental health in the infractions themselves. Key members of the review committee reported this to the monitoring team.
62

At Logan, the review process considered risk of self-harm to be a factor weighing against earlier release from segregation, the concern being that inmates would have greater access to property they could use to inflict self-harm and would have of less staff supervision. This is an enormously flawed approach, as the risk of self-harm should be a factor in favor of release from segregation. This is particularly concerning given that the review process was directed specifically at inmates identified as SMI. A significant majority of inmate suicides occur in segregation, as segregation itself imposes psychic stress, which can exacerbate depression and other potentially lethal psychiatric symptoms as well as creating psychiatric disorders de novo in offenders without pre-existing mental illness.
At Pontiac, staff reported that they worked backwards from the date they wanted the person to be released and then reduced the time accordingly. This presumably accounted for current mental health status, but the staff was unable to clearly articulate why this was the case.
The team also notes that a number of SMI offenders went through the review process but nonetheless have lengthy periods in segregation remaining. Documentation regarding mental health staff’s input into this process is limited, as the decisions were usually the result of discussion among the committee members. In the case of Stateville, where there is more documentation, the recorded reasoning was generic (even copied and pasted in some cases), and explanations regarding remaining segregation time in a couple of cases indicate a need for earlier release than what was decided. Indeed, the staff indicated that the mental health staff’s recommendations considered the need for at least some discipline where the offender incurred numerous infractions. In one case, mental health staff recommended an additional 43 months’ reduction “based on continuing mental health and behavioral symptoms” and the new segregation release date is January 23, 2020. In another case, on the same basis, documents state that mental health staff recommended an additional 150-month [sic] reduction with a segregation release date of February 4, 2028.9 Offenders told the monitoring team that they did not even realize they had time cut from their segregation terms.
Logan operates a unique program that is essentially an ongoing version of the SMI Segregation Review Committee. Through this program, staff revisits each long-term segregation offender’s status and provides opportunities for further cuts to segregation time. While this program is generally a good idea, the monitoring team learned that, when, in the course of reviewing an inmate’s case, staff identifies that an offender is at greater risk of self-harm if released from segregation, such risk is a factor that weighs against releasing the offender from segregation. Multiple members of the committee, including the director of mental health services and an attorney, confirmed this practice. Staff reported that segregation provides more security and supervision so that the offender cannot as easily get items to cause harm to themselves. Staff also indicated that release to general population can be overwhelming to the offender and cause her to become self-injurious. Of course, this approach does not seem to account for the possibility of putting into place various supports and interventions that would mitigate this risk, as well as the national statistical reality that the majority of prisoner suicides occur in segregation.
9 Both of these terms are labeled as reductions, but it appears extensions were intended and they were mislabeled.
63

Offenders brought before the review committee had – and took – the opportunity to describe the impact of remaining in segregation for a prolonged period of time. One offender reported that offenders in long-term segregation think about suicide, lack support or meaningful contact, and are affected by other offenders’ screaming and engaging in other disturbing behaviors. She said that officers do not seem to care about the offenders’ well being and will even say as much, sometimes even telling an offender to harm herself. While these claims were not substantiated, it was evident that the offender experienced real anguish as a result of the ongoing placement.
Another offender brought before the review committee reported that her day consists of waiting on her trays, waiting on the nurses, and going to sleep. She reported that “because I have nothing to do,” she would often start thinking “crazy thoughts.” She said, “I feel like I’m caged in.” She said that she does not deserve “to be punished so heinously.” She reported that her last phone call was eight months earlier and that she received no visits.
The monitoring team plans continued and extensive evaluation of this requirement during the upcoming monitoring period.
XV(b)(iv): Specific requirements: The committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
Findings: The monitoring team found that these committees have the authority specified in this subsection of the Settlement. Throughout the monitoring period, the monitoring team encountered numerous examples of SMI offenders’ remaining segregation time being reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii). At Dixon, the main Disciplinary Officer reported that, after the committee completed its initial review, the population of segregated SMI prisoners was reduced by approximately one-half. At the time of the November site visit, there were just nine inmates in the facility with more than 60 days to serve in segregation. Of note, three of these inmates have very lengthy segregation sentences (2.5 years, 4 years, and 12 years). Several inmates at Menard have very lengthy segregation sentences even after review by the committee. At Menard, there was one inmate whose segregation sentence was cut down to 24 years (ending in 2041) from 51 years (ending in 2068). Of note, as a facility, Logan was especially proactive in meeting this requirement.
XV(b)(v): Specific requirements: The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
Findings: This requirement was being met at all the facilities monitored.
XV(b)(vi): Specific requirements: These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This requirement was met at all the facilities monitored. In addition, IDOC reports that this requirement was accomplished timely throughout the system
64

XV(c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
XV(c)(i): Specific requirements: With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/ Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
20 Illinois Administrative Code Section 504 Subpart D: Segregation, Investigative Confinement and Administrative Detention—Adult provides:
Applicability, definitions, and responsibilities for IDOC staff regarding placement of offenders in segregation status; segregation standards for offenders placed into segregation, investigative confinement, administrative detention; and standards for recreation for offenders in segregation status.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
II (G): Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
II (H): Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any
65

reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317
66

for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: The details of the disciplinary process for SMI offenders are discussed in Section XXV, below.
II (I): Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: There is currently not a reliable system to identify mentally ill offenders who are deteriorating due to continued placement in segregation.
XV(c)(ii): Specific Requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: These reviews are not yet occurring anywhere in IDOC; the budget contingent approval date has not yet occurred.
67

XV(c)(iii): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
1) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP.
2) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
3) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). 4) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP. 5) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. 6) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. 7) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. 8) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings: Please refer to the findings under section XV(a)(vi), above.
XV(c)(iv): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.10
Findings: In all segregation facilities monitored, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days do not receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below. Unstructured out-of-cell time, in accordance with subsection (c), below, was being offered at the end of the monitoring period. Problems persisted in meeting the requirements for structured out-of-cell time.
XV(c)(v): Specific Requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendation shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: Please refer to the findings under section XV (a)(vii), above.
10 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on pages 19 and 20 of the Settlement.
68

XV(c)11: Specific Requirement: Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-ofcell time per week.
ii. For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours outof-cell time per week.
iii. For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours out-of-cell time per week.
iv. For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours outof-cell time per week.
Findings:
Structured out-of-cell time: Structured time, as with all therapeutic activities, needs to be documented in the inmate’s medical record. In addition, IDOC sorely needs to develop and implement an electronic method for tracking structured time. As not all structured activities are documented in an offender’s medical record, IDOC relies upon rosters or logbooks to monitor structured time. A system to track “refusals” currently does not exist.
Overall, the amount of structured out-of-cell time has improved over this first year of the Settlement. More groups and other therapeutic activities are being offered with more offenders participating. Logan began providing structured programming for mentally ill offenders in November 2016. At the time of the February 2017 site visit, the facility was offering five hours per week of structured programming. Dixon began providing structured programming for mentally ill offenders in segregation in September 2016. At the time of the January 2017 visit, X House offered approximately five hours of structured activities per week. The offenders from the X House reported that the activities were run by caring clinicians and were relevant to the offenders’ needs. The structured activities, however, were not being carried out in a confidential setting.
Problems still exist in meeting the four-hour per week threshold, however. At Pontiac, the largest segregation facility in IDOC, the team found that mentally ill offenders are not receiving the required four hours of structured out-of-cell time. Data collected as recently as March 2017 show that of the offenders in North House, 74 of 168 only receive 1 to 1.5 hours per week, and of the offenders in West House, 60 of 120 receive 1 to 4 hours per week.
11 As above, this appears mislabeled in the Settlement but is carried forward here.
69

Unstructured out-of-cell time: Please refer to the findings under section XV(a)(vi)(H), above.
The 60-day requirement: By way of technical assistance, it is of serious concern that this particular requirement of the Settlement only calls for increased out-of-cell time for offenders in segregation for more than 60 days. Any amount of segregation causes its own unique set of mental health issues. It can exacerbate preexisting mental health issues as well as causing new mental illness to occur. Also, there are potentially contradictory requirements with Section XV (a)(vi)(H), which calls for “weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at a relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP.” The Monitor requests that the monitoring team receive clarification on this issue from the parties as soon as practicable.
Segregation-like settings: The team has a similar concern regarding out-of-cell time for those inmates who, while not in formal segregation, are in segregation-like confinement for a prolonged period of time. Mentally ill offenders often stay in R&C units for longer than 60 days. This is a particular problem at the Stateville and Menard R&Cs. Efforts should be made to provide mentally ill offenders in R&C units the same amount of structured and unstructured outof-cell time that is provided to offenders housed in control units.
XV(d): Specific Requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The first year provisions of this Section have not been met. The overall deadline for nearly all provisions is several years hence. The monitoring team will continue to closely follow this issues during the next monitoring period.
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
Summary: The training requirements have been met. Crisis Intervention Teams are constituted and operating according to the provisions of this subsection, but some custody staff reportedly make judgments that the severity of the situation does not warrant calling the team. The teams sometimes do not respond to mentally ill offenders presenting with serious issues other than suicide, and those offenders have not routinely been placed on a crisis watch. Within crisis watch, staff are observing the requirements.
Administrative Review teams do review suicides and make recommendations, but there is little attention to the quality of medical or mental health care and some relevant health care records. The lack of a corrective action plan with assigned responsibilities and timeframes significantly limits this mechanism’s effectiveness.
70

(XVI)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
The section titled “Identification, Treatment and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” from the IDOC Mental Health SOP Manual12 provides general guidelines for the handling of suicidal offenders. AD 04.04.102, however, provides a number of specific requirements:
II (F) Requirements: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall: 1)Establish a Crisis Intervention Team. a. The Crisis Intervention Team shall consist of: (1) A Crisis Intervention Team Leader who shall be an MHP; (2) All facility MHPs and nursing staff; and (3) At least one member of the facility’s security staff of the rank of Lieutenant or above. NOTE: Other Crisis Intervention Team members may be chosen from facility staff upon the recommendation of the Team Leader to ensure at least one member is on site at all times. b. Prior to serving, all members of the Crisis Intervention Team shall receive training in accordance with Paragraph II.g.1. Crisis Intervention Team Members on leave of absence shall be required to make up missed training upon return and prior to resuming service on the Crisis Intervention Team. c. All Crisis Intervention Team Members shall participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.
(1) Meetings shall be held to: (a) Review all events involving offender suicide during the previous quarter; (b) Review the Facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan in accordance with Paragraph II.G; and (c) Assess the adequacy of the facility’s training program in relation to the facility’s needs
(2) Meetings shall be documented in writing and shall: (a) Include the date and minutes of the meeting, a list of all persons in attendance and any recommendations or issues noted; (b) Be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer, the respective Regional Psychological Administrator and the Chief of Mental Health
Findings: At all facilities monitored, Crisis Intervention Teams have been formed and trained. Due to the nascent stage of the CQI program, it is unclear if “all crisis team members [shall] participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.”
2) Designate a Crisis Care Area.
12 The Settlement references “Mental Health Protocol Manual.” IDOC has changed the name of this manual to “Mental Health SOP Manual.”
71

a. Crisis care areas shall be used to house offenders determined by an MHP to require removal from his or her current housing assignment for the purpose of mental health treatment or observation. b. Excluding exigent circumstances as determined by the Director or a Deputy director, segregation units shall only be utilized for crisis care areas if no other crisis care areas are available, and only until alternative crisis care areas are available. c. Cells designated as crisis care areas shall: Allow for visual and auditory observation of the entire cell; Allow for prompt staff access; Control outside stimuli; Contain beds that are suicide resistant and constructed of a metal base, cinder block, concrete slab or herculite material; Contain a pass through or chuck holes that open out of the cell; Contain mesh coverings over all vents; Contain laminated glass over all windows or be safely and security glazed windows; and Be made appropriately suicide resistant and provide adequate lighting and temperature.
Findings: As reported in Section X(f) above, crisis cells are still located in segregated housing units at Logan, and as overflow at Pontiac, but not in other facilities monitored.
II (G): Prevention and Intervention Plan
The Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the facility’s mental health authority, shall establish a written procedure for responding to, and providing emergency mental health services, including prevention and intervention of emergency mental health situations. The procedure shall be reviewed annually and shall be approved by the Chief of Mental Health and shall include, at a minimum, provisions for the following: training, referrals for emergency mental health situations, crisis intervention team response, crisis watch, response to self-inflicted injuries and suicide, and quality improvement reviews.
Findings: IDOC is meeting this requirement at the majority of its facilities. The Monitor has received the Institutional Directive called for in this subsection of the Settlement from 22 of the IDOC facilities. IDOC had one year from the approval of the Settlement to address the requirements of this very important requirement. The Monitor is concerned, however, in reviewing the individual Institutional Directives on this subject, that some of them only became effective in the month prior to the submission of this report.
1) Training The Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training shall establish standardized training programs that provide information on emergency mental health services. All training shall be provided by an MHP, or in the absence of the MHP, a current crisis team member and, where appropriate, shall include enhanced content specific to the facility. a. Level I Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all staff that have regular interaction with offenders, and shall include a minimum of one hour of the following: (1) Elements of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan; (2) Demographic and cultural parameters of suicidal behavior in a correctional setting, including incidence and variations in precipitating factors; (3) Risk factors and behavioral indicators of suicidal behavior; (4)
72

Understanding, identifying, managing and referring suicidal offenders, including the importance of communication between staff; (5) Procedural response and follow-up procedures including crisis treatment supervision levels and housing observation; and (6) Documentation requirements. b. Level II Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all personnel identified in the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan as having the authority to initiate a crisis watch. Level II training shall consist of a minimum of four hours of in-depth didactic and experiential training in assessing suicide risk and procedures for initiating a crisis watch. c. Level III Training shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members, excluding MHPs, and shall consist of 24 hours of advanced training in the philosophy of suicide prevention and continuous quality improvement of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan.
(1) Crisis Intervention Team members shall also be trained by an MHP, designated by the Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training. This training will give the Crisis Intervention Team member the ability to instruct on the standardized training curriculum that provides information on emergency mental health services during cycle training, in the absence of the MHP. (2) Training shall be completed prior to active service with the Crisis Intervention Team. d. Clinical Continuing Education shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members and shall consist of a minimum of one hour per quarter of training to assist Crisis Intervention Team members in monitoring facility policy and procedure and in reviewing suicide attempts or completions. Clinical Continuing Education Training may be obtained through participation in the quarterly Crisis Intervention Team quality assurance meeting.
Findings: The training requirements specified in this subsection of the Settlement Agreement have been met.
2) Referrals for Emergency Mental Health Situations Staff shall immediately notify the Crisis Intervention Team, through his or her chain of command, of any situation whereby an offender exhibits behavior indicative of mental or emotional distress, imminent risk for harm to self or an attempted suicide.
Findings: Please refer to the findings under Section V(g), above.
3) Crisis Intervention Team Response a. At least one Crisis Team member shall be on site at all times. The designated Crisis Intervention Team Leader shall be available by phone when not on site. b. The Chief of Mental Health and the respective Regional Psychological Administrator shall be notified within 24 hours of the suicide of an offender, and within 72 hours of any attempted suicide.
73

c. Upon notice of a potential crisis situation, a Crisis Intervention Team member shall: (1) Implement necessary means to prevent escalation and to stabilize the situation. (2) Ensure that the offender is properly monitored for safety. (3) Review the situation with the Crisis Team Leader or and MHP to determine what services or referrals shall be provided. If the Crisis Intervention Team Leader is not on grounds and cannot be reached by telephone, and there are no MHPs on grounds, the Crisis Team member shall contact an alternative MHP and the review may be completed via telephone. (4) Initiate a crisis care treatment plan to monitor and facilitate the delivery of services, including referrals for mental or medical examination, and any additional recommendations of the MHP. The crisis care treatment plan shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Log, DOC 0377. Referrals for additional examination or services following the offender’s release from a crisis care treatment level of care shall be documented on a DOC 0377. (5) If determined that the offender does not need to be placed in the crisis care area, notify the Shift Commander of any additional care requirements for security staff.
Findings: IDOC is meeting the requirements of this section of the Settlement.
4) Crisis Watch a. A crisis watch shall be initiated when: (1) An offender exhibits behavior that is likely to cause harm to him or herself. (2) Mental health issues render an offender unable to care for him or herself. (3) Gestures, threats or attempts of suicide are made. (4) The Evaluation for Suicide Potential, DOC 0379, if administered, indicates need. (5) Less restrictive measures have failed or are determined to be clinically ineffective.
Findings: As noted in Section V(g) above, during the monitoring period, crisis watch has almost exclusively been used to house suicidal offenders and reportedly some Crisis Intervention Teams will not respond if the complaint falls under one of the other criteria. Mentally ill offenders presenting with serious issues other than suicide have not routinely been placed on a crisis watch. This particular issue will be closely monitored during the next monitoring period.
b. Determination to initiate a crisis watch shall be made by an MHP. If an MHP is not available, the following individuals, in order of priority, may initiate a crisis watch: (1) Respective Regional Psychologist Administrator, (2) Any Regional Psychologist Administrator, (3) Chief of Psychiatry, (4) Chief of Mental Health Services, (5) Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Leader, (6) Back-up Duty Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Member c. Offenders in crisis watch shall not be transferred to another facility unless clinically indicated and approved by the Chief of Mental Health or in the absence of the Chief of Mental Health, the Chief of Psychiatry. d. Upon initiation of a crisis watch, an MHP shall determine: (1) The appropriate level of supervision necessary in accordance with Paragraph II.E.; and (2) Allowable property, including the type and amount of clothing.
74

e. Unless medically contraindicated: (1) Water shall be available in the cell or offered at regular intervals. When water is not available in the cell, the offers shall be documented on the DOC 0377. (2) Meals not requiring utensils shall be provided in the cell or crisis care area. If contraindicated, alternative nutrition sources shall be provided. f. The offender’s vital signs shall be taken by health care staff within 24 hours of placement on crisis watch, or sooner if the offender has been placed in restraints for mental health purposes. g. Prior to placement in a designated crisis care area, the offender shall be stripsearched and the cell inspected for safety. h. Offenders shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, dependent upon level of supervision. All observations shall be documented within the appropriate staggered intervals, on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378, and shall include staff’s observation of the offender’s behavior and speech, as appropriate. i. The offender shall be evaluated by an MHP, or in his or her absence, a Crisis Intervention Team member, in consultation with the Crisis Team Leader, at least once every 24 hours. The evaluation shall assess the offender’s current mental health status and response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented on the DOC 0377. j. An offender’s crisis watch shall only be terminated by an MHP following the completion of an evaluation assessing the offender’s current mental health status and the offender’s response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented in the offender’s medical record and the termination of the crisis watch shall be documented on the DOC 0377.
Findings: IDOC is not meeting the requirements of this section of the Settlement. Crisis watch was used almost exclusively for suicidal offenders to the neglect of those offenders whose “mental health issues render an offender unable to care for him or herself.”
5) Response to Self-Inflicted Injury and Suicides a. Responses to medical emergencies shall be in accordance with AD 04.03.108, and shall include immediate notification of an MHP. b. In the event of attempted suicide, the preservation of the offender’s life shall take precedence over preservation of the crime scene; however, any delay in response due to security factors shall be noted in the Incident Report, DOC 0434.
Findings: On March 3, 2017, the Monitor was present on the Pontiac Mental Health Unit when a SMI offender attempted suicide while on a ten-minute watch status. I was able to observe the response of the custody staff and the medical staff to this emergency. The combined response of the custody and medical staff that I observed was done professionally and expeditiously. The quick action of the staff resulted in saving the offender’s life.
My concern about this case, however, involves the precarious nature of this offender’s health prior to and after he attempted suicide. A MHP progress note on the
75

morning prior to the offender’s suicide attempt stated “hemoglobin level must be at least a 10 before he will be considered to be taken off watch.” Hemoglobin level is a reflection of the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Normal hemoglobin level for an otherwise healthy male is 13.5-17.0. A hemoglobin level of less than 13.5 requires a medical workup to determine its cause. In this case the primary cause of the offender’s extremely low hemoglobin level was the fact that he suffers blood loss by repeatedly cutting himself. This behavior is most likely due to the severity of his mental illness and prolonged housing in segregation. All of this means that the offender was in a precarious state of health prior to losing more blood during his suicide attempt.13 Chief Hinton informed me that the offender was taken to a local hospital for medical stabilization where he received one unit of blood and his hemoglobin level was noted to be 7.5. Staff reportedly consulted with the facility medical director. Upon return to Pontiac the offender was placed in four-point restraints to prevent any further self-injurious behavior and was housed in the infirmary. He was subsequently placed on a continuous watch.
There are many serious problems noted with this case. This offender, with a history of repeated self-injurious behaviors, had a hemoglobin level of less than ten while he was on suicide watch. At this point he was at risk of dying from a relatively trivial loss of blood. He required aggressive medical stabilization for this “less than ten” hemoglobin level. He subsequently lost more blood and received only minimal medical stabilization and was quickly returned to Pontiac where he remained at significant risk of death. This offender should have been kept at the local hospital until he truly was hemodynamically stable. If that were not possible, he should have been moved to a prison hospital where he could receive additional needed medical care.
The concern is that the monitor learned about this case by pure coincidence. There may be other mentally ill offenders in similarly precarious medical conditions that are at risk of death from trivial self-injurious behaviors. The monitoring team will be closely reviewing this issue moving forward.
6) Quality Improvement Reviews a. Mortality Review: In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief of Mental Health shall designate an MHP to complete a psychological autopsy. The psychological autopsy shall be documented on the Psychological Autopsy, DOC 0375, and shall be submitted to the Chief of mental Health within seven working days of assignment. b. Administrative Review
(1) In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief Administrative Officer shall: (a) Establish a clinical review team who shall systemically analyze the event. The Review Team shall consist of: i. Mental health and medical staff, including an MHP, a psychiatrist and a registered or licensed
13 I use the term “suicide attempt” due to the lethal nature of his actions. It is possible that the offender did not intend to end his life. Regardless, he could have easily died were it not for the quick action of the staff.
76

practical nurse. Medical staff chosen for the clinical review team shall have no direct involvement in the treatment of the offender for a minimum of 12 months prior to the event. ii. A security staff supervisor. NOTE: Facility administrators or staff, whose performance or responsibilities maybe directly involved in the circumstances of the suicide, shall not be chosen for the review team. (b) Designate a clinical review team Chairman who shall ensure all relevant documentation pertaining to the offender and his or her treatment including, but not limited to, the master file, medical record, Medical Director’s death summary and the DOC 0375, if applicable, is available to the clinical review team. (2) Within ten working days following the suicide, the clinical review team shall complete a review to: (a) Ensure appropriate precautions were implemented and Department and local procedures were followed; and (b) Determine if there were any personal, social or medical circumstances that may have contributed to the event, or if there were unrealized patterns of behavior or systems that may have indicated earlier risk. (3) Upon completion of the review, the Chairperson shall submit a written report to the Chief Administrative Officer, the facility’s Training Coordinator, the Chief of Mental Health and the respective Deputy Director summarizing the review team’s findings and providing any recommended changes or improvements.
Findings: The Administrative Reviews make recommendations, but they contain no clear corrective action plan that delineates who is responsible for following up on each recommendation, the time frame in which changes should be made, or the plan to reassess problem areas. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102 (Suicide Prevention and Intervention and Emergency Services) is also vague in this area, specifying no action beyond simply reporting the Administrative Review team’s findings to the Chief Administrative Officer, Training Coordinator, and Chief of Mental Health. This is a critical flaw in IDOC’s suicide prevention strategy, rendering the mortality reviews essentially meaningless for affecting systemic change.
In addition, the Administrative Reviews address mainly whether security protocols were followed, without much attention paid to the quality of medical or mental health care. Although the Psychological Autopsy (DOC 0375) contains a more thorough and detailed assessment of the mental health factors contributing to the inmate’s death, its findings and recommendations are not routinely incorporated into the Administrative Review. This lack of attention paid to the Psychological Autopsy seems inconsistent with the protocol outlined in Administrative Directive 04.04.102, which states that the 0375 report should be reviewed by the Administrative Review team.
Of note, the Administrative Review team did not routinely look at the following sources of information in suicide cases:
a. Medication Administration Records around the time of death
77

b. Medical charts from previous IDOC admissions c. Outside medical and mental health records, such as county jail or parole
records, particularly when the inmate’s suicide occurred a short time after arrival at the IDOC facility d. Pre-sentencing investigation reports and other court-related mental health evaluations, such as fitness to stand trial e. Video footage of the relevant areas of the facility, both before and after discovery of the suicide
In some cases, these records were reviewed during the Psychological Autopsy, but in other cases they seem to have been missed altogether. In particular, it seemed odd that the Administrative Review team did not comment on whether video footage matched the written incident reports submitted by staff members about the suicide discovery and response. This review would be essential in one of the suicides, where inmates raised concerns about officers doing “fake rounds” and the log book documentation appeared to be altered.
All the suicides occurred in known high-risk circumstances in corrections: in single cells, by hanging, shortly after arrival in IDOC or after a housing change, in inmates with mental health and substance abuse problems. Nothing about the immediate circumstances of the deaths struck the Monitor as unusual. However, the Administrative Reviews identified many of the same systemic problems with mental health care that the Rasho monitoring team has noticed during facility tours and records reviews:
a. Severe understaffing of psychiatrists and MHPs b. Inconsistent follow-up with psychiatrists and MHPs c. Poor recognition and follow-up of serious psychiatric symptoms d. Inadequate gathering of outside records to aid with diagnosis and
treatment planning e. Lack of meaningful treatment plans
This is obviously concerning, since it suggests that systemic deficiencies are contributing to offenders’ deaths. Of note, the above-listed recommendations were first discussed with the Chiefs of Mental Health, Psychiatry and Legal during the Monitor’s first visit to Pontiac on August 26, 2016.
Two of the six suicides occurred at Graham Correctional Center. Although the numbers are too small to draw inferences about the quality of mental health care at Graham, the monitoring team will closely monitor this facility during the next monitoring period.
(XVI)(b): Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Although IDOC is meeting some of the requirements of this section of the Settlement, overall IDOC falls short of being in substantial compliance. All the items in this section are of critical importance. Ongoing problems with the responsiveness of the Crisis
78

Intervention Teams requires constant supervision and training of all staff involved. The poor quality of psychiatric services leaves mentally ill offenders at increased risk for suicide and contributes to their spending excessive periods of time in crisis. The administrative review process of offender suicides needs to rethought. The current process does not allow for corrective action to be implemented throughout IDOC to prevent future suicides.
The monitoring team is available to work closely with IDOC leadership to assist in addressing the deficiencies noted in this section of the Settlement.
XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
Summary: Each reviewed chart contained proper documentation of the clinical reasons for the restraint. Dixon does not keep track of the total time in restraints, and there is indication of at least some very lengthy restraint cases.
The Monitor received the Institutional Directive concerning security restraints from 21 of the 25 IDOC facilities. The team encountered no indication of such restraints being used for punishment.
(XVII)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC AD 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for the Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
IDOC AD 04.04.103 provides for:
II (G): Requirements
1. Restraints for mental health purposes shall be applied under medical supervision and shall only be used when other less restrictive measures have been found to be ineffective.
a. Under no circumstances shall restraints be used as a disciplinary measure.
b. Restraint implementation shall be applied by order of a psychiatrist, or if a psychiatrist is not available, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist. (1) If a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, a Registered Nurse (RN) may initiate implementation of restraints for mental health purposes. (2) The nurse shall then immediately make contact with the psychiatrist within one hour of the offender being placed into restraints, and obtain an order for the implementation. If the psychiatrist is not available, the nurse shall make contact with the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist.
2. Crisis treatment shall be initiated in accordance with AD 04.04.102.
79

a. The initial order for the use of restraints shall not exceed four hours.
b. Should subsequent orders become necessary, the time limit may be extended, but no subsequent order for restraint extension shall be valid for more than 16 hours beyond initial order. Documentation of the justification for extension of the restraint order shall be recorded in the offender’s medical chart.
c. If further restraint is required beyond the initial order and one extension, a new order must be issued pursuant to the requirements provide herein.
II (H): Orders for Restraints
1. Only a psychiatrist who has conducted a face to face assessment, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, who has conducted a face to face assessment, may order the use of restraints for offenders in a crisis treatment supervision level of continuous watch or suicide watch when the current crisis level does not provide adequate safeguards.
2. If a psychiatrist, physician or licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, and the Crisis Team Member, after consultation with the on-call Crisis Team Leader or Mental Health Professional, in accordance with AD 04.04.102, has recommended the use of restraints, a RN may obtain an order from a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist via telephone.
3. The offender must be assessed, face to face by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist within one hour of being placed in restraints. If a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site within the hour time limit, a RN shall conduct a face to face assessment, and present that assessment to the psychiatrist, the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist via a telephone consultation, and document accordingly in the medical chart. Verbal orders shall be confirmed, in writing, by the ordering individual within 72 hours.
4. Orders for restraints shall be documented on the Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes, DOC 0376, and shall include: a. The events leading up to the need for restraints, including efforts or less intrusive intervention; b. The type of restraints to be utilized; c. The length of time the restraints shall be applied; d. The criteria required for the offender to be taken out of restraints (e.g. the offender is no longer agitated or combative for a minimum of one hour, etc.; and e. The offender’s vital signs, checked by medical staff, at a minimum of every four hours. The frequency of vital signs checks for offenders with serious chronic health conditions may be required more frequently during the restraint period.
II (I) Implementation and Monitoring 1. Restraints shall be applied in a bed located in a crisis care area, or similar setting
that is in view of staff. Immediately following the placement of an offender in restraints for mental health purposes, medical staff shall conduct an examination of the offender to ensure that: a. No injuries exist; b. Restraint equipment is not
80

applied in a manner likely to result in injury; and c. There is no medical contraindication to maintain the offender in restraints. 2. Monitoring and documentation of visual and verbal checks of offenders in restraints for mental health purposes shall be performed as a continuous watch status or a suicide watch status in accordance with AD 04.04.102. All checks shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378. 3. Two hours after application of restraints, and every two hours thereafter, an offender may be allowed to have movement of his or her limbs. Movement shall be accomplished by freeing one limb at a time from restraints and for a period of time of approximately two minutes. Movement shall only be allowed if the freeing of the limb will not pose a threat of harm to the offender being restrained, or others. Limb movement shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart and by the watch officer on the DOC 0378. Denial of free movement and explanation for the denial shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart by medical staff. 4. Release from restraints for short periods of time shall be permitted as soon as practical, as determined by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or clinical psychiatrist. 5. The amount of restraint used shall be reduced as soon as possible to the level of lest restriction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the offender and staff. 6. Clothing shall be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with the application and monitoring of restraints. The genital area of both male and females, and the breast area of females shall be covered to the extent possible while still allowing for visual observation of the restraints. Females shall not be restrained in a position where the legs are separated. 7. Restraints shall be removed upon the expiration of the order, or upon the order of a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, or in the absence of one of the approved aforementioned professionals being physically on site, an RN who, based upon observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition, determines that there is no longer cause to utilize restraints. Observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition shall be documented in the medical chart. 8. Offenders shall remain in, at minimum, close supervision status for a minimum of 24 hours after removal of restraints. Should any other crisis level or care status b utilized, justification of the care shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart. 9. Documentation of the use of restraints for mental health purposes shall be submitted to the Agency Medical Director and shall include the DOC 0376 and subsequent nursing and mental health notes. 10. All events whereby the use of restraints has been issued shall be reviewed during quality improvement meetings in accordance with AD 04.03.125.
Findings: The overall requirements of this section of the Settlement Agreement were being met throughout the monitored facilities. IDOC’s records indicate that Dixon had 13 restraints from September through December of 2016. During the site visits, the monitoring team reviewed charts of four restrained patients and observed a restraint in the infirmary on November 15, 2016. Each of the charts contained proper documentation of the clinical reasons for the restraint. IDOC’s practice appears to allow a psychologist--usually the lead MHP--or
81

psychiatrist to order the restraint, which initially lasts up to four hours and then can be renewed for 16 hours. The Monitor would note that the facility does not keep track of the total time in restraints for each patient, and this information is crucial to understanding whether the policy is functioning appropriately. For example, although only 13 restraints occurred in the four-month period of September through December 2016, one inmate had been in restraints continuously from October 12, 2016 until the day of the site visit on January 12, 2017 (92 days or 2,208 hours). Tracking this incident as one restraint simply does not capture the totality of the circumstances. Moving forward, all IDOC facilities should document not only the number of restraints initiated, but also their duration.
The case described above is an example that restraints are being used with seriously mentally ill offenders whose treatment needs exceed what is currently available in IDOC. The lack of a mental health treatment system that can adequately address the needs of these seriously mentally ill offenders results in needless suffering for these individuals. Due to a combination of exceedingly poor psychiatric care, insufficient numbers of MHPs, lack of RTU beds, and insufficient number of custody staff to ensure that offenders receive appropriate amounts of outof-cell time, these seriously mentally ill offenders end up being kept in restraints. The monitoring team plans to follow the cases of mentally ill offenders who required placement in restraints closely moving forward.
(XVII)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60, and Administrative Directive 05.01.126. The Administrative Code sections are titled Section 501.30: Resort to Force; Section 501.40: Justifiable Use of Force; and Section 501.60: General Use of Chemical Agents.
IDOC AD 05.01.126 provides for:
II (F): The Chief Administrative Officer shall ensure a written procedure for the use and control of security restraints is established. The written procedure shall provide for the following:
Use of Security Restraints
(1) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints shall be used: (a) To prevent an offender from escaping. (b) To retake an offender who has escaped. (c) To prevent or suppress violence by an offender against another person or property. (d) When transporting an offender outside the facility for the purposes of transfers, writs, etc., except when transporting offenders to assigned work details outside the facility, pregnant offenders for the purposes of delivery, or offenders assigned to the Moms and Babies Program on approved day release while transporting a minor child. (e) When transporting a transitional security offender for other than job related or programmatic activities directly related to successful completion of the transition center program.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints may be used: (a) When moving an
82

offender who is in disciplinary segregation or who is in segregation pending investigation within the facility; or (b) Whenever the Chief Administrative Officer deems it is necessary in order to ensure security within the facility or within the community. (3) Offenders on funeral or critical illness furlough shall be restrained in accordance with AD 05.03.127.

Inventory and Control

(a) A written master inventory of all security restraints, dated and signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, shall be maintained.

(b) All security restraints that have not been issued to staff shall be stored and maintained in a secure area or areas that are not accessible to offenders.

(c) A log documenting issuance and return of security restraints shall be

maintained in a secure area or areas. The log shall include: (1) Date and time

issued;

(2) Receiving employees name; (3) Issuing employees name; (4)

Date and time returned; and (5) Name of employee receiving the returned

restraints.

(d) A written report shall be filed on lost, broken, or malfunctioning security restraints. The report shall be reviewed by the Chief of Security and maintained on file with the security restraints inventory records for no less than one year.

Findings: IDOC is meeting this requirement at the majority of its facilities. The Monitor, however, has only received the Institutional Directive called for in this subsection of the Settlement from 21 of the 25 IDOC facilities.

(XVII)(c): Specific requirement: Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.

Findings: The monitoring team found no evidence that physical restraints are being used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.

(XVII)(d): Specific requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: With the exception of not producing all the policies regarding the use of restraints, IDOC is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS
Summary: The required forms are in general use throughout IDOC. When an offender is transferred from one facility to another, his entire medical record accompanies him. The overall quality of the medical records is poor.
83

(XVIII)(a): Specific requirement: In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
Findings: Over the first year of implementing the Settlement Agreement, use of the above-listed standardized forms has become increasingly common. Currently, these forms are in general use throughout IDOC. For example, at Dixon and Menard, the monitoring team reviewed examples of each of the forms delineated in the Settlement in inmates’ medical charts, with the exception of 0375 (Psychological Autopsy). IDOC leadership indicated that the 0375 form is used only when a death occurs for psychiatric reasons (e.g., suicide), which has not occurred at Dixon in approximately two years.
The use of these standardized forms has contributed to making the medical records more usable. As reported in other sections of this report, however, the medical records remain very disorganized. This disorganization makes it very difficult to adequately follow the clinical care of a mentally ill offender.
(XVIII)(b): Specific requirement: No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(7): The medical record shall be transferred to the receiving facility at the time of offender movement.
(7)(a): In the event that an offender is transferred from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice to an IDOC facility, the entire original medical record shall be transferred with the offender. The transferring youth center may keep a copy of the medical record. Such movement shall be treated as a departmental transfer with regard to documentation.
(7)(b): The medical record and, if applicable, medication shall be sealed in a clear plastic envelope through which the offender’s name and ID number can be easily identified.
(1) If the information on the DOC 0090 is not urgent in nature, the DOC 0090 shall be placed inside the front cover of the medical record.
(2) If the DOC 0090 contains urgently needed medical or medication disbursement information, the following steps shall be taken: (a) The DOC 0090 shall be folded in half to promote confidentiality and a notation of “URGENT MEDICAL INFORMATION” shall be
84

made in bold print on the exposed (blank) side of the DOC 0090. (b) The folded DOC 0090 with the notation side up shall be enclosed on top of the medical record inside the clear plastic so that these individuals can be immediately identified and evaluated upon arrival at a new institution. (c) Prior to transferring an offender who has significant medical problems as determined by the transferring facility Medical Director, the transferring Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing shall telephone the receiving Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing to advise of the transfer.
(7)(c): A member of the receiving health care staff shall complete the Reception Screening section of the DOC 0090. The DOC 0090 shall be placed chronologically in the progress notes section of the medical record; no progress note shall be required.
Findings: When an offender is transferred from one facility to another, his entire medical record accompanies him. The monitoring team has not yet had the opportunity to examine the packaging and labeling requirements described above, nor to determine whether the medications were accompanying the offender.
During a monitoring team visit to the Stateville R&C unit on September 7, 2016 the monitoring team discovered that when offenders were returned to the R&C unit on a writ, their medical records did not accompany them. Rather, a copy of the “Offender Health Status Transfer Summary” accompanied the offender. This procedure is based on AD 05.03.120, which doesn’t formally consider an offender’s being returned to a facility on a writ as a transfer. This is a potentially dangerous procedure even though it doesn’t violate the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement. The Monitor’s strong recommendation is to forward with the offender his most current volume of his medical record to the receiving facility. This change would not cause an undue burden for either the sending or the receiving facility and could prevent a potential medical or psychiatric disaster.
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
Summary: Medical Information Confidentiality Statements were routinely in use at the facilities monitored. An Administrative Directive has been modified to comply with the requirement to have a policy, and training on that policy has been occurring. IDOC made progress in moving away from cell side visits as the norm and made more staff offices available. However, those offices are underused as some custody staff remain reluctant to escort prisoners, and when prisoners are brought to the offices, it is common practice for officers to remain within hearing distance. A better balance between confidentiality and security concerns is needed. Records suggest that disclosure and informed consent practices are absent in some cases and minimally performed in others, particularly in psychiatry contacts.
XIX(a): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records.
85

AD 04.03.100, section II (E) (10) provides: Offender medical and mental health records are confidential. Access to medical and mental health records shall be limited to health care staff, other Department personnel and outside State and federal agencies on a need-to-know basis as determined appropriate by the Facility Privacy Officer or the Health Care Unit Administrator. All staff having access to medical records or medical information shall be required to sign a Medical Information Confidentiality Statement, DOC 0269, and a new DOC 0269 shall be signed during cycle training annually thereafter. The most recent DOC 0269 shall be retained in the staff member’s training file.
Findings: The monitoring team was provided the Medical Information Confidentiality Statements, DOC 0269, from Pontiac, Stateville, Menard, Logan and Dixon. Based on a review of these DOC 0269s, it appears that IDOC is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement. The monitoring team will review these signed confidentiality statements from the remainder of the IDOC facilities during the next monitoring cycle.
Specific requirement: Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services:
XIX(b): Specific requirement: Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
Findings: IDOC has modified AD 04.04.100 to address the requirement of this item. The modification involves subsection II (F)(2)(b) which states, “All mental health services shall be conducted in a manner which ensures confidentiality and sensitivity to the offender regardless of status or housing assignment.” The Monitor wanted clarification on the phrasing “shall be conducted in a manner which ensures” as the Settlement uses the term “requiring” when it comes to confidentiality. Chief Lindsay stated, “The paragraph begins with ‘shall,’ which means it is required.” Based on her assurances, the Monitor approved this modification to AD 04.04.100 on May 4, 2017. Moving forward, the monitoring team will evaluate all mental health contacts within IDOC as requiring confidentiality.
Training regarding staff’s responsibility to ensure confidentiality has been occurring in IDOC.
(XIX)(c): Specific requirement: Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)).
This section Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
86

Confidentiality of the clinician-offender relationship is grounded in ethical and legal principles. It rests, in part, on the assumption that a patient will be deterred from seeking care and discussing the important matters relevant to therapy if there is not some guaranteed confidentiality in that relationship. Clinicians should clearly specify any limits of confidentiality of the offender-clinician relationship. This disclosure should occur at the onset of treatment, except in emergencies. Notwithstanding these necessary limits on confidentiality, relevant guidelines should be adhered to, to the greatest degree possible. 36
Requests from outside organizations for Mental Health-related information about offenders shall be referred to the Treating Mental Health Professional. The release of any Confidential Mental Health Records must be accompanied by a consent form or release of confidential information form signed by the offender on an Authorization for Release of Offender Mental Health or Substance Abuse Treatment Information, (DOC 0240). In addition, the CAO shall be notified of this request.
Offender disclosures made to a Mental Health Professional in the course of receiving Mental Health Services are considered to be confidential and privileged, with the following exceptions: Threats to physically harm self and/or others; Threats to escape or otherwise disrupt or breach the security of the institution; Information about an identifiable minor child or elderly/disabled person who has been the victim of physical or sexual abuse; All other information obtained by a Mental Health Professional retains its confidential status unless the offender specifically consents to its disclosure;
In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
Findings: Confidentiality is an evolving concept for the IDOC. At the beginning of the monitoring period, little to no confidentiality was occurring in the delivery of mental health services. Cell-front visits were the norm as there was an almost complete lack of staff offices which provided sound confidentiality. As staff offices slowly became available, the monitoring team observed resistance on the part of custody staff to escort mentally ill offenders to confidential settings. Custody staff would routinely cite “security issues” as the basis for their not wanting to move mentally ill offenders. Confidentiality and security are both integral parts of a well-functioning correctional mental health system, which must learn to coexist if the department is to meet the requirements of the Settlement. After the Monitor’s meeting with the Director on November 10, 2016, the monitoring team noted slow but steady improvement in the area of confidentiality. This noted improvement in the area of confidentiality is contrasted with several significant impediments to meeting the requirements of this section of the Settlement. The physical plants of all the facilities monitored are not conducive to providing sound confidentiality. Also, custody staff continues to interfere with the mental health staff’s ability to conduct confidential meetings with the mentally ill offenders. In addition to custody staff’s ongoing reluctance to move mentally ill offenders to confidential settings, they now insist that
87

the doors to the treatment rooms remain open with their standing within hearing distance of the treatment encounter. All of these issues will be closely monitored going forward.
(XIX)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into the IDOC AD 04.04.101 section II (E)(2) within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Before initiating psychotropic medication, the psychiatric provider must complete at least a brief history and Mental Status Examination to determine that the offender (a) has a basic understanding that he or she has a Mental Health Problem, (b) understands that medication is being offered to produce relief from that problem, and (c) is able to give consent to treatment. The clinician must also inform the offender about alternative treatments, the appropriate length of care, and the fact that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without compromising access to other Health Care. With the exception of Mental Health emergencies, informed consent must be obtained from the offender each time the Psychiatric Provider prescribes a new class of Psychotropic Medication.14
Findings: Throughout the monitoring period, this issue appears not to have received a lot of attention from the mental health and psychiatric staff. The lack of sufficient numbers of both mental health and psychiatric staff also contributes to the fact that the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement are not being met. The monitoring team has certainly reviewed medical records in which QMPs have documented their efforts at informed consent. Even when present, the documentation of these attempts at providing informed consent tend to be superficial. The problems are even worse for the psychiatrists. Due to the tremendous backlog of psychiatric visits, mentally ill offenders report they are not even given the opportunity to provide informed consent. In the cases where a psychiatrist sees mentally ill offenders, there is rarely documented evidence that informed consent was obtained in the manner specified in this subsection of the Settlement.
14 The Manual defines “Informed Consent”: “Informed Consent is defined as consent voluntarily given by an offender, in writing, after he or she has been provided with a conscientious and sufficient explanation of the nature, consequences, risks, and alternatives of the proposed treatment.” This section of the Manual also provides: “Offenders should be advised of the Limits of Confidentiality prior to their receiving any Mental Health Services.” This requirement is nearly identical to the requirement discussed above regarding confidentiality, so the team does not address it again here under Informed Consent.
88

XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
Summary: Treatment teams make this decision in the Dixon RTUs; MHPs reportedly make this decision at Menard. The monitoring team did not encounter any cases in violation of this requirement, though the Monitor has received several credible complaints to this effect, so the issue bears examination.
Specific requirement: The determination that an offender, who once met the criteria of seriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender’s mental health treatment team and documented in the offender’s mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
Findings: Mental health treatment teams in Dixon’s RTUs review each inmate’s diagnosis and SMI designation during the monthly treatment plan meeting. Only the treatment team can change an SMI designation. During the site visits, the monitoring team met with several offenders with limited insight into their mental illness that had requested removal of their SMI designation. After reviewing the cases with the treating MHPs, it appeared that the treatment teams were making clinically appropriate decisions about SMI designation and the necessary level of care for the inmates.
At Menard, all the staff and inmates the team interviewed reported that only mental health professionals can change an SMI designation. Menard does not yet have multidisciplinary teams in place, so the inmate’s treating MHP makes this decision.
The monitoring team has received a number of credible complaints about this procedure from plaintiffs’ counsel. Although unsubstantiated at this time, the monitor received a complaint that a SMI offender had his SMI status changed prior to a disciplinary hearing. Every mentally ill offender that the Monitor has spoken with over the first year of the Settlement implementation met the criteria for SMI. Only a small fraction of these offenders was officially designated SMI. So instead of the emphasis of taking away a SMI designation, IDOC should put its effort into properly designating mentally ill offenders as SMI. This is a critical issue as SMI status significantly impacts the disciplinary process. The Monitor is aware, however, that with proper treatment, an SMI offender could theoretically not meet the criteria for SMI. In that case, a change in designation is appropriate.
XXI: STAFF TRAINING
Summary: IDOC produced the two required training plans in the final days before submission of this report; thus, it has met the timeliness requirement. More than 13,000 staff reportedly have had NAMI training, which may cover some or all of the topics required by this section. An examination of the adequacy of the plans and curriculum will take place in Year 2. Understandably at this stage of a culture change, there are signs that not all staff appreciate the principles that this training is meant to instill, and leadership reinforcement is needed.
89

XXI(a): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
Findings: IDOC has produced a “plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below,” which is required by this subsection of the Settlement.
XXI(b): Specific requirement: Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII (a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas: i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population; ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal; iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication; iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability; v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises; vi) Suicide prevention; vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
Findings: The monitoring team noted mixed results regarding IDOC’s response to these training requirements. The monitor is well aware that the requirements of subsection (b) have a deadline of May 23, 2018. IDOC reports that over 13,000 employees have received the National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”) training. Chief Lindsay has represented that the NAMI training materials include the areas designated in subsection (b). The monitoring team has not been provided with these materials so the monitoring team is unable to render an opinion regarding their adequacy. Other problems are noted, however. During a monitoring visit at Dixon, IDOC leadership indicated that they have undertaken some staff training, but not to the extent required by the Settlement. Chief Lindsay reported that all Dixon staff members also underwent NAMI training in late 2015 or early 2016 in response to the Rasho litigation.
At Menard, mental health staff and inmates consistently raised concerns about corrections officers’ understanding of mental illness and commitment to the Rasho reforms. The staff noted that officers “blame mental health” for having to do more work and generally consider the reform effort “stupid.” The facility leadership acknowledged that more work needs to be done with line staff in order for the reforms to be successful.
As the deadline for meeting the requirements of subsection (b) is May 23, 2018, IDOC is not out of compliance with this subsection. The monitoring team plans on working very closely with IDOC staff to ensure that these critical trainings are accomplished. Of note, objectively
90

measuring the effects of these trainings on staffs’ attitudes and behavior would make an excellent CQI project.
XXI(c): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
Findings: IDOC has produced a “plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff,” which is required by this subsection of the Settlement.
XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
Summary: During both Dixon and Menard site visits, the monitoring team did not encounter any offenders who were denied access to programs within the prisons. To the extent early release programs are included in this requirement, some problematic practices were observed
(XXII)(a): Specific requirement: Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
Findings: IDOC appears to be meeting the requirements of this section of the Settlement at all of the monitored facilities. For example, during both Dixon and Menard site visits, the monitoring team did not encounter any offenders who were denied access to educational, religious, work, or substance abuse programs because of a mental health diagnosis or prescription of psychotropic medication. However, the team would note one very serious concern that was raised about SMI offenders’ ability to participate in parole or other early release programs. Offenders and MHPs described a system in which SMI inmates could be approved for parole and given a release date, but they did not actually leave the facility on that date in most cases. Offenders packed their belongings, walked to the front door of the facility, and then returned to their housing units after learning that no beds were available at one of the few community facilities that accepts SMI offenders. Understandably, this system caused significant distress in the offenders, many of whom have low frustration tolerance, high anxiety, and limited coping skills. In the monitor’s opinion, “Participation in Prison Programs” should also include equal access to early release programs. At the very least, facilities should stop the practice of
91

informing offenders at the last minute about whether they will be paroled on a given day. The current system causes unnecessary distress in offenders who are already quite fragile.
XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
Summary: According to mental health and custody staff at the facilities monitored, all provisions of this subsection have been satisfied.
XXIII(a): Specific requirement: To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
Findings: IDOC is generally meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement, according to mental health and custody staff interviewed. The monitoring team will continue to closely monitor this in the future.
XXIII(b): Specific requirement: When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
Findings: IDOC is generally meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement, according to mental health and custody staff interviewed. The monitoring team will continue to closely monitor this in the future.
XXIII(c): Specific requirement: The provisions of this section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The reported compliance occurred within this required timeframe.
92

XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
Summary: There were consistent, specific accounts of a location in segregation at Menard in which corporal punishment was allegedly meted out. In the limited number of cell extraction materials reviewed, questions were raised about whether staff used available and adequate means to prevent the cell extraction, particularly at Pontiac. However, once an extraction was underway, required procedures were closely followed and professionally conducted. There also appeared to be significantly higher rates of unplanned uses of force at Pontiac; the reasons have not been examined to date. The number and uniformity of credible allegations, filed with the Court and provided by plaintiffs’ counsel since then, of excessive force and inappropriate uses of chemical spray in IDOC raise serious questions.
At multiple institutions, the monitoring team directly observed, or noted in reviews of documents, instances of substantially unprofessional conduct in the form of racial slurs, provoking inmates, use of demeaning profanity, and posted signs seeming to endorse stereotypes and violence. It is unclear whether there have been institutional responses.
Specific requirements: IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108(B)15 and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.30
Section 501.30 of the code, “Resort to Force,” provides: a) Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable
or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary to achieve a permitted purpose. b) Use of force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary. c) Medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force, which results in bodily injury. d) Corporal punishment is prohibited.
AD 05.01.173, “Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions” provides:
F. General Provisions
1. Use of force shall be terminated as soon as the need for force is no longer necessary.
2. Nothing in this directive shall preclude staff from immediately using force or applying restraints when an offender’s behavior constitutes a threat to self, others, property, or the safety and security of the facility.
3. Restraints shall be applied in accordance with Administrative Directive 04.04.103 or
15 AD 03.02.108(B) does not appear to be the correct citation. The monitoring team believe the Settlement contemplated AD 03.02.108(I)(B).
93

05.01.126 as appropriate.
4. Failure by the offender to comply with the orders to vacate is considered a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution and may result in the use of chemical agents in accordance with Department Rule 501.70
5. Unless it is not practical or safe, cell extractions shall be video recorded from the time circumstances warrant a cell extraction until the offender is placed in the designated cell.
NOTE: Any interruption in recording, including but not limited to changing a video tape or battery shall orally be documented on the video tape.
6. Use of force cell extractions shall be performed by certified Tactical Team members as designated by the Tactical Team Commander. The Tactical Team Commander shall designate one or more members who may function as the Tactical Team Leader.
G. Equipment
1. The following equipment items shall be available to and used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Orange jump suits; b. Protective helmets and full face shields; c. Knife resistant vests; d. Protective gloves; e. Restraints minimally including hand cuffs and leg irons; f. Protective convex shields; g. Batons (36-inch length by 1.5 inches in diameter of oak or hickory); h. Gas masks; i. Leather boots, purchased by the employee, a minimum of 8 inches high for ankle protection; and j. Video camera with a minimum of two batteries and a video tape.
2. Chemical agents shall be available and may be used in accordance [with] Department Rule 501.70.
501.70: Use of Chemical Agents in Cells (Consent Decree) provides:
a) This Section applies only to the transfer of a committed person who has refused to leave his cell when so ordered. The transfer of a committed person shall be undertaken with a minimal amount of force. Only when the individual threatens bodily harm to himself, or other committed persons or correctional officers may tear gas or other chemical agents be employed to remove him.
b) Prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents, the committed person shall be informed that such tear gas or other chemical agents will be used unless he complies with the transfer order.
c) The use of tear gas or other chemical agents may be authorized only by an officer the rank of Captain or above. (For purposes of this rule, the shift supervisor or higher authority in the Juvenile Division may authorize the use of tear gas or other chemical agents.)
d) Precautionary measures shall be taken to limit the noxious side effects of the chemical agents. In addition, the following procedures shall be followed
94

whenever tear gas or other chemical agents are used to compel a committed person to leave his cell:
1) If circumstances allow, ventilation devices, such as windows and fans, shall be readied prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents. In any event, these devices shall be employed immediately after tear gas or other chemical agents are used. The purpose of this procedure is to minimize the effect of tear gas or other chemical agents upon other committed persons located in the cell house.
2) Gas masks shall be available for use by correctional officers at the time the tear gas or other chemical agent is used.
3) When a gas canister is placed inside a committed person’s cell, the gas will quickly take effect and correctional officers shall enter the cell as soon as possible to remove the individual.
4) The committed person shall be instructed by the correctional officer to flush his eyes and skin exposed to the chemical agent with water. If the individual appears incapable of doing so, a member of the medical staff present shall perform this task. If no member of the medical staff is present, the correctional officer shall undertake this procedure.
e) An incident report shall be prepared immediately after the use of the chemical agent. This report shall be signed by each correctional officer involved in the transfer, who may indicate disagreement with any fact stated in the report.
f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall examine these incident reports to ensure that proper procedures were employed. Failure to follow proper procedures will result in disciplinary action.
g) Before Section 501.70 is modified, legal staff must be consulted. This Section was promulgated pursuant to Settlement litigation by order of the court. It may not be modified without approval of the court.
3. The following equipment items may be used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Throat protectors (cut resistant); and b. Elbow, groin, knee, and shin protectors
H. Tactical Team Structure for Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions
The Tactical Team shall consist of six certified Tactical Team members for a single offender cell extraction and seven certified Tactical Team members for a multiple offender cell extraction. One member of the team shall serve as the Tactical Team Leader; however, the team leader shall not be the person responsible for video recording the incident.
1. For a single offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall
95

designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the offender against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. Two members (also known as Number 2 and 3 persons) shall secure the offender’s arms and hands and place restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. c. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall secure the doorway with a baton to prevent the offender from escaping, and if necessary, to assist in the application of restraints. d. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; remain outside of the cell with a baton in the event the offender should attempt to escape from the cell; and deploy chemical agents if necessary. e. The video recording member (also known as Number 6 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
2. For a multiple offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the first offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. The assistant shield person (also known as Number 2 person) shall use a shield; secure the second offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. c. A member (also known as Number 3 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member in most need of assistance by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. d. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member with the other offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. e. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team members with the most combative offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands for placement of restraints. f. A member (also known as Number 6 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; secure the doorway with a baton to prevent an offender from escaping, and if necessary, deploy chemical agents and assist in the application of restraints. g. The video recording member (also known as Number 7 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
96

I. Calculated Use of Force Cell Extraction Procedures
1. Once an officer has ordered an offender to move from the cell and the offender refuses, the officer shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
2. The Lieutenant or above shall again order the offender to vacate the cell. If the offender refuses, the Lieutenant or above shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
3. On site personnel shall begin video recording the offender’s actions.
4. When time and circumstances permit, the Shift Commander shall obtain the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer for calculated use of force cell extractions. In all other situations, the Shift Commander or above shall approve the cell extraction.
5. If the decision is made to proceed with a cell extraction, the Shift Commander shall activate the Tactical Team.
6. The Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Secure the area by removing all non-involved staff and non-secured offenders; b. Ensure the video camera is present and recording the offender’s actions; and c. Notify medical staff of the pending cell extraction.
7. Upon notification of a pending cell extraction, Health Care staff shall check the offender’s medical file for pertinent medical information and be present in a secure area that is close to, but not in the immediate vicinity of the cell extraction.
8. Upon arrival of the Tactical Team, the Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Brief the Tactical Commander of pertinent information; b. Ensure the transfer of the video tape to a designated Tactical Team member to continue recording; c. Notify the Duty Administrative Officer of the incident, pending cell extraction, and other information as it becomes available; and d. Be available, if needed, but remain out of the immediate area of the cell extraction.
9. Prior to the use of force, the Tactical Team leader shall: a. Orally attempt to obtain the offender’s voluntary compliance to vacate the cell or area prior to the use of force. In cells or areas with two or more offenders, each offender shall be given the opportunity to comply and be voluntarily removed. Whenever possible, offenders who comply shall be placed in restraints and removed prior to action being taken. b. Issue three direct orders for the offender to comply. c. Advise the offender that failure to comply with the orders to vacate may result in the use of chemical agents.
10. If the offender does not vacate the cell voluntarily, the Tactical Team shall remove the offender from the cell.
11. Following removal from the cell, the Tactical Team shall escort the offender to a designated area to be examined by Health Care staff.
97

12. Following the completion of the cell extraction including medical care, the Tactical Team member who video recorded the incident shall: a. Label the video tape with the date and location of the incident, offender name(s) and number(s), and the name of the employee who recorded the incident; b. If available, activate any security measures such as breaking the security tab on the VHS (Video Home System) video tape to prevent the video tape from being erased or recorded over; c. Tag the video tape as evidence and process it in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.112.
13. Unless otherwise directed to maintain longer, the video tape shall be retained in a secure area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer for three years following the date of the extraction.
14. Each employee who participated in the cell extraction or who was otherwise involved shall complete an Incident Report and other appropriate reports documenting the incident in its entirety. When necessary, the incident shall be reported in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.105. (AD 01.12.105 provides general instructions on the reporting of “unusual incidents.”)
15. The Shift Commander shall ensure: a. A search of the involved area is completed after removal of the offender; b. The area is decontaminated if chemical agents were used; and c. Appropriate reports are completed and processed.
16. The Shift Commander or above shall debrief with the Tactical Team.
Findings: During the team’s Menard site visit, offenders in segregation consistently reported concerns about physical abuse at the hands of corrections officers. In particular, they noted that the area just outside the mental health offices does not have security cameras, and officers sometimes took inmates there “to rough them up.” Only one of the offenders reported that he had personally suffered physical abuse; the others noted a belief that this was happening to other inmates. These reports by offenders are consistent with reports received from plaintiff counsel about unprovoked assaults by custody staff occurring at Menard. The team reported this concern to the facility leadership during the exit interview and recommended that cameras be added in the area around the mental health offices. Warden Lashbrook said that she would look into the allegations. Chief Hinton seemed to imply that changes to security practices were outside the scope of the Settlement; this is incorrect. Section XXIV of the Settlement clearly authorizes the monitoring team to investigate and offer recommendations about any violation regarding use of force and verbal abuse.
Regarding cell extractions, in the materials the team reviewed, procedures are generally followed. Video is taken and preserved, and this video reveals assiduous attention to the detailed procedure laid out in the AD. Incident reports are submitted. The Rasho monitoring team had limited ability to review these practices, however, so has insufficient information on which to make a substantial compliance finding.
Cell extraction teams are generally not apprised of whether the inmate is on the mental health caseload, is SMI, is medication noncompliant, or the like. While the AD does not specifically require that the team be provided with such information or otherwise involve the
98

mental health staff in order to provide advice or attempt directly to de-escalate, the monitoring team encourages IDOC to consider using these practices, which are common in corrections and would greatly support the AD’s expectations to gain voluntary compliance (see, e.g., AD 05.01.173(II)(I)(9)).
The AD Policy Statement states: “In accordance with Department Rule 501, the Department authorizes the use of force to extract an offender from a cell only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate and only to the degree reasonably necessary to control the situation.” While the reviewed cell extractions were conducted professionally and according to procedure, the potential involvement of MHPs presents “available and adequate means” to prevent a cell extraction. Their involvement prior to these cell extractions could possibly avoid the necessity to conduct a cell extraction. The net result would be that cell extractions would truly be the “last resort” as envisioned by Rule 501. To the extent staff did make efforts to obtain MHP input, such efforts were not memorialized in documentation provided to the monitoring team. Documents on cell extractions do not provide sufficient information regarding justification, other steps taken, or MHP involvement. Given the substantial amount of force used during cell extractions and negative outcomes that offenders may experience, all reasonable efforts should be made to avoid using the procedure and to instead gain voluntary compliance.
At Pontiac, the monitoring team had concerns regarding decisions to activate the tactical team for a cell extraction and regarding unplanned uses of OC spray. Specifically, the documentation creates substantial ambiguity as to whether a particular use of force was justified. Incidents at Pontiac suggest a potential pattern of premature use of the cell extraction team and/or OC spray, and, at a minimum, do not entail adequate documentation of the rationale for such force being used. The uses of force seem more a reaction to noncompliance rather than to concerns about safety and security. Therefore, it appears that other steps could reasonably have been taken before resorting to the use of force or that the lack of other recourse should have been clearly documented. Unlike at the other facilities, many of the calculated uses of force at Pontiac were directed at something other than routine movement for cell change or shakedowns. Indeed, the monitoring team observed many more unplanned uses of force at Pontiac.
• On November 9, 2016, an inmate was observed with a jumpsuit over his head and refused to remove it. A tactical team was activated, and OC spray ultimately was used. The document does not provide an explanation as to the need for the inmate to remove the jumpsuit or whether it was so urgent that a tactical team be deployed without first seeking assistance from mental health staff.
• On October 30, 2016, an inmate was observed with a safety blanket draped over his head. A tactical team was activated, and OC spray ultimately was used. The document does not provide an explanation as to the need for the inmate to remove the safety blanket from his head or whether it was so urgent that a tactical team be deployed without first seeking assistance from mental health staff.
• On October 31, 2016, an inmate on the mental health unit threw a food tray after becoming upset that his cell had been shaken down. A tactical team was activated, and OC spray ultimately was used. The document does not provide an explanation as to the
99

need to remove the inmate or whether it was so urgent that a tactical team be deployed without first seeking assistance from mental health staff.
The monitoring team also reviewed multiple, credible reports of excessive use of force and inappropriate uses of chemical spray occurring throughout IDOC that were filed with the Court. The monitoring team did not investigate each one of these reports. Their sheer number and the uniformity of complaints, however, raise serious questions about the overall use of force within IDOC.
At Logan, the monitoring team encountered similar examples in which mental health staff was not involved before the tactical team completed its uses of force. The monitor personally reviewed the cell extraction video of a mentally ill offender who was cutting herself in her cell and refused to move to a crisis cell. As with the reviewed cases at Pontiac, the Tactical Team meticulously followed proper procedures and successfully moved the offender to a crisis cell. At no time, however, did mental health staff get involved. The Monitor fully appreciates that mental health staff should not interfere with the tactical team once it has been activated. As described in detail above, the Monitor feels it is incumbent on the mental health staff to be actively involved with the mentally ill offenders to attempt to gain their cooperation to avoid having to call for a tactical team.
Plaintiffs’ counsel also provided the monitor with numerous complaints from offenders regarding use of force. Many of these complaints appear to be credible. The monitoring team will closely evaluate these issues during the next monitoring periods.
Professional Conduct
AD 03.02.108(I)(B), “Standards of Conduct” provides: The Department shall require employees to conduct themselves in a professional manner and, whether on duty or off duty, not engage in conduct that is unbecoming of a State employee or that may reflect unfavorably on or impair operations of the Department.
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed IDOC’s compliance with AD 03.02.108(I)(B), which requires staff to conduct themselves professionally. Unless a facility is substantiating a large number of complaints alleging staff misconduct, it is exceedingly difficult to assess whether there is a general concern regarding professional conduct. The monitoring team cannot spend enough time on-site to assess this question, nor are staff likely to act inappropriately in front of the team. Unlike with use of force, there is very seldom any reporting of unprofessional conduct. The following discussion therefore focuses on the procedures in place to address those instances of unprofessional conduct (including verbal abuse) that may occur.
Examples of unprofessional conduct
Menard: A report forwarded to the monitoring team by plaintiffs’ counsel describes how during an especially challenging cell extraction officers were referring to an African-American offender as “nigger, bitch, boy.” The monitoring team did not investigate this alleged incident and only report it as potentially a part of a pattern of unprofessional conduct by custody staff towards mentally ill offenders.
100

Pontiac: While the monitoring team did not witness the offender’s conduct that provoked the staff’s response, nor does the team have specific information about the offender, an assistant monitor was surprised to witness a member of the security staff at Pontiac call an inmate “dumbass,” albeit in the context of telling that inmate to “put your dick away.”
Also at Pontiac, signs stenciled on the walls in the housing units seem to promote an usversus-them mentality, characterizing offenders as evil and promoting an approach that is reactive rather than focused on marshaling available resources, such as mental health staff. These signs held these messages: “Evil is powerless if the good is unafraid”; “In this family no one fights alone”; “Never doubt your instinct.” It is strongly recommended that IDOC remove signs of this nature from all facilities.
Logan: At Logan, the monitoring team encountered examples of unprofessional conduct, including an incident on October 29, 2016, in which an officer called an offender a “bitch,” which then set off a chain of events that led to significant force being used on the offender to prevent her from retaliating against the officer. The offender suffered injuries to her face and a chipped tooth. Internal Affairs investigated another incident involving the use of racial language and profanity. Internal Affairs reported to the monitoring team that it believed the offender’s account, which was corroborated by another offender who witnessed the incident, though Internal Affairs nonetheless did not substantiate the allegation. This illustrates a significant barrier to accurately assessing the frequency of this type of incident. Additionally, the warden reported that during the course of one week shortly before the December 2016 site visit, there were several incidents involving staff using profanity to or about offenders.
Dixon: The interviewed offenders reported that officers frequently use degrading or profane language in their interactions with SMI offenders. For example, one offender in the STC reported that he was usually told to “get the f--- away from the [officers’] bubble” when he approached to ask for help. Similarly, offenders in the X House noted that officers’ responses to their requests for help were variable, with some officers calling them “retards” or “crazies.”
The Monitor personally observed staff speaking disrespectfully to offenders in several of the facilities toured. The monitor fully appreciates the pressures associated with working with mentally ill offenders. The use of abusive and profane language, however, is never acceptable and is a clear violation of this subsection of the Settlement.
These examples of staff using abusive and profane language in their dealings with offenders are absolutely inappropriate and should cease immediately. The monitor will be working closely with the IDOC leadership to ensure that this behavior comes to an end.
101

XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
Summary: Adjustment Committees have been formed, utilizing the correct personnel, and have been actively functioning. While the system for MHP input is in place, monitoring reviews revealed cases where input was not sought. Staff at monitored facilities reported a system to stay proceedings when inmates are in crisis, but it was not applied in cases the team reviewed at Pontiac and Logan that indicated the inmate was not stable. MHP input tended to be perfunctory, not individualized, and not always informative to custody staff. There were instances where staff identified the contribution of mental illness to the offense but did not recommend mitigation. Some MHPs’ term recommendations were consistently higher than the Adjustment Committee’s.
Custody staff’s adoption of these processes was mixed. Staff did demonstrate episodic willingness to consider the mitigating aspects of mental illness, but this was not a consistent finding. At Pontiac, records indicated that, when the CAO handled Adjustment Committee appeals, the CAO did not consult with the MHP as required. In general, CAOs are not routinely justifying in writing why they overrule the recommendations of mental health staff. The Chief Deputy of Operations was very responsive upon learning of deficiencies.
The overall assessment by the monitoring team is that the staff, both custody and clinical, are slow to respond to the mental deterioration of offenders caused by placement in segregation.
IDOC has distributed some information on the prohibition on discipline for self-injurious behavior or expression, but has not consulted with the Monitor to develop policies and procedures, and the monitoring team learned both of improvements and of offenders disciplined for behaviors related to self-harm.
Concerning discipline of inmates in RTU or inpatient, the available information suggests Dixon’s practices are consistent with the requirement. IDOC has not informed the Monitor about any action toward a pilot Behavior Treatment Program, which is now six months overdue.
XXV(a): Specific requirement: IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code section 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in AD 05.12.103.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
G. Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
102

1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
H. Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term,
103

that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: While the system for MHP input is in place, the monitoring team encountered cases where input was not sought as well as cases in which MHPs identified the contribution of mental illness to the offense but did not recommend mitigation. Custody staff’s adoption of these processes were mixed. Staff did demonstrate episodic willingness to consider the mitigating aspects of mental illness, but this was not a consistent finding.
104

Compared with some other IDOC facilities, Menard has relatively few tickets involving SMI offenders. The lead MHP reviews the tickets on a twice-weekly basis and completes the 0443 form to provide input about the offender’s mental illness to the disciplinary officer. The MHP estimated that there are about 10 tickets per week that are processed in this manner. As with other IDOC facilities, the 0443 form is completed based on a chart review alone, without actually evaluating the offender and asking him about the circumstances leading to the ticket. In the monitoring team’s opinion, a face-to-face assessment is necessary in order to ensure meaningful input into the disciplinary process by the mental health staff. Additionally, staff discovered through the Segregation Review Committee process that some of the infractions were not being subjected to the process for MHP input, but Menard was correcting that failure. It was unclear whether staff was working to identify other potential failures that would not have been discovered as a result of the Segregation Review Committee process.
Staff at each of the facilities reported that, pursuant to an informal understanding, offenders would not have their disciplinary hearings while they were in crisis. However, the 0443 forms provide a checkbox for recommending a stay of the disciplinary proceedings, and this box was never checked on Pontiac and Logan records where MHPs indicated the offender was “not stable” and was in crisis; in fact, segregation was still recommended.
The content of the 0443s tends to be generic and very brief. At Logan, for example, the mental health director noted the generic nature of the 0443 content. The process is not individualized, and it appears to the mental health director that the MHP providing the content is applying too high a standard for recommending consideration of mental health status in determining whether to impose segregation. Each time the form indicated the offender was unstable or in crisis or both, it still did not recommend consideration of the offender’s mental health status and recommended, without explanation, a range of up to three or five months in segregation. In fact, among the sample received, not a single one indicated that mental health status should be considered, segregation would pose a risk, or mental health contributed to the behavior. The MHPs’ recommendations regarding segregation time generally indicated a range of up to the maximum available for the particular infraction and almost always exceeded the recommendation of the adjustment committee, which was recommending very reasonable periods of segregation time.16 A Stateville MHP identified “significant” adverse impact of segregation but still recommended up to six or nine months. Menard MHPs found that mental health played a role in the infraction but still recommended segregation time because of the seriousness of the offense or for no stated reason.
Dixon has a procedure in place for MHPs to provide input to the disciplinary officer about SMI offenders who are facing tickets. Every day at noon, the mental health staff meets to review the previous day’s tickets, among other things, and decide whether, for each offense, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the prohibited conduct. Each ticket is assigned to a particular MHP to review. By design, the MHP who reviews the ticket is not the primary treating MHP for the offender, in order to avoid bias. The monitoring team observed the noon
16 As a result of this practice and others, the warden reported progress in managing groups. She said that when Logan first opened, there were 106 segregation beds and the facility was averaging 120-140 inmates in segregation. In contrast, she reported, as of a site visit, there were 55 inmates in segregation and the facility is using segregation more effectively.
105

meeting during the November site visit, when the staff reviewed 12 tickets and decided in all cases the offender’s illness did not contribute to the offense. The brevity of discussion and cursory nature of the assessments raised concern about whether offenders were receiving adequate mental health evaluations, though the policies and procedures in place are reasonable. In speaking with the mental health staff, it seemed that they simply do not have time to do an indepth assessment of each ticket, and so they base their assessments on prior knowledge of the offender’s clinical status (e.g., medication compliance, “overall presentation,” prior ticket history).
A review of disciplinary procedures with SMI offenders that the monitor had with the Chief Deputy of Operations revealed that facility reviews of AD 05.12.103 were occurring and that Adjustment Committees have been formed, utilizing the correct personnel, and have been actively functioning. DOC 0443s were being completed but the recommendations made by mental health staff were often vague and ambiguous. There was also apparent confusion regarding what type of recommendations mental health staff was authorized to make. Finally, a comparison of the 0443s and the monthly summary of the Adjustment Committee actions that is sent to the Deputy Director revealed that Wardens are not routinely justifying in writing why they overrule the recommendations of mental health staff. The Chief Deputy of Operations duly noted these system-wide problems and had a conference call with the wardens immediately after meeting with the Monitor. The Monitor is convinced that the problems noted with the disciplinary procedures with SMI offenders will be significantly reduced if not eliminated on follow-up inspections.
I. Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: As mentioned in section XV(a)(vii) of this report, above, problems exist in ensuring that offenders receive timely evaluation when they are at imminent risk of deterioration of their mental health due to their continued placement in segregation. The problems include the
106

offender’s impaired ability to access the Crisis Intervention Team, lack of appropriate follow up and treatment plan reviews by MHPs, and the extremely perfunctory nature of segregation rounds. The overall assessment by the monitoring team is that the staff, both custody and clinical, are slow to respond to the mental deterioration of offenders caused by placement in segregation.
(XXV)(b): Specific requirement: No later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for selfinjurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
Findings: At the time of the submission of this report, the Monitor has not been asked to consult with IDOC on the development and implementation of this policy. During site visits of Stateville proper and Menard, written notices about this punishment prohibition were observed but they simply contained the language of section XXV (b). In the supplement to the quarterly report of March 23, 2017, IDOC reported “In accordance with Section XXV(b), IDOC does not punish offenders for reporting indications or feelings of self-harm, for self-harm, or for behavior directly related to self-harm.” It goes on to state, “The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) as well as a myriad of other requirements in the Settlement Agreement, are addressed in Departmental Rule 504.” As noted below, the monitoring team encountered examples of offenders disciplined for behaviors related to self-harm. Also, Departmental Rule 504 doesn’t satisfy the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement, which specifically requires IDOC to consult with the Monitor in the development of a policy regarding self-harm.
During a site visit to Dixon, inmates and staff reported that they no longer issue disciplinary tickets for self-injurious behavior, such as cutting or suicide attempts. However, tickets for destruction of property are issued in cases where, for example, an inmate damages a wall in order to use the cement to cut himself. No tickets are issued for reporting suicidal feelings or intentions. Inmates and staff at Menard reported that that facility does not issue disciplinary tickets for self-injurious behavior, such as cutting or suicide attempts. At Stateville proper, several inmates reported that they were “written up” for requesting a Crisis Intervention Team that did not result in them being placed on a suicide watch. Although staff adamantly denied that this was happening, the Monitor found significant credible evidence that inmates were discouraged from asking for a Crisis Intervention Team unless the request resulted in placement on a suicide watch. At Pinckneyville, a mentally ill offender was written up for “disobeying a direct order” when he was observed by custody staff attempting to overdose on his own medication. He received segregation time for this offense and at the time of the Monitor’s evaluation, February 7, 2017, he had spent over 48 hours in segregation without being seen by anyone from mental health.
(XXV)(c): Specific requirement: For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health
107

treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period, but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
Findings: Room restriction at Dixon: During the January site visit, the monitoring team reviewed the issue of Room Restriction in detail. The team understands that Room Restriction is used for class 300 and 400 tickets, as a less severe punishment than segregation placement. The mental health staff and officers reported that the most common offenses leading to room restriction are fighting, refusing housing, and insolence. The staff reported that most offenders are placed on room restriction for 10 to 15 days for fighting and refusing housing, and insolence typically leads to a shorter period of restriction, usually 24 to 72 hours. Tickets for these offenses are adjudicated in the same manner as class 100 and 200 tickets, with a hearing before the disciplinary officer and input from the mental health staff.
While on room restriction, inmates are allowed to keep their property in their cell, with the exception of electronics (TVs, radios) and commissary items other than toiletries (e.g., snacks, coffee). If the offender lives in a single cell in the RTU, he stays in the same cell for room restriction. If he is housed in a double cell, then he would be moved to another cell in the STC or perhaps in the X House if there is no room in STC. Dixon has designated 18 cells in the STC for room restriction. The staff reported that these cells are usually full, and overflow in the X House is not uncommon.
Until approximately December 2016, inmates on room restriction were not permitted to participate in structured programming. After that date, offenders were offered the opportunity to participate in community meeting (2 hours per day, or 10 hours per week), though many chose not to attend. The offenders the Monitor interviewed had variable reasons for not attending groups, ranging from “I don’t understand what’s going on” to “I don’t want to get jumped.” However, they all stated that room restriction—even without group participation—was preferable to segregation placement, since they were allowed to have more property in their cells.
Of note, Dixon does not seem to track the use of room restriction. For example, there is no easy way to find out how many offenders are placed on that status during a given month, nor is there an easy way to see a particular offender’s room restriction history. When the team requested this information for eight offenders during the January site visit, the warden was able to provide it, but only after it was extracted manually from a database. Moving forward, it would be very helpful to develop a tracking system for room restriction to monitor patterns of use and ensure that it has not become “segregation by another name.”
There were approximately 10 to 20 inmates in the X House who appeared to be on indefinite room restriction. IDOC’s policy states that no inmate is placed on room restriction for more than 60 days. This is true only if interpreted as “60 days at a time.” Several inmates fell into a pattern of being placed on room restriction initially for a short time, but then refusing to leave, and therefore being sentenced to an additional 30 days of room restriction. Cumulatively, these inmates had spent one to two years on room restriction status. The offenders and staff reported that this behavior was voluntary; inmates did not want to leave X House because they found the closed setting to be safer than any options available in STC or general population.
108

Overall, in the team’s opinion, Dixon’s practice of room restriction does not appear to violate the letter or the spirit of the Settlement. However, the team cannot draw a firm conclusion without evaluating additional data about the frequency of use, duration of confinement, and clinical status of inmates housed in those conditions. IDOC should study the use of room restriction further. At a minimum, IDOC should track monthly statistics for the number of room restriction placements, the duration of confinement, and the reason for confinement. For inmates whose room restriction status is renewed repeatedly, the facility should develop a review process similar to the SMI Segregation Review Committee.
(XXV)(d): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
Findings: To date the Monitor has not been consulted regarding such a program. A pilot had not been implemented by the time of the Monitor’s March 2017 visit, which was well past the deadline of November 23, 2016.
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
Summary: IDOC continues to operate CQI under the Administrative Directive governing health care CQI; facility-based CQI committees are formed and mental health-specific data is being collected. That system is limited in its guidance on using the collected data. A CQI Manager was hired as of February 2017, although he continues to hold another position, and IDOC reports a CQI program is in development.
(XXVI)(a): Specific requirement: IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), section II (E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility throughout IDOC.
Findings: AD 04.03.125 addresses the broad medical CQI program, which includes mental health as a small piece among many other pieces. The cited portion of the SOP Manual relates specifically to a new mental health CQI program. This SOP Manual also cites an AD on a mental health CQI program, but that AD is not yet finalized. For both the broader CQI program and the mental health-specific CQI program, the requirements incorporated by reference in the
109

Settlement include committee composition and meetings, CQI studies to be conducted, data to be reviewed, and suicide reviews. The Settlement includes additional provisions that emphasize corrective action and create a new statewide CQI Manager position.
As reported in IDOC’s quarterly report of March 23, 2017: “The Agreement requires implementation of a quality improvement program. IDOC is developing a CQI program and a CQI manager has been hired.” It is not clear what is meant by this comment.
Based upon a year-long review of various aspects of IDOC’s CQI system, several points stand out. IDOC has been utilizing AD 04.03.125 as its CQI guide for the ongoing, systematic evaluation of offender care practices, professional or clinical performance, and offender care services in primary care and mental health services. This AD does not represent a robust CQI policy in that it is extremely weak in directing how to utilize the obtained data to actually improve the quality of mental health services at a given facility or throughout IDOC. The overall requirements of AD 04.03.125, however, are generally being accomplished in that facility-based CQI committees are formed and mental health-specific data is being collected. AD 04.03.125 will continue to be used until such time as AD 04.04.104, Mental Health Continuous Quality Improvement Program, is approved and implemented throughout IDOC. The monitoring team looks forward to consulting with IDOC clinical leadership in the development of AD 04.04.104. The goal will be to make it a much more comprehensive CQI policy which utilizes the specific mental health data obtained in a manner to actually improve the quality of the mental health services. This new AD coupled with the new Quality Improvement Manager has the potential of creating a functional and effective CQI program in IDOC.
XXVI(b): Specific requirement: The statewide CQI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
Findings: As reported in Section XI(b), IDOC hired Jeff Sim, Psy.D on February 16, 2017. At the time of the submission of this report, however, Dr. Sim remains in his role as Central Regional Psych Administrator. It is unclear if Dr. Sim has actually performed any specific duties related to CQI.
XXVII: MONITORING
Only three specific requirements of this section will be discussed in detail.
XXVII(d): Specific requirement: Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
Findings: IDOC has not fulfilled its obligation to inform plaintiffs’ counsel when it denied the monitor’s request for staff.
XXVII(f)(iv): Specific requirement: The monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be
110

justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation.
Findings: The Monitor has given very explicit recommendations in a variety of areas including but not limited to proper psychiatric care in general, and the use of psychotropic medication in particular, treatment planning, confidentiality, suicide reviews and the care of offenders assigned to crisis care. In this regard, the Monitor has only received tacit acknowledgement of the Monitor’s recommendations from IDOC staff. The Monitor is not suggesting that IDOC is obligated to fully implement the Monitor’s recommendations but rather respond to them in an official manner.
XXVII(f)(v): Specific requirement: The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced on-site tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel.
Findings: The monitoring team has enjoyed timely and unlimited access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda and other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC. The monitoring team has also had unobstructed access during announced on-site tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement, as well as having direct access to staff and offenders including partaking in private conversations with the parties and their counsel. Members of the monitoring team have had private conversations with several of the named plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel, IDOC leadership including the Director, Assistant Director, Chiefs of Programing and Operations, as well as having an ongoing conversation with Dr. Hinton, Chief of Mental Health, and Michael Dempsey, MD, Chief of Psychiatry.
XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Summary: The agency has provided timely quarterly reports. However, the reports sometimes contain declarative statements of compliance without support. Additionally, there are indications that staff is not being forthcoming with relevant information needed for an accurate assessment of system performance.
Specific requirement: Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the
111

Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
Findings: The Monitor received quarterly reports from IDOC dated September 29, 2016, December 23, 2016 and March 23, 2017. The quarterly reports have been submitted on time and include comments on provisions specified in the Settlement. The content of the reports, however, does not adequately describe IDOC’s progress toward meeting the requirements of the Settlement. The reports explain when, in the opinion of the author of the reports, certain requirements are being met. The reports, however, omit critical information about problems and lack of progress.
An example of this is taken from the March 23, 2017 quarterly report, Section XIII, Medication. The report states “The Agreement addresses medication issues, including recording information concerning medication, administration, review of medications and effects (including review by an MHP for noncompliance), lab work, and provision of information about certain drugs to the offender.” It goes onto state, “IDOC currently implements the requirements of this Section.” Since at least December 2016, the Monitor has personally described to the Director; Assistant Director; the Chiefs of Mental Health, Psychiatry and Legal the abysmal state of psychiatric services in general and all deficiencies related to medication in particular. During the quarter that the March 23, 2017 report covers, the Monitor had a call with the Assistant Director explaining that IDOC had a backlog of over 3,000 psychiatric follow-up visits and approximately 500 new psychiatric evaluations. Of note, Chief Lindsay was also on that call, which occurred February 2, 2017. So it is highly inaccurate that “IDOC currently implements the requirements of this Section.” Based on the egregious misrepresentation in the Medication section, the Monitor seriously calls into question the reliability and utility of the quarterly reports.
Finally, the requirements of this section of the Settlement also include the responsibility for IDOC to bring additional matters to the attention of the Monitor. Throughout this first year of monitoring the requirements of the Settlement, the Monitor has frequently encountered IDOC trying to keep certain critical information from the Monitor’s attention. This may be a by-product of the litigious nature of the Rasho matter but these efforts at secrecy do not contribute to the overall goal of meeting the requirements of the Settlement. The overwhelming problems with the psychiatric services are a good example of IDOC’s attempts at withholding certain critical information from the Monitor. It took the monitoring team around six months to uncover the problems with psychiatric services. As IDOC was already aware of these problems, the time and efforts of the monitoring team devoted to this issue could have been better dedicated to helping IDOC meet the requirements of the Settlement. It is the Monitor’s sincere hope that this will change as this process proceeds with a more candid and reciprocal relationship developing between the monitoring team and IDOC.
112

CONCLUSION

IDOC has considerably improved the quality of the mental health services offered to the offender population during the first year of the settlement. Areas of improvement include: providing timely screening and mental health evaluations in the R&C units; transfer of seriously mentally ill offenders from facility to facility; a significant reduction of segregation time for mentally ill offenders; implementation of offender orientation procedures at all IDOC facilities; the proper use of physical restraints for mental health purposes; and structured and unstructured activities being offered at the two operating RTUs and certain segregation units.

The absence of a state budget has hampered IDOC in its efforts to fully meet the requirements of the Settlement. Nevertheless, IDOC has been able to partially meet several budget-contingent requirements of the Settlement. These include: limited hiring of additional mental health staff; construction projects on the four RTUs; partially moving the crisis beds off North House at Pontiac; and the provision of enhanced services for those mentally ill offenders designated and requiring inpatient level of care.

Tremendous problems exist with the quantity and quality of psychiatric services. They include: problems with the continuation of medications upon entry into IDOC; lack of timely medication follow up; dangerous practices related to the use of medication including those offenders receiving forced medications; problems with managing medication side effects; lack of timely psychiatric evaluations; non-participation in multidisciplinary treatment planning; and lack of timely follow up for offenders in crisis beds. These problems pervade almost every aspect of IDOC’s mental health delivery system. Furthermore, the problems with the psychiatric services contribute to IDOC being found noncompliant in almost ever aspect of the Settlement.

Although improvement has occurred, IDOC remains noncompliant in many areas of the Settlement. These areas include: treatment planning; transition from specialized treatment settings such as crisis; medication; housing assignments; segregation; suicide prevention; medical records; confidentiality; use of force and verbal abuse; discipline of SMI offenders; continuous quality improvement program; and reporting and record keeping.

I am well aware that such a major shift in addressing the needs of the mentally ill offenders for an institution as large as IDOC can take time. For issues such as suicide prevention, medication management, use of force, confidentiality, discipline and preventing mentally ill offenders from deteriorating while in segregation, however, the time is now. The monitoring team looks forward to a continued collaboration with IDOC on all of the issues detailed in this report. Finally, the monitoring team will be taking a much more active technical assistance role moving forward to help IDOC expeditiously and professionally meet all of the requirements of the Settlement.

Respectfully submitted, Pablo Stewart, M.D.17

Dated: May 22, 2017

Pablo Stewart, MD

17 Indicates electronic signature

113

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 1 of 42

E-FILED
Friday, 25 May, 2018 11:39:57 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiff, v.
ROGER E. WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-1298

)

)

)

)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement of the Settlement

Agreement (ECF No. 1559) and Motion to Amend Request for Relief and Memorandum on the

Enforcement Process (ECF No. 1681). The Motions are GRANTED to the extent provided herein.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND OVERVIEW OF ACTION

This case is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (ECF No. 711-1 at 1). Plaintiffs

challenge the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to mentally ill prisoners in the

physical custody and control of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC” or “Department”).

Id.

On August 14, 2015, this Court certified a class in this case for purposes of litigation, and

pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:

Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addition,

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 2 of 42
developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition. (ECF No. 252 at 7). Often referenced by both Parties, this case involves inmates who are “seriously mentally ill.” (See e.g. ECF Nos. 1965 and 1966-1). There are approximately 44,000 inmates in the custody of the IDOC, of whom more than 12,000 are believed to be mentally ill. (ECF No. 1758 at 50, testimony of Defendant Dr. Melvin Hinton (“Dr. Hinton”)). Approximately 4,800 of these inmates are considered “seriously mentally ill.” (ECF No. 1758 at 51, testimony of Dr. Hinton; see also ECF No. 1966-1 at 2, Plaintiffs place the number at 4,843). Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Keith Walker, Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Fredricka Lyles, Clara Plair, Desiree Hollis, and Crystal Stoneburner serve as the class representatives. The Defendants are John Baldwin, the Acting Director of the IDOC and Dr. Hinton, the Department’s Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction Recovery Services. The Parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving the action set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this matter. (ECF No. 260). A fairness hearing was held on May 13, 2016. (Minute Entry dated 5/13/2016). During the hearing, the Court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, over the voluminous objections that were filed by various inmates1. Id. The executed Settlement Agreement can be found in this docket, and is referred to herein as the “Settlement Agreement.” (ECF No. 711-1). The instant Motions are brought alleging violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Constitution.
1 All objections have been filed in this docket.
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 3 of 42
PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 8, 2007, Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho filed a pro se Complaint alleging, among other things, that the Defendants had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing him insufficient medical treatment for his mental illness. (See ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed against various IDOC employees, including the then-Director of the IDOC, Roger E. Walker, Jr. Id. On December 21, 2007, Judge Harold A. Baker entered his Merit Review and Order on Pending Motions finding that the Plaintiff had stated claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment right to be free from: (1) indifference to a serious medical need; and (2) cruel and unusual punishment. (See ECF No. 9). On November 5, 2008, Marc R. Kadish entered his appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff (ECF No. 47), and thereafter during the December 1, 2008, scheduling conference requested leave to file an amended complaint. (See Minute Entry dated December 1, 2008). On May 4, 2009, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, and Keith Walker, on their own behalf and on behalf of all mentally ill inmates who were or will be incarcerated in an IDOC adult correctional center. (ECF No. 54). The lawsuit again named several administrators within the IDOC. Id. The Plaintiffs and class members sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to take prompt action to remedy the alleged violations of the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ constitutional rights regarding the mental health care they received. (See ECF No. 54; see also ECF No. 84). On October 25, 2010, this case was transferred to this Court pursuant to instructions from the then-Chief U.S. District Court Judge Michael P. McCuskey. (TEXT ORDER dated
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 4 of 42
10/25/2010). During the status conference held on October 29, 2010, Plaintiffs indicated that they were working toward class settlement and selection of outside experts to make recommendations to the Parties as to certain issues that had been identified. (Minute Entry dated 10/29/2010). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs sought to amend their operative Complaint for purposes of adding additional named plaintiffs, clarifying which counts were against which defendants, and eliminating damages claims on behalf of any named plaintiffs except Ashoor Rasho. (ECF No. 85). The Plaintiffs also filed a memorandum in support of its Motion to Certify Class noting that the requested class certification was for settlement purposes. (ECF No. 83-84). Defendants Dr. Sylvia Mahone, Dr. Michael F. Massa, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. filed an objection to the Motion for Class Certification. The claims against these Defendants were ultimately severed from the rest of the case, and refiled in a separately docketed case. Rasho v. Walker, et al., ILCD Case No. 11-cv-1308; (see also, ECF No. 98, Case Management Order, fn. 1). The claims in the severed case were ultimately resolved by way of settlement. Rasho v. Walker, et al., ILCD Case No. 11cv-1308, (ECF No. 111).
On May 6, 2011, this Court entered an Order on the Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes (ECF No. 83) preliminarily certifying the class as:
All persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and who, while incarcerated have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (hereafter “DSM-IV”), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction or any form of sexual disorder shall not by itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of this class definition. (ECF No. 97 at 1-2). In addition, the Court issued an Order on May 6, 2011, staying the formal discovery efforts while the Parties pursued an expert report and while the Parties negotiated a possible settlement. (ECF No. 98 at 2). On May 7, 2012, the Parties submitted a Status Report
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 5 of 42
at the direction of the Court detailing the efforts that had occurred in furtherance of the potential settlement and possible consent decree. (ECF No. 117). A status conference was held the next day wherein the Parties indicated the continued desire to work toward settlement. (Minute Entry dated 5/8/2012). At that time, the Court set the matter for another status conference on August 16, 2012. Id. That status conference was held and the Parties indicated during that hearing that a “great deal” of progress had been made toward settlement. (Minute Entry dated 8/16/2012). The matter was again set over for a status conference for September 13, 2012. On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs submitted a Status Report detailing the efforts of the possible consent decree and indicated the areas to which there were disputes. (ECF No. 120). At the Status Conference the next day, the Parties indicated that it was possible to complete the proposed consent decree by November 1, 2012. (Minute Entry dated 9/13/2012). The matter was then continued until November 8, 2012. Id.
In the Status Report dated November 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs again indicated that the Parties were working through a draft of the proposed consent decree. (ECF No. 121). During the Status Conference the next day, the Court continued the matter over until January 9, 2013, and directed the interim mental health director, IDOC director, and any other person necessary to the settlement process to attend the hearing in person. (Minute Entry dated 11/8/2012).
In the Status Report dated January 4, 2013, the Parties explained that the Defendants had engaged in a financial analysis of the proposed settlement, but outside of that action, there had been little change from what was reported to the Court on November 7, 2014. (ECF No. 122). During the January 9, 2013, Status Conference, the Court established additional deadlines for Defendants with respect to responding to the Plaintiffs’ settlement proposal. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 1/9/2013, “Discussion held and the Court sets deadlines for parties to address
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 6 of 42
pending issues. A deadline of 1/23/2013 is set for the defense to submit definition [e.g. ‘serious mental illness’] to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Other Deadline). Also set for defense counsel is the “Staffing and Building Proposal” deadline (Secondary Other Deadline) set for 2/8/2013.”). The Court set the matter over until March 19, 2013, and again required the Parties to provide a Status Report in advance of the status conference.
The Status Report dated March 15, 2013, contained significant discussions on the status of the negotiations. (ECF No. 128). At that time, however, Plaintiffs specifically noted that, while the Defendants felt continued negotiations could bear fruit, Plaintiffs were not optimistic about the prospects of a settlement. (ECF No. 128 at 4). Plaintiffs also noted that they felt Defendants’ most recent proposal was a step backwards in the negotiation process. Id. During the following Status Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the Court intervene and assist with the negotiations. (Minute Entry dated 3/19/2013). The Court agreed to do so, and set a settlement conference for April 16-18, 2013, and directed the parties to file brief with their positions (under seal) in advance of the settlement conference. Id. The settlement conference was held and, at least in this Court’s view, yielded some positive results. In fact, shortly thereafter the Court entered an Agreed Order dated May 8, 2013, in order to “facilitate a consent decree in this matter.” (ECF No. 132; see also Minute Entry dated 5/8/2013). The May 8, 2013, Agreed Order specifically provided, among other things, that the Court would “appoint an independent and impartial Monitor who is knowledgeable concerning the management and oversight of correctional programs and the delivery of mental healthcare.” (ECF No. 132 at 6). Dr. Raymond F. Patterson was ultimately appointed as the Monitor. (See ECF No. 138, Motion for Order and TEXT ORDER dated 8/13/2013 and 8/21/2013). In a Status Report dated September 24, 2013, the Defendants outlined the activities
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 7 of 42
they had taken in compliance with the May 8, 2013, Agreed Order to initiate efforts to improve the delivery of mental health services to seriously mentally ill offenders. (ECF No. 153).
On July 23, 2014, the Court entered a TEXT ORDER setting this case for a Status Conference on August 15, 2014, subsequently reset for September 4, 2014. (TEXT ORDER dated 7/23/2014 and TEXT ORDER dated 8/15/2014). The Court noted that several class members, pro se, had moved the Court to compel the IDOC to comply with the May 8, 2013, Agreed Order. Additionally, on August 6, 2014, Plaintiffs, via their attorneys, filed a Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order dated May 9, 2014. (ECF No. 182). In their Motion, it was noted that “[c]lass counsel’s patience having been exhausted, and with no end in sight, the class seeks an order from this Court enforcing the completion of defendants’ obligations under the May 8, 2013 Order, together with attorneys’ fees and costs of having to continuously pursue these issues and bring this motion, and any other such relief or sanction as the Court may deem appropriate.” (ECF No. 182 at 8).
A Status Conference was held on September 4, 2014, and a written Order was entered on September 5, 2014, outlining this Court’s ruling during the Conference. (See Minute Entry dated 9/4/2014 and ECF No. 192). In the Order, the Court directed Defendants to take certain actions to inform Plaintiffs of its efforts to adhere to terms of the May 8, 2013, Agreed Order. (ECF No. 192). The Court reserved ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce and set the matter for a two day hearing on the proposed consent decree for November 20-21, 2014. (ECF No. 192). However, after the November 20-21, 2014, hearing, the Court found that no further action would be taken on the Motion. (See TEXT ORDER dated December 9, 2014, explain “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order [182] is GRANTED to the extent that the Court subsequently scheduled 9/4/2014 and 11/23/2014 status conferences and personally participated in settlement
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 8 of 42
negotiations on 11/23/2014 and 11/24/2014.”). The Court also noted that “after two days of negotiations, the parties had made substantial progress toward the wording for a final Consent Decree.” (TEXT ORDER dated 11/24/2014). It was also noted that “the identification of points of controversy [that] cannot be resolved without IDOC, State Government and State Agency input.” Id. The Court, therefore, scheduled a supplemental settlement conference on Friday, March 20, 2015. Id. Prior to the hearing, the Court noted “little progress seems to have occurred since the November, 2014 settlement hearings.” (Minute Entry dated 3/19/2015). The March 20, 2015, hearing did not result in a settlement agreement and it started to become clear that prospects for a settlement were diminishing. (See TEXT ORDER dated 3/23/2011). During the hearing, Plaintiffs renewed their previously filed Motion to Enforce. (TEXT ORDER dated 3/23/2015). The matter was scheduled for hearing on July 20-21, 2015. Id. For their part, the Defendants sought an order from the Court that “[w]hen the motion to enforce has been resolved, the defendants [only then would be required to] participat[e] in the open exchange of information and regular telephone conferences with the Monitor and opposing counsel.” (ECF No. 218 at 4). The Court ultimately denied that request. (Minute Entry dated 5/1/2015). Additionally, other motions were filed that resulted in the matter being scheduled for a hearing on July 7, 2015. During that hearing it became clear that settlement negotiations had broken down and the case was scheduled for trial. (Minute Entry dated 7/7/2015).
On August 14, 2015, this Court certified a class in this case for purposes of litigation, and pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the class was defined as follows:
Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addition,
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 9 of 42
developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition. (ECF No. 252 at 7). On December 17, 2015, the Parties informed the Court of a proposed resolution of this matter and provided a draft of that agreement. (Minute Entry dated 12/17/2015). On December 22, 2015, the Court received a final copy of that agreement, as well as a proposed notice to the class. (ECF No. 289). The Court reviewed the agreement and made a preliminary determination that was a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of this action. (ECF No. 290). A fairness hearing was ultimately set for May 13, 2016. (Minute Entry dated 12/22/2015). During the hearing, the Court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, over the voluminous objections that were filed by various inmates2. Id. The executed agreement can be found in this docket. (ECF No. 711-1). As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties agreed to the appointment of a monitor. (ECF No. 711-1 at 25). Ultimately, Dr. Pablo Stewart was selected as the Court appointed monitor. Id. On June 15, 2017, Dr. Stewart submitted his First Annual Report. (ECF No. 1373). In his report, Dr. Stewart explained “[m]any significant improvements to the mental health care delivery system in IDOC have occurred during this first year of the Settlement.” (ECF No. 1373 at 9). Dr. Stewart explained: At all four of the R&Cs, mental health and suicide screenings occur in a timely manner in confidential settings. Mental health referrals and assessments are being accomplished within the required 14-day timeframe for offenders housed in the R&Cs. Mental health services orientation is occurring at all IDOC facilities. Segregation Review Committees were formed and significantly reduced the segregation terms of SMI offenders with more than 60 days left on their segregation terms. Structured out-of-cell activities have begun to occur in the RTUs and the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac. Staff have also begun to offer similar activities to
2 All objections have been filed in this docket.
9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 10 of 42
offenders on the mental health caseload living in segregated housing units for greater than 60 days, and in some select facilities, to those in the unit for less than 60 days. Unstructured out-of-cell activities are also being offered and currently meet or exceed the requirements of the Settlement. (ECF No. 1373 at 9). However, Dr. Stewart further explained: Despite the substantial improvements to the mental health care delivery system, IDOC continues to have challenges in meeting the first-year requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Among IDOC’s challenges is the grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services. This overwhelming shortage and lack of standards undermines all of the efforts of IDOC to meet the first-year requirements of the Settlement. (ECF No. 1373 at 10). These deficiencies were again emphasized in Dr. Stewart’s Midyear Report of the Monitor dated November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 1646). On October 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 1559). In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue the Defendants are not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement in any of the following areas: (1) Treatment Plans; (2) Evaluations; (3) Medications; (4) Segregation; and (5) Crisis Treatment and Transitions. (ECF No. 1559). The Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Motion to Amend Request for Relief and Memorandum on the Enforcement Process further supporting their position. (ECF No. 1681). An evidentiary hearing on the Motions was held on December 18 and 19, 2017, and February 27-March 2, 2018. (Minute Entries dated 12/18/2017, 12/19/2017, 2/27/2018, 2/28/2018, 3/1/2018, and 3/2/2018). The Court conducted the evidentiary hearing in two phases. In phase one, Plaintiffs presented their evidence on December 18 and 19, 2017. Plaintiffs introduced exhibits and called as witnesses Dr. Pablo Stewart, the Court Monitor under the Settlement Agreement; Dr. Michael Dempsey, the Department’s former Chief of Psychiatry; Dr. Melvin Hinton, the Department’s Chief of Mental Health; and Corrie Singleton and Sam Span,
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 11 of 42
two mentally ill prisoners housed at Pontiac Correctional Facility. (ECF No. 1652, 1751, and 1758).
On February 27 and 28 and March 1 and 2, 2018, Defendants introduced exhibits, cross examined Dr. Stewart, and presented testimony from Dr. William Puga, the Department’s new Chief of Psychiatry; Dr. Hinton; Gladyse Taylor, the Department’s Assistant Director; Sandra Funk, the Department’s Chief of Operations; Marcus Hardy, the Department’s Executive Assistant to the Director; Dr. Jeff Sim, the Department’s Statewide Mental Health Quality Improvement Manager; Elaine Gedman, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer of Wexford Mental Health Sources, Inc.; and Amy Cantorna, Wexford’s Mental Health Quality Assurance Coordinator. (ECF No. 1866, and 1903-06). Dr. Stewart was recalled for additional questioning on particular topics at the request of the Court. (ECF No. 1905).
After the close of evidence on March 2, 2017, the Court heard arguments from counsel. The Parties have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (ECF Nos. 1857, 1965, and 1966). On April 25, 2018, this Court orally announced its ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Motion and Amended Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and sets the matter for hearing on possible equitable relief. Both Parties submitted briefs in advance of the hearing. (ECF Nos. 2049 and 2057). On May 22, 2018, a hearing was held to discuss the possible forms of preliminary relief. (Minute Entry dated 5/22/2018). This Order follows.
DISCUSSION The Court begins with a discussion on its authority to render this decision. Section XXIX of the Settlement Agreement sets forth provisions for dispute resolution. There has been no dispute that the Parties have engaged in the necessary procedure to bring this matter to this Court. (See ECF No. 711-1 at 29, Settlement Agreement provides for an informal dispute resolution amongst
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 12 of 42
the Parties.). The Settlement Agreement allows for the Plaintiffs to seek relief from this Court if
there is a dispute as to whether or not the Defendants are in substantial compliance. (ECF No.
711-1 at 29). The Settlement Agreement specifically provides:
f) If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to achieve compliance.
g) to permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court, the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court’s assistance as to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding that the relief sought is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so.
(ECF No. 711-1 at 30) (Emphasis added). The underlined language tracks the language contained
in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (“PLRA”). While the Settlement Agreement
does not specifically provide for a preliminary injunction hearing, the PLRA provides for
preliminary injunctive relief to remedy violations. The PLRA provides:
(2)Preliminary injunctive relief.—
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes the findings required under subsection (a)(1) for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order final before the expiration of the 90-day period.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (Emphasis added). Given the above, the Court finds that a preliminary
injunctive hearing is the appropriate mechanism. Defendants have objected to this mechanism
12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 13 of 42
arguing Plaintiffs will never have the obligation of actually proving there is a violation of federal law. (ECF No. 1709 at 2). The Court disagrees as the Plaintiffs will have to seek permanent relief at some point in this proceeding. The Court finds the procedure utilized is consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the PLRA. Preliminary Injunction Standard and Summary of Decision
In order to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction, at the onset, Plaintiffs must show: (1) without a preliminary injunction, they will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of his claims; (2) ‘traditional legal remedies would be inadequate’; and (3) that they have ‘some likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his claim.’” Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008); Farnam v. Walker, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1000, 1004 (C.D. Ill. 2009). If the Plaintiffs establish the required showing, the Court then must balance the potential harms to the parties and, if appropriate, the public interest. Id.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established all of the necessary requirements for a preliminary injunction to be issued. As more fully explained below, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of the claims. The record contains ample evidence that they are receiving inadequate mental health treatment in the areas of treatment plans, evaluations, medications, segregation, and crisis treatment and transitions. The testimony of almost all of the medical doctors at the hearing clearly stated, in one form or another, the system in place to treat mentally ill inmates at the IDOC is in a state of emergency.
Testimony was also offered demonstrating the irreparable harm being done to the inmates. Not only did the Plaintiffs offer the testimony of mentally ill inmates (ECF No. 1758 at 4, et seq. and 127, et seq.), Dr. Hinton testified, among other admissions, that there are a significant number
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 14 of 42
of mentally ill inmates who are in dangerous situations because there is inadequate staffing at the IDOC (ECF No. 1758 at 53).
The Court also finds that the traditional legal remedies are inadequate. The Court finds an injunction must be issued in order to prevent the continuing harm the inmates face from the IDOC’s inability to maintain adequate staffing. Finally, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim. As noted above, the testimony at the hearing adequately showed the current “emergency” state of the IDOC’s ability to treat mentally ill inmates.
The Court has considered the balance of the potential harms to the Parties and the public interest. The Court recognizes there are budgetary and some non-economic hurdles (e.g. recruitment) in properly staffing the institutions with adequate mental health professionals. Nonetheless, the Court finds any such constraints are dwarfed by the immense harm to the inmates. The failure to properly treat these inmates – particularly those in segregation - is making them worse “across the board” according to Dr. Hinton. (ECF No. 1758 at 82). These are mentally ill individuals, who themselves are left, in a very real way, at the mercy of the IDOC to provide them with the constitutionally minimal level of health care. And this is simply not being done, and based on the record presented, will not be done unless there is a preliminary injunction issued by this Court.
Finally, the Court has considered the public interest in issuing this preliminary injunction. The Defendants did not raise any issue as to public safety or the ability to operate the prisons if there was adequate staffing. In fact, the record indicates quite, to the contrary, that adequate staffing may actually decrease certain prison problems. (See ECF No. 1757 at 260, testimony of Dr. Stewart explained that there is an increase in the use of crisis cells, use of restraints, use of
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 15 of 42
force, all as a result of patients not being seen frequently enough). The Court recognizes there is a financial component to adequately staffing the institutions. However, the evidence presented during the hearing was that adequate staffing has been budgeted, the positions are just not being filled.
In the end, the Court finds there is little harm in requiring the Defendants to do what they agreed to do, budgeted to do, and, based on this record, are constitutionally required to do. Inadequate Staffing
As noted above, the Plaintiffs argue the Defendants are not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement in the areas of treatment plans, evaluations, medications, segregation, and crisis treatment and transitions. The Defendants acknowledge they have not fully complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 1965 at 5). The Defendants instead argue the evidence at the hearing was insufficient for this Court to make a finding that there has been a systemic lack of substantial compliance.
The most fundamental issue effecting each of these areas is the IDOC’s deficiency in psychiatric and other mental health staffing. This is generally undisputed. The IDOC houses approximately 12,000 inmates who suffer from mental illness, with over 4,800 who are considered seriously mentally ill. (ECF No. 1716, Pl. Ex. 22; see also ECF No. 1758 at 50, testimony of Dr. Hinton). These inmates need a certain level of on-going care. During the hearing, several of the witnesses testified about the system-wide staffing problems and the IDOC’s inability to meet the required standard of care under the Constitution.
The IDOC’s inability to properly staff the institutions with psychiatrists has been a persistent problem. (ECF No. 1716, Plt. Ex. 23, providing summary staffing levels for Nov. 2015, Sept. 2016, and June 2017). Dr. Hinton acknowledged that the IDOC had only 29 psychiatrists
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 16 of 42
available, with a system-wide need of 65 psychiatrists. (ECF No. 1758 at 48). The Defendants explain, however, efforts have been made to increase the staffing levels, or otherwise meet the inmates’ mental health needs by utilizing alternatives. For example, the IDOC has considered a program to utilize primary care physicians to provide mental health services, as well as considering the use of certified nurse practitioners. (ECF No. 1758 at 74). At least as to this point, these efforts have not materialized into any significant improvements in the inmates’ mental health treatment.
When asked directly about the ability to provide psychiatric care with such a deficiency in staffing, Dr. Hinton’s testimony was clear – the IDOC cannot deliver the required level of care. In the simplest form, Dr. Hinton testified as follows:
Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists? A. Correct. (ECF No. 1758 at 50). Dr. Hinton was asked about the dangers the lack of appropriate staffing can have on an individual who is taking psychotropic medicine. The harm was demonstrated in the following exchange: Q. And you’ve heard all the ills that can come if somebody is on psychotropic medicine and it’s not being monitored, right? A. Correct. Q. And you know that’s dangerous, don’t you? A. Correct. Q. And you know that the 6,000 people are being endangered every day they’re not seen correctly; isn’t that right? A. Certainly is a concern, yes.
16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 17 of 42
Q. It’s more than a concern. It’s your responsibility that they get that care; isn’t that right? A. Correct. Q. And you know they’re not getting it? A. Correct. (ECF No. 1758 at 52-53). Dr. Hinton’s testimony regarding inmates who are in segregation was also alarming. Dr. Hinton explained the problem related to this issue in the following questions and answers: Q. [ ]. Why do you have so many mentally ill people in segregation and so few regular population people in segregation? A. I think, in general, the percentage of folks who are mentally ill tend to have more behavioral issues, in part because of their mental illness. Q. So, you've got so many of them in segregation because they do -- they don't follow the rules well, right? A. In part. Q. And has anyone, to your knowledge, wondered whether or not putting mentally ill people in segregation is good for them? A. Yes. Q. Who's done that? A. I have. Q. And what's your view? A. My view is there's nothing -- there's nothing that is a good thing about being in segregation. We need to make sure that they have proper access to treatment. Q. Now, I believe your testimony the last time I took it on that subject was it won't hurt them if we treat them with the treatment they need, right? A. Access to treatment, correct.
17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 18 of 42
Q. But how do you know they're getting the treatment they need if they're in segregation? A. That's why we have to make sure that there are no barriers to the access to treatment. Q. But you don't have enough people? A. Correct. Q. So, you know they're not getting the right treatment? A. We know that there's significant staffing shortages. Q. They're not getting the right kind of psychiatric care, right? A. We don't have -- correct, we don't have the right staffing requirements. Q. They're not getting enough groups because you don't have enough people to run the groups? A. Correct. Q. And you know from your own personal judgment that if you're not doing that for people in segregation, they're going to get worse; isn't that right? A. Across the board. (ECF No. 1758 at 81-82)(Emphasis added). Dr. Michael Dempsey, M.D., staff psychiatrist for Wexford Health Sources from January 2013, until September 2015, who was physically located at Pontiac Correctional Center, also testified about the lack of psychiatric staffing at the IDOC. Dr. Dempsey explained: Yeah, we don’t have enough psychiatrists to treat the patients. We just don’t. If I remember correctly, IDOC had projected that they needed 66-1/2 full-timeequivalent psychiatrists to provide care for the population within the IDOC. I’m not sure if we’ve reached 25 full-time-equivalents at this point since I haven’t been working there for the last six months. I know it’s not 66. (ECF No. 1757 at 197). Dr. Dempsey further explained the problems associated with the lack of staffing are as follows:
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 19 of 42
I believe that we didn’t have enough psychiatrists with the kind of expertise that is necessary to understand the correctional system.
Corrections is a unique environment. It takes into account the fact that a person with a serious mental illness who is not in a natural environment is somehow expected, without the kind of supports they need, to function adequately, to understand the rules, the regulations.
And when you have patients who are seriously mentally ill, who may be psychotic, who have impaired reality testing, and you put them in an environment where they’re segregated, where they’re not treated to any appropriate degree or subtherapeutically, and their options are limited, and they have to make important decisions, I find it becomes an emergent situation.
(ECF No. 1757 at 199).
Finally, when discussing the psychiatric and mental health backlog (more fully discussed
below), Dr. Stewart explained:
Well, you know -- again, that backlog can't be taken in isolation. You gotta look at the overall system. So, here we're talking about, you know, increased use of crisis cells, increased use of restraints, increased use of force, people suffering because of untreated mental illness. All of that has to -- is linked in some way with the fact that patients aren't being seen frequently enough or seen at all.
(ECF No. 1757 at 260)(Emphasis added). In his Mid-Year Report, Dr. Stewart further explained:
IDOC leadership has been well aware of the problems related to the insufficient amount of psychiatric services and yet has been unable to adequately solve this issue. At the time of the submission of this midyear report, however, the lack and quality of psychiatric services continues to negatively impact all aspects of the Settlement and contributes to IDOC being non-compliant in the vast majority of areas of the Settlement. Of note, these deficiencies regarding psychiatric services were reported in the First Annual Report. The Monitor personally met with Director Baldwin on 6/26/17 to discuss this problem. To date, IDOC is yet to effectively address this emergency.
(ECF No. 1646 at 9).
The Defendants imply the Plaintiffs are unable to show that prisoners suffered harm from
the delay in conducting initial evaluations. (ECF No. 1965 at 15). Contrary to that position, each
of the above-referenced doctors who testified during the hearing unequivocally stated the inmates’
19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 20 of 42
conditions were getting worse as a result of this staffing problem. Parenthetically, the Court very much appreciates the candor of Dr. Hinton. The Court finds his testimony in regard to the IDOC’s staffing extremely credible. Dr. Hinton admitted virtually everything that the Plaintiffs were alleging in terms of the scope of the problem, the reason why the problem has not been adequately addressed, and his testimony was collaborated with the others doctors testifying. All of them made it clear this is an emergency situation.
Based on the record presented (and under the applicable standard of review), the Court finds the Defendants are not complying with the terms of the Settlement Agreement in the five areas identified herein because, among other things, they have maintained insufficient staffing levels to address the mental health needs of the inmates. The Court finds that the deficient staffing levels has created an emergency situation, and a situation where the Defendants are unable to provide the constitutionally required care. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir. 1983)(citing Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977))(“When systematic deficiencies in staffing, facilities or procedures make unnecessary suffering inevitable, a court will not hesitate to use its injunctive powers.”). There have undoubtedly been efforts on the part of the Defendants to address the staffing needs with regard to mental health, however, these efforts have been wholly ineffective – and have gone on far too long without any real attempt to adapt or modify based on the knowledge gained from their recruitment efforts. Bottom line is, these Defendants are required to maintain a minimum level of medical service to avoid the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. Id. They have not done so.
Given this background, the Court will now address each of the specific areas.
20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 21 of 42
Medications
Dr. Stewart explained that psychiatric conditions are brain illnesses. (ECF No. 1757 at
241). Some of the medication used to treat psychiatric conditions have harsh side effects. Id.
Because of these side effects, monitoring is required. Id. The Settlement Agreement addresses
some of the required monitoring for inmates who are taking psychotropic medication.
Sections XII(b) of the Settlement Agreement provides:
Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
(ECF No. 711-1 at 15). The referenced Administrative Directive provides:
Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, with extensions on follow-up care for those who psychiatrist have found and documented that the offender has reached stability (outpatient level of care: Not to exceed 90 days; RTU level of care: not to exceed 60 days).
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement requires:
The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive, dyskinesia, high blood pressure, and liver function decline [and]
Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluations [ ].
(ECF No. 711-1 at 15).
Dr. Stewart’s conclusion related to these requirements was that “[i]t's rare when someone
is being seen every 30 days [and he has] [f]ound examples of people being seen -- of medications
being routinely written for anywhere from two to six months.” (ECF No. 1757 at 243). The reason
Dr. Stewart was given by prescribers, the nursing staff, and the clinical administrators for 21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 22 of 42
medication being prescribed for longer periods of time was because “[the IDOC doesn’t] have
enough people to see people every 30 days so [they] write the meds longer so the meds won't
expire, and hopefully [they’ll] see them within a couple months or three months.” (ECF No. 1757
at 243-44). Dr. Hinton and Dr. Dempsey both discussed the ramifications associated with the
failure to monitor individuals on psychotropic medication. (ECF No. 1758 at 108-110, Dr. Hinton
discussed AIMS score, a process in which psychiatrist or psychiatric provider checks a patient for
involuntary movements resulted from medication; see also ECF No. 1757 at 179-183, testimony
of Dr. Dempsey). And, as explained above, all of these doctors recognized there is a serious
staffing issue resulting in the inability to provide adequate care.
Section XII(c)(vi) of the Settlement Agreement provides:
The offender, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience Medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by a MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
(ECF No. 711-1 at XX).
Dr. Stewart reviewed the Defendants’ compliance with this provision, and testified:
[I]in a significant number of charts, I noted that there were periods of time where a person -- it was documented they did not take their medication.
So, then I would look back in the medical record for -- during that time frame to see if there was a progress note from a mental health professional that indicated that they visited the offender and reviewed the medication non-compliance. And in the overwhelming majority of the cases, there was -- I did not find evidence of that.
And then I would continue to look in those cases where I did find that the MHP had visited the offender and discussed compliance.
If there were continued non-compliance of the medication, in those cases I would check the chart again to see if there was a referral to a psychiatrist and if the psychiatrist had met with the offender. And I believe that, in my review, I only found one or two examples of -- where the psychiatrist had actually spoken to the person regarding non-compliance.
22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 23 of 42
(ECF No. 1758 at 23-24). Mental health professionals (“MHP”) include: [A] physician who is licensed to practice medicine and is board-certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“ABPN”) or the American Osteopathic Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (“AOBPN”), or has completed four (4) years of an accredited post-graduate training program in psychiatry; a psychologist with a Ph.D/Psy.D and licensed as a clinical psychologist; a licensed psychiatric nurse (i.e., a nurse licensed as an R.N. and certified in psychiatric-mental health); a licensed clinical social worker; or an individual licensed to provide mental health services with a Ph.D/Psy.D or Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program. “Licensed” means currently licensed by the State of Illinois. (ECF No. 711-1 at 4). Finally, the Plaintiffs also presented evidence that there are problems associated with the timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders. One major problem is that inmates are given their medications but not monitored closely to ensure they have ingested the pills, especially in segregation. Infra pg. 29. For example, Dr. Stewart testified one of the inmates he visited had numerous pills on his person that he had not taken. (ECF No. 1757 at 254). In addition, staff members are not making sure inmates are adequately informed about what medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the medication. These are serious concerns, and the Court doubts any of the medical witnesses would disagree that these issues are avoidable with the proper medication management provided in the Settlement Agreement. Based on the record presented, the Court finds the Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with regard to medication management. The Court finds the Defendants have prescribed (or allowed to be prescribed) psychotropic medication in a manner that has created a seriously dangerous situation. Specifically, the Court finds that psychotropic medication has been prescribed with inadequate monitoring, including the supervision to ensure inmates are taking the medication and monitoring of the effects of the same. The Court further
23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 24 of 42
finds the failure to properly dispense the medication has created an emergency situation, and a situation where the Defendants are not providing the constitutionally required care. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Evaluations
As previously noted, there is no dispute the Defendants have failed to comply with Section V(f) of the Settlement Agreement. Section V(f) provides:
Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral (see IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 § II(G)(2)(b) and 04.04.101 §II(F)(2)(c)). (ECF No. 711-1 at 8). There was much evidence regarding the significant backlog in psychiatric contacts with inmates. Contacts are activities that psychiatrists and mental health professionals are supposed to accomplish, including evaluations, treatment plans, and follow-up. (ECF No. 1757 at 212-13). The Defendants argue that the backlog has substantially declined, noting that there is now a backlog of 313 initial evaluations. (ECF No. 1894, Df. Ex. 1a; but see also ECF No. 1757 at 213, where it was noted there was a backlog of 445 evaluations, 780 treatment planning contacts, and 2785 follow-up visits). The Defendants further note that a significant amount of these are only delayed 1-14 days. Finally, the Defendants suggest that the record does not identify the number of mentally ill prisoners at the various facilities, and thus, the Court is unable determine how the number of late evaluations at those four facilities compares to the number of mentally ill prisoners at those facilities. (ECF No. 1965 at 14). The Defendants argument that the Court is unable to determine the extent of the problem based solely on the size of the backlog without additional information regarding the population is unpersuasive. Dr. Hinton testified as to the unacceptable nature of the backlog. (ECF No. 1758 at 52, et seq.).
24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 25 of 42
Overall, the Court finds this backlog further demonstrates the harm of the on-going emergency staffing problem in the system. Evidence presented at the hearing showed, as of October 2017, there were a total of 4,010 backlogged contacts. (ECF No. 1757 at 213). The Defendants argue they have taken steps to reduce backlogs in psychiatric evaluations. And, the record does reflect that there have been times, including most recently, that there has been reductions in the backlog with respect to certain activities. (ECF No. 1894, Df. Ex. 35; ECF No. 1964-4 at 1). However, the overall backlog remains significant. Id. Additionally, the Court would note that the most significant reduction only came around, or after, the filing of the Plaintiffs’ initial Motion. (See id., see also ECF No. 1559, filed on 10/10/2017). And sometimes at the detriment of providing other services.
The testimony of Dr. Stewart explained that the requirements in the Settlement Agreement for the psychiatric evaluation and follow-up are “minimal” in the context of medical care. (ECF No. 1758 at 39). The failure to properly evaluate a mentally ill individual will result in the exacerbation of the mental illness. (ECF No. 1757 at 260; see also ECF No. 1758 at 53, wherein Dr. Hinton explained the dangerous nature of this inaction).
Based on the record presented, the Court finds the Defendants have violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the requirement of evaluations. The Defendants have failed to maintain adequate the mental health staff so that there are timely inmate evaluations, treatment planning contacts, and follow-ups. This failure has created an emergency situation, and a situation where the Defendants are not providing the constitutionally required care. The testifying medical doctors all made it clear that the evaluations (and other contacts) are necessary to guide the care needed. Without properly engaging in these activities, simply put, there is a significant risk that the care will be ineffective. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies
25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 26 of 42
for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Treatment Plans
Plaintiffs contend the Defendants have failed to adhere to the Settlement Agreement’s requirements related to treatment planning. In sum, the Settlement Agreement provides:
As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team. (ECF No. 711-1 at 9). Plaintiffs specifically argue the treatment plans are being done in a perfunctory manner that do not facilitate the delivery of mental health services. (ECF No. 1559 at 14). The Plaintiffs also argue that the IDOC has failed to perform the required treatment plan reviews and updates for mentally ill offenders assigned to residential treatment units, segregation, and crisis housing. (ECF No. 1559 at 15). Defendants, however, argue that the reviewed treatment plan form was adopted as a result of issues raised by the Monitor, and the evidence introduced at trial demonstrates the Defendants are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 1965 at 17-23). Specifically, Defendants explain Dr. Stewart acknowledged that treatment plans are being prepared for mentally ill offenders with few exceptions. However, he did state that there was a backlog in treatment plans. (ECF 1905 at 79). Dr. Stewart found the bigger issue to be, in a majority of medical files he reviewed, was that the treatment plan used boilerplate language and did “not address the treatment needs of a particular mentally ill offender.” (ECF No. 1905 at 80). The Court notes there was limited information on specific treatment plans that were deficient. Dr. Stewart did review the treatment plan of “Tyler,” a SMI inmate who committed
26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 27 of 42
suicide on October 27, 2017, and went as far as saying that the plan had “significant deficiencies that, in [his] opinion, led to the suicide.” (ECF No. 1716, Pl. Ex. 25; ECF No. 1757 at 72-91; ECF No. 109 at 1064). In reviewing his treatment plan pages, he identified numerous pages that were left blank. (ECF No. 1757 at 83, 84, 87). Specifically, portions that Dr. Stewart said were “key elements of a person's mental status” as well as the assessment function test that should have listed his history of self-harm. (ECF No. 1757 at 78). Dr. Stewart’s testimony highlighted his general observations regarding the preparation of the treatment plans.
Q. In this period of time, from your annual report in May 2017 to your midyear report, did you find any substantive improvement overall in the quality of treatment planning? A. In the quality of the treatment planning, no. Q. And certainly did we see any improvement in the quality of Tyler's treatment planning? A. No, at all. In reviewing these, this is what I referred to earlier, that they go through this and leave pages blank. I mean, they have the form set up there. All you gotta do is check a couple boxes, and they didn't bother to do that, which is very common for -- with treatment planning that I've reviewed this last 18 months. (ECF No. 1757 at 91). Dr. Stewart testified there is a “huge urgency” in the area of treatment planning and believes that staff needs to make treatment planning a priority. ECF 1905 at 1057-1058. When pressed on the question of priorities overall Dr. Stewart said, “I agree that priorities need to be made, but the priority that hasn't been made is to go out and get sufficient staff so you don't have to make these very dangerous choices of doing follow-up visits versus treatment plans.” (ECF No. 1905 at 95). The common theme noted throughout this Order is that the staff deficiencies constrain the delivery of mental health services. In this regard, Dr. Stewart testified: I think we saw from the testimony in the last couple of days about the backlogs. And although the bulk of the backlogs belong to follow-up appointments, there
27

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 28 of 42
were a significant number, in my opinion, of backlogs for psychiatric evaluations and treatment planning. So, if the treatment plan is designed to provide the framework from which the care is provided, and if it's late, then the care is delayed. That's about all I can say about timeliness. (ECF No. 1905 at 79). In the end, the evidence presented at the hearing related to treatment plans clearly showed that IDOC’s failure to properly staff the institutions effects their ability to timely and effectively complete, review, and monitor the treatment plans. Based on the record presented, the Court finds the Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with regard to treatment plans. The Court finds the Defendants have failed, in a systemic way, to properly create, update, and monitor the treatment plans. This problem has been caused, in a large part, by the Defendants’ failure in addressing the staffing needs. The Court finds, and the record shows, the staffing deficiency has caused the Defendants to have to make the “very dangerous choice” of choosing what service to provide at the exclusion of others. See supra pg. 27. The Court further finds the failure to properly address the treatment plans has created an emergency situation, and a situation where the Defendants are not providing the constitutionally required care. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Segregation Under Sections XV(a)(iii): Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
28

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 29 of 42
(ECF No. 711-1 at 17). The Settlement Agreement also places certain timeframes on MHP’s review of, and updates to, the treatment plans for mentally ill offenders placed in segregation.
The purpose of this requirement is simple – when you place an inmate3 “into a segregation system, you need to review and update the treatment plan given the vastly different environment the person is in.” (ECF No. 1905 at 82). Dr. Hinton’s testimony detailed above makes it clear that the requirements related to inmates who are in segregation are simply not being met. Supra, pg. 16. In fact, Dr. Hinton testified that, in his view, “there’s nothing that is a good thing about being in segregation.” (ECF No. 1758 at 82). The record, at least as it relates to mentally ill inmates, supports this conclusion.
Dr. Stewart testified that the IDOC’s medication management for those in segregation is worse than for Class Members elsewhere in the system. Dr. Stewart specifically noted that there is a significant problem in the failure to ensure that those in segregation who are prescribed psychotropic medication actually take the medication. (ECF No. 1757 at 123).
Additionally, there was testimony and evidence during the evidentiary hearing regarding Defendants’ non-compliance with the out-of-cell time required for mentally ill inmates placed in segregation. (ECF No. 1757 at 136; see also ECF No. 711-1 at 20, Section XV(c) of the Settlement
3 It should be noted that Dr. Stewart also explained that inmates in segregation are: [ ] some of the sickest individuals psychiatrically that I've seen in my career, and I've only worked with seriously mentally ill. And these people are just suffering immensely. And so -- you know, and they get nothing. Couple little things thrown at them. But they really don't get any sort of regular treatment. And so this is a real serious issue, you know. I don't want to put a number on it. It's, it's -- it's as serious as I've seen.
(ECF No. 1905 at 182-83).
29

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 30 of 42
requires “mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time.”)
Dr. Stewart explains the consequences of this failure are: [ ] psychiatric decompensation. And then we run into that whole line, you know, acting out, writing up, more segregation time and/or going to crisis, coming out. It's -- the fact that (vi)(A), which is continuation of the initial treatment plan with enhanced therapy, if necessary, to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation, that's not being done. People are getting worse in segregation. (ECF No. 1905 at 174). Based on the record presented, the Court finds the Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with regard to segregation. The testimony during the hearing shows deficiencies in medical treatment in segregation have created an extremely dangerous situation. The length of time, sometimes staggering, that inmates are put in segregation, without properly addressing their mental health medical needs, furthers the mental decomposition of the inmate. Moreover, the failure to address the inmates’ mental health needs after being released exacerbates the inmates’ mental health problems. The Court further finds that the failure to properly address the mental health needs of inmates in segregation has created an emergency situation, and a situation where the Defendants are not providing the constitutionally required care. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to adequately address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Crisis Treatment Dr. Stewart explained that the crisis level of care is needed to assist “people that are presenting with acute problems that need aggressive intervention to deal with a particular acute issue.” (ECF No. 1757 at 38). Dr. Stewart further testified that it is “imperative that their treatment
30

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 31 of 42
is reviewed, not just by one individual but for the entire treatment team that's involved with the
case [ ] [a]nd that's not happening.” (ECF No. 1757 at 52). The Settlement Agreement provides
certain requirements as it relates to crisis treatment.
First, the Settlement Agreement provides:
Beds that are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilized the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2).
(ECF No. 711-1 at 3).
Dr. Stewart testified that, based on his review, the only treatment that regularly occurs on
crisis watches is the daily contact by the MHP, which are confidential sessions at some facilities
but takes place most often at the cell front. (ECF No. 1905 at 131). Dr. Stewart explained that:
But again, as I said, the only thing that occurs is being placed in the cell, having certain property removed, and then getting these daily visits. And so there's no specialized treatment that occurs for people in crisis.
(ECF No. 1903 at 198-99)(Emphasis added).
The Settlement Agreement also provides:
For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor. This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for Crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from Crisis Watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
(ECF No. 711-1 at 10).
31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 32 of 42
Dr. Stewart concluded, based on his review, Defendants are only conducting the first suicide evaluation, but are not continuing to assess monthly for six months. (ECF No. 1757 at 232). Dr. Stewart also opined that the Defendants’ failure to conduct necessary evaluations and assessments of those who are discharged from crisis watches results in unnecessary harm and suffering, especially as those failures combine with inadequate treatment planning and psychopharmacology. (ECF No. 1757 at 231). Based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the Court finds that there is a serious deficiency in the treatment of inmates who are placed in, and subsequently transitioned from, crisis treatment. It is the opinion of this Court that this deficiency is directly caused by the Defendants’ inadequate staffing of mental health professionals.
Based on the record presented, the Court finds the Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with regard to crisis treatment. The testimony during the hearing shows deficiencies in medical treatment for inmates in crisis have created an extremely dangerous situation. Inmates’ needs are not being properly addressed, particularly by the lack, and quality, of contacts with mental health providers. Moreover, the Defendants are not providing adequate contact with the inmates after they have come off of crisis watch. The Court further finds the failure to properly address the mental health needs of inmates in crisis watch has created an emergency situation, and a situation where the Defendants are not providing the constitutionally required care. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to adequately address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Deliberate Indifference
To establish a constitutional violation, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, specifically their mental health needs.
32

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 33 of 42
“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citations omitted).
An inadequate medical care claim requires a plaintiff to fulfill two elements: (1) the plaintiff “suffered an objectively serious harm that presented a substantial risk to his safety,” and (2) “the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk.” Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 831 (7th Cir. 2010). The objective element requires that the plaintiff’s medical need to be “sufficiently serious.” Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). The subjective element requires that the “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837(1994)
To meet the objective prong, the medical need must be one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Gutierrez, 111 F.3d at 1373. A medical condition “need not be life-threatening to be serious; rather, it could be a condition that would result in further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated.” Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit has agreed with other courts in concluding that the “[t]reatment of the mental disorders of mentally disturbed inmates is a “serious medical need.” Wellman, 715 F.2d at 272 citing Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980); Inmates v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977).
The subjective component requires a plaintiff to “provide evidence that an official actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm.” Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir.
33

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 34 of 42
2016), Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. In order to establish deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff does not need to show that the official intended harm or believed that harm would occur.” Id., citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. However, medical malpractice, negligence, or even gross negligence do not equate to deliberate indifference. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006). See also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th Cir. 2013).
The Seventh Circuit has recognized claims of systemic deficiencies in a prison’s health care facility as a second category of deliberate indifference claims. Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche, 881 F.2d 427, 430–31 (7th Cir. 1989). In case of alleged systemic deficiencies, deliberate indifference can be demonstrated by “proving there are such systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that the inmate population is effectively denied access to adequate medical care.” Wellman, 715 F.2d. at 272 citing Ramos, 639 F.2d at 575. The Seventh Circuit has concluded “that a clear consensus had been reached indicating that a prison official's failure to remedy systemic deficiencies in medical services akin to those alleged in the present case constituted deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs.” Cleveland-Perdue, 881 F.2d at 431. See Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974), (affirming a district court decision finding that systemic deficiencies in the Alabama prisons including inadequate staffing, treatment by unqualified personnel, incomplete medical records and lack of written procedures establishing the duties and responsibilities of the medical personnel.).
The Court has considered each of the above areas of non-compliance, as well as the efforts the Defendants have made to cure the deficiencies. The Court finds that the Defendants have been constitutionally deficient in the delivery of care in each of the areas identified herein. The Court further finds that when taken together, it is abundantly clear the deficiencies create an emergency situation. The Court finds, considering all of the areas of non-compliance in total, and in spite of
34

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 35 of 42
the positive changes already made, the Defendants’ conduct amounts to deliberate indifference. It is unquestionable that the lack of adequate staffing is placing inmates in significant harm. During the Hearing held on May 22, 2018, Defendants argued that the evidence presented was “thin” with respect to the harm to the inmates. This Court disagrees and anyone reviewing this matter need only look to the testimony of the doctors. Dr. Hinton, Dr. Dempsey, and Dr. Stewart all testified, in some form, that the staffing deficiency has created an emergency situation. To further emphasize this point, the Court would note: Dr. Hinton testified:
Q. Do you believe that adequate care is being given to the 11- or 12,000 mentally ill people in the system today? A. I believe there are shortcomings. Q. So, you believe that many people are getting inadequate care; isn't that right? A. I do believe there are shortcomings, yes. Q. What do you mean, "I believe there are shortcomings"? A. Again, as we pointed out, there are sufficient-- or significant staffing issues that need to be addressed. Q. And that means some people are getting inadequate care, right? A. Certainly would lend to that. (ECF No. 1758 at 94-95)(Emphasis added). Dr. Dempsey testified: Q. And referring you to page nine, Dr. Stewart explains that the lack and quality of psychiatric services has contributed to an emergency situation. Is that consistent with your view of the state of the system when you left in May of 2017? A. Yes, it is. [ ]
35

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 36 of 42
A. My answer is yes, I considered it an emergency situation. (ECF No. 1757 at 198-199). And Dr. Stewart surmised:
Despite the improvements to the mental health care delivery system, IDOC continues to not be able to meet the majority of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Among IDOC’s biggest challenges is the lack of psychiatric services which meet a constitutional minimum level of care. That is, there continues to be a grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services. This overwhelming shortage and lack of standards undermines all of the efforts of IDOC to meet the requirements of the Settlement. (ECF No. 1646 at 9). In this case, the Court finds there has been a systemic constitutional deficiency in addressing the psychiatric and mental health professional staffing shortage. The Court recognizes the Defendants have made efforts to recruit and attract these professionals. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been sufficiently fruitful. Nonetheless, this is not a problem the Defendants can hide from; nor is it a problem that has only recently surfaced. In fact, the Defendants have been well aware of its staffing problem, and all constitutional deficiencies mentioned above, perhaps even before the filing of this case. If the Defendants are unable to recruit the talent they need, they must come up with alternatives that satisfy their obligation to provide constitutionally required care for mentally ill inmates. The Court would note that the Defendants have suggested the use of tele-psychiatry, primary care physicians, and nurse practitioners. The Court makes no finding as to whether these are viable plans, but the Defendant is certainly encouraged to determine the feasibility of such use. Furthermore, this Order is not intended to condemn the Defendants for their efforts addressing the issues related to mental health treatment. The Defendants have made progress in many areas. The Department has obtained funds for construction and remodeling projects. In fact,
36

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 37 of 42
the Defendants have already invested $45 million in capital projects. Additionally, the Monitor noted areas where the Defendants have achieved compliance with the Settlement Agreement, including:
A greater number of structured out-of-cell activities are being offered to those mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation, and there was improved content in group therapy in some locations. The RTU at Joliet began accepting mentally ill offenders on 11/6/17. Dixon has made significant progress and is close to being substantially compliant with constructing sufficient bed and treatment space for 625 RTU offenders. More institutions moved from cell side to private contacts for crisis care. Dixon has improved the overall confidentiality of its psychiatric contacts. It is a major improvement that treatment plans in Dixon’s STC are now completed during monthly review meetings by members of every discipline treating the patients. The mental status examinations of the mental health evaluations were somewhat more comprehensive. (ECF No. 1646 at 8-9). But, at the end of the day, the Defendants must address their staffing deficiency. One of the more problematic issues arising out of the hearing is what appears to be the lack of any sense of urgency on the part of the Defendants to address its staffing issue. This began as far back as 2014 when the Defendants created their own 2014 remedial plan, and have yet to fulfill the staffing requirements. The Plaintiffs note that after the Monitor issued his First Annual Report in May 2017, and Plaintiffs initiated the dispute resolution process in June 2017. (ECF No. 2057 at 2-3). As part of that process, the Defendants were required to investigate the allegations and propose a corrective action plan. Id. The Plaintiffs allege nothing was done. Id. The Plaintiffs additionally allege no action has been taken by the Defendants to address the alleged deficiencies at any step of the pre-litigation procedure. Id. The Defendants object to this characterization. The record certainly supports Plaintiffs’ position, but regardless, it appears to this Court the Defendants have been unable to put forth any meaningful plan to address the deficiencies. The Court further finds his type of relief is consistent with the PLRA, the Settlement Agreement, and the law of this Circuit. French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985) (District
37

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 38 of 42
Court was “within his power in drafting a detailed remedy to curb egregious neglect and mismanagement [ ]” including a comprehensive overhaul of the medical staff.)
Despite this, the Defendants have objected to this Court moving forward with its own plan and not providing them the opportunity to submit its own plan to come into compliance. In support of their position, Defendants provided various district court opinions taking this approach. See Lipscomb v. Pfister, No. 12-CV-1041, 2014 WL 287269, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2014); Lacy v. Dart, No. 14 C 6259, 2015 WL 5921810; and Skinner v. Uphoff, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1217 (D. Wyo. 2002). While this approach may have been prudent in those cases, the Court finds such approach would be ineffective in this case. This case has been pending for over a decade, and the time has certainly come to take action to address the emergency situation described by the doctors who testified at the hearing.
The Court also believes it is necessary to put in place additional measures to ensure inmates are receiving constitutionally required mental health care for a period of time until Defendants have demonstrated its staffing requirements are met. The Court has fully considered the record presented, and finds remedies set forth below satisfy the requirements of the PLRA and the Settlement Agreement. The Court further finds that this is a narrowly tailored injunction that satisfies the Seventh Circuit’s requirement, including the requirements contained in Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir. 2012). Notably, in Westerfer, the Seventh Circuit examined Illinois inmates’ challenge to the IDOC’s procedures for assigning inmates to the super-max prison. Id. The Seventh Circuit reiterated the district court’s obligation to consider the operational discretion and flexibility of prisoner administrators in fashioning preliminary injunctive relief. Id. at 682. The Seventh Circuit raised concerns over imposing specific timeframes in the context of that case because, among other things, the relief (e.g. additional notice) far exceeded the due
38

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 39 of 42
process requirement. Id. at 684. In that regard, the Seventh Circuit noted that the district court “ha[d] in effect established the details of that system as constitutional requirements.” Id. at 686. But here, the Court finds that the timeframes set forth below are necessary, narrowly tailored, and provide the prison mental health staff the flexibility they need in providing the medical care. These timeframes are necessary in order to prevent the unnecessary suffering of inmates and creation of dangerous situations, as described by the medical doctors testifying in this case. Moreover, and contrary to the Defendants’ position during the hearing held on May 22, 2018, the Court finds that, to the extent the obligations set forth below are specific in nature, such requirements are necessary to insure inmates receive constitutionally required care given the Defendants’ lack of compliance with their own directives and the Settlement Agreement.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: In order to bring Defendants into compliance with constitutional law and to prevent further harm to Plaintiffs Class Members, the Court orders as follows: 1. For any class member placed on a mental health crisis watch:
a. IDOC shall provide appropriate mental health treatment to stabilize the symptoms and protect against decompensation.
b. Reevaluations of treatment and medication will occur as needed and mental health treatment shall be determined and any necessary interventions to stabilize individuals shall occur.
c. Daily assessment in a confidential setting of patient's progress to determine if the patient is moving towards stability, whether other or additional treatments are indicated, or if transfer to a higher level of care is required.
d. Prior to discharge from crisis watch multidisciplinary team with the patient shall review and update the treatment plan.
e. Prior to discharge from crisis watch an appropriate mental health professional with the patient shall review and update the treatment plan which will apply after discharge from crisis watch. The updated treatment plan will address causes which led to the deterioration and the plan for risk management to prevent relapse.
39

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 40 of 42
f. For anyone who does not stabilize sufficiently to be discharged from crisis watch, the treatment team must establish a plan to provide a higher level of care, which may include transfer to a higher level of care facility, or explain in writing why establishing such a plan is not appropriate.
2. As to class members housed in Control Units:
a. Mental Health Professionals shall assess any class member promptly after initial placement in administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, or other similar restrictive status (collectively referred to as Control Unit). Such review shall be documented in the patient's progress notes. The purpose of the assessment shall be at a minimum to determine whether the patient has decompensated and should be removed from the Control Unit and to provide a baseline against which any future decompensation or deterioration of the patient's mental status can be measured
b. Class members who are in a Control Unit for periods of sixteen days or more shall receive care that includes at a minimum:
i. Continuation of their mental health treatment plan with such treatment as necessary to protect from any decompensation.
ii. Rounds in every section of each Control Unit at least every seven days by appropriate mental health staff.
iii. Pharmacological treatment (if applicable).
iv. Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings to the extent clinically appropriate.
v. MHP or mental health treatment team recommendations to post-segregation housing.
c. Class members in any Control Unit for periods longer than 60 days shall be provided with structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect against decompensation.
d. Mental health staff shall assess class members in Control Units to determine if a higher level of care is necessary and if so, to make proper recommendations to facility authority.
3. Within 90 days of this order, Defendants shall provide sufficient staff to address constitutional violations in the five areas identified in this order.
40

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 41 of 42
4. Within 60 days of this order, Defendants shall evaluate whether their current staffing plan is sufficient to provide mental health treatment consist with constitutional law in the areas of treatment planning, medication management, mental health care on crisis watches, mental health care in segregation, and mental health evaluations.
5. Defendant shall report on their findings and submit a proposed amended staffing plan, if necessary, to the monitor and plaintiffs' counsel.
6. Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards.
7. IDOC shall accomplish the following in psychiatric services:
a. Administer medications to all class members in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed.
b. The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskenesia, high blood pressure, and liver function decline.
c. Take necessary steps to ascertain side effects including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, AIMs review, and neurological evaluation.
d. The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results.
e. The class members for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanations from appropriate medical staff about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what in general are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
f. That class members, including offenders in a Control Unit who experience medication noncompliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender's medication noncompliance said noncompliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatric provider.
8. All class members shall have a treatment plan that is individualized and particularized based on the patient's specific needs, including long and short term objectives, updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest extent possible.
9. Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically necessary to assess the progress of the documented treatment goal and update the plan accordingly.
41

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2070 Page 42 of 42
10. A quarterly report created by IDOC shall certify each facility's compliance with the above requirements.
11. Nothing in this order relieves the Defendants of their obligations under the Settlement Agreement. This preliminary injunction shall expire 90 days after its entry, unless this Court enters a
final order for prospective relief before then. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Entered this 25th day of May 2018. /s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm U.S. District Court Judge
42

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 1 of 177

E-FILED
Friday, 08 June, 2018 02:30:23 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH

)

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.

)

Hawley

)

)

)

SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 2 of 177
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………….…4 METHODOLOGY/MONITORING ACTIVITIES ……………………………………………7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………….9 DETAILED FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………..……15 IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING ……………..…….16 V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS …………………………..…….20 VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION …………………………………..……25 VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW ……………………………..……25 VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS…32 IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF…………………………………………........34 X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE ………………………………………………………..………37 XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING ………………………………………………….………44 XII: MEDICATION.……………………………………………………………………….……47 XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION ………………………………………………51 XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS ……………………………………………………….…….56 XV: SEGREGATION …………………………………………………………………….……..57 XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION ………………………………………………………….……...70 XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES …………….………78 XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS ……………………………………………………………..........84 XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY ……………………………………………………………………..86 XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION …………………………………………………........90 XXI: STAFF TRAINING …………………………………………………………………..........91
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 3 of 177 XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS ………………………………………….92 XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY …………………………………………………..92 XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE ……………………………………………..94 XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS …………………….103 XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ………………………….114 XXVII: MONITORING …………………………………………………………………….....115 XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING …………………………………………...116 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………….117
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 4 of 177
BACKGROUND
IDOC: IDOC consists of 28 adult correctional facilities. Among these are four maximum security facilities (including a facility for women), and two women’s facilities. Four of the facilities have Reception and Classification units where inmates are received into IDOC. Two of the facilities, Logan and Dixon, have Residential Treatment Units. The Joliet Treatment Center began receiving offenders on October 4, 2017 and as of May 1, 2018 has a census of 41. The RTU at Pontiac is not operating as of the submission of this report. The Amended Settlement Agreement states that the RTU at Pontiac is to open no later than July 6, 2018. All facilities have crisis care beds as well as having some form of segregation, including administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, and investigative status.
Settlement: The original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The Amended Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) was approved May 23, 2016. It covers a range of issues affecting inmates with mental illness or serious mental illness:
• Policies and procedures • Intake screening • Medication continuity on arrival • Referrals • Mental health evaluations • Crisis Intervention Team • Licensure • Inmate orientation • Treatment plans and updates • Psychiatric evaluations • Follow-up after discharge from specialized treatment settings • Staffing plans and hiring • Bed, programming, and office space for residential treatment units, inpatient
facilities, and crisis beds • Administrative staffing • Medication administration, documentation, evaluations, lab work, side effects
monitoring, informed consent, non-compliance follow-up • Enforced medication • Housing assignment notice and recommendations • Treatment, housing conditions, and out-of-cell time in segregation and
investigative status • Review of segregation terms length • Suicide prevention • Restraints for mental health purposes • Mental health care records and forms • Confidentiality • Change of Seriously Mentally Ill designation • Staff training • Nondiscrimination in program participation
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 5 of 177

• Records and medication continuity on inter-facility transfers • Use of force and verbal abuse • Mental health input into discipline • Continuous quality improvement • Terms of monitoring this Settlement • IDOC reporting
Deadlines: Deadlines in the Settlement range from immediate to the year 2020; this report calculates many deadlines from the Amended Settlement Agreement approval date of May 23, 2016. A number of deadlines on critical issues were contingent upon, and calculated from, the state budget approval date of July 6, 2017. The team reviewed each provision of the Settlement per the specific deadlines identified in the Settlement. Of note, there are many provisions for which the deadline is “as agreed upon” between the parties but for which the monitoring team did not receive a schedule of specific agreed-upon dates. For these particular issues, the assigned compliance ratings reflect the current status of the issues.
The following table lists the requirements in order of their deadlines to be accomplished. Of the 36 items with deadlines on or before May 22, 2018, 15 have reached Substantial Compliance. Ratings are also indicated for those items to be accomplished “in a reasonable time,” in the event that it is determined that a reasonable time is now at hand. A more detailed summary of the compliance status of all Settlement Agreement provisions can be found in the Executive Summary.

Amended Settlement Agreement provision

Timeline

Crisis Beds are to be outside Control Units (except Pontiac) Regional Director hires State employee at each facility to supervise State clinical staff, monitor and approve vendor staff Architectural plans to Monitor 12 Mental Health Forms in use Treating mental health professionals1 disclose information to patient Medical Records and medication transferred with patient Intergovernmental Agreement with Department of Health Services Medication delivery, recording, side effects monitoring, lab work, patient informed, non-compliance follow-up Propose any amendment to Staffing Plan Any objections to proposed amended Staffing Plan

May 2016
June 2016 June 2016
July 2016 July 2016 July 2016
August 2016 August 2016
August 2016
August 2016 October 2016

Substantial Compliance?
No
Yes No
Yes Yes No
No Yes
No
No finding No finding

1 Referred to throughout the Settlement Agreement and this report as MHP
- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 6 of 177

All policies/procedures/ADs specified in Settlement Agreement – drafts to Plaintiffs and Monitor
Confidentiality: records, mental health information, policies and training Behavior Treatment Program pilot Quality Improvement Manager hire Review Committees for SMI Disciplinary Segregation terms Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 8 hours out of cell time weekly Inmate Orientation policy and procedure Crisis beds at Pontiac moved to protective custody Suicide Prevention measures Physical Restraints measures
Staff Training plan and program developed Discipline: policies related to self-injury Mental health staff Training plan and program developed Transfers: consults and notification Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 12 hours out of cell time weekly Staffing: quarterly hiring reports, meeting targets
Mental health referrals and evaluations Staffing to run RTU at Joliet Central office staff hires for policies and recordkeeping RTU Programming and Office Space Staffing hires – Dixon, Pontiac, Logan
RTU Bed Space
Inpatient Bed Space construction
Screening conducted with sound privacy Training for all State and vendor staff with inmate contact

November 2016 No (unless otherwise specified) November 2016 No

November 2016 No February 2017 Yes February 2017 Yes

May 2016-May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017
May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 June 2017-May 2018 Quarterly from October 2017 on November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 January 2018 January-July 2018 January-October 2018 JanuaryNovember 2018 May 2018 May 2018

No
Yes No No Some institutions Yes No Yes No Some institutions No
No No No
No
No
No
Yes

Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 16 hours out of cell time weekly

June 2018-May 2019

Target date has not arrived

MHP review within 48 hours after Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement placement

July 2018

No

- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 7 of 177

Inpatient Facility – transfer ownership and expand, policies
Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 20 hours out of cell time weekly
Segregation and Temporary Confinement for mentally ill: housing decisions, MHP review, treatment and out-of-cell requirements Develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations Screening on arrival at reception Psychotropic medications continued on arrival, reviewed, and related documentation Inmate Orientation Treatment Plans Psychiatry Review frequency Follow-up after Specialized Treatment Settings Enforced Medication
SMI Housing Assignment information and consultation Change of SMI designation only by treatment team (or treating MHP before teams are operating) Mental illness does not prevent access to prison programs Use of Force and Verbal Abuse
Discipline system conforms to AD 05.12.103 Discipline in RTU or inpatient is carried out in a mental health treatment context Quality Improvement Program implemented

November 2018
June 2019-May 2020
May 2020
After IGA is signed Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time

Target date has not arrived Target date has not arrived No
Yes
Yes No
Yes No No No Some institutions Yes No finding
No finding Some institutions No Yes
No

METHODOLOGY / MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This report was prepared and submitted by Pablo Stewart, MD, Virginia Morrison, JD, and Reena Kapoor, MD.
To accomplish the monitoring obligations, the monitoring team sought information in a variety of ways. The monitoring team conducted 31 site visits to a wide range of IDOC facilities, where interviews of administrators, staff, and offenders were conducted. While on site, the monitoring team would meet with the administrative and clinical leadership of the facility and then tour the facility. The tour would include observing general population units, segregated housing units, crisis care units, infirmary areas including medical records and restraint rooms, working spaces for the clinical staff, group therapy areas (if present), as well as any other area associated with the provision of mental health services. The monitoring team also toured the Residential
- 7 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 8 of 177

Treatment Units at Dixon, Logan and Joliet. The Monitor personally inspected the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac on four separate occasions.
During the monitoring period, the Monitor was called as a witness by counsel for the plaintiffs during an Evidentiary Hearing before Judge Mihm and testified on December 18 and 19, 2017. He was called back to complete his testimony on February 27 and 28, 2018. During the course of the Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitor became aware that the Department and Wexford have been collecting tremendous amounts of data on a variety of subjects related to the Settlement Agreement. These sets of data include but are not limited to out-of-cell time, psychiatric and MHP backlog information and staffing levels. Of note, the monitoring team has considered data in our previous two reports to the Court. For this second annual report, however, the monitoring team has utilized this information to conduct additional data driven analyses of numerous requirements of the Settlement Agreement such as staffing, out-of-cell time and delays in assessments, treatment planning and psychiatric care.
The monitor also met with the Director and Assistant Director, as well as the Chiefs of operations, mental health, quality assurance and legal. The Monitor also met with counsel for the plaintiffs on several occasions. The Monitor received and considered reports prepared by counsel for the plaintiffs regarding IDOC’s response to the Settlement Agreement, as well as receiving and considering reports prepared by counsel for the defendants. The Monitor personally reviewed numerous court filings by various class members as well as attempting to interview these individuals. Of note, over the course of the monitoring period, the various members of the monitoring team interviewed and reviewed the medical records of several hundred offenders. This number of offenders evaluated represents a sufficiently robust sample of the mental health population of the IDOC. Therefore, the opinions presented in this monitoring report are based on a substantial-sized clinical sample of offenders.
In advance of the site visits, a variety of materials were requested. These materials included policies, procedures, training materials, a variety of clinical data, internal audits and reports, inmate grievances, incident reports, various logs, and other materials. The responsiveness to the monitoring team’s request for some of the data sets began to slow down during the course of this monitoring period. That is, some data was not received in a timely manner. In addition, the data when received was sometimes disorganized and difficult to interpret. It is unclear why this occurred. Other data sets improved in consistency, timeliness and quality. The monitoring team has made every effort to include the most up to date data in this report.
Monitoring began immediately following the submission of the First Annual Report on May 22, 2017. The monitoring team, once again, was purposefully kept small in consideration of the budgetary issues facing Illinois in general and IDOC in particular. The rates of compensation were also purposely kept in the low range.
The monitoring team made the following site visits during the current monitoring period:

Big Muddy River 8/24-8/25/17 Ms. Morrison

Danville 12/14-12/15/17 Ms. Morrison

Dixon 8/31-9/1/17 Dr. Kapoor 1/11-1/12/18 Dr. Kapoor

- 8 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 9 of 177

East Moline 1/23-1/24/18 Ms. Morrison

Elgin 4/24/18 Dr. Stewart

Graham 2/2/18 Dr. Stewart

Hill 9/7-9/8/17 Ms. Morrison

Illinois River 2/14-2/16/18 Ms. Morrison
3/6/18 Dr. Stewart

Lawrence 10/18-10/20/17 Ms. Morrison

Logan 1/9-1/10/18 Dr. Kapoor
2/1/18 Dr. Stewart 3/13/18 Dr. Stewart

Pinckneyville 8/21-8/24/17 Ms. Morrison
10/16/17 Dr. Stewart 4/9/18 Dr. Stewart
Sheridan 9/8/17 Dr. Stewart

Pontiac 6/19/17 Dr. Stewart, Ms. Morrison
9/11/17 Ms. Morrison 9/19/17 Dr. Stewart 12/13/17 Ms. Morrison 12/16-12/17/17 Dr. Stewart 3/20/18 Dr. Stewart 4/26-4/27/18 Ms. Morrison
Stateville and Northern Reception Center 6/20/17 Dr. Stewart, Ms. Morrison
11/7/17 Dr. Stewart

Joliet 6/20/17 Dr. Stewart 2/6/18 Dr. Stewart
Menard 11/8-11/9/17 Dr. Kapoor
Robinson 10/23-10/24/17 Ms. Morrison

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During this current monitoring period, May 23, 2017-May 22, 2018, IDOC leadership has been generally cooperative and helpful with the work of the monitoring team. The Director and Assistant Director, as well as the Chiefs of Operations, Legal, Mental Health and Psychiatry have made themselves available to the Monitor regarding the implementation of the various requirements of the Settlement. In addition to this cooperation and availability, numerous IDOC staff members encountered during the various site visits have demonstrated a willingness for implementing the requirements of the Settlement. This was especially true of the staff at Pinckneyville, Sheridan, Illinois River, Joliet Treatment Center and Elgin.
As Monitor, I wish to make this summary brief so the reader may focus on the body of the report. On the 2nd anniversary of monitoring the Settlement Agreement, the Department is noncompliant with 18 of 25 sections and substantially compliant in only 3 sections (orientation, housing assignments and training.)2 As is explained more fully in the body of the report, these noncompliance ratings are primarily due to inadequate staffing. This understaffing takes two forms. One is found in facilities that are understaffed based on the staffing levels of the Approved
2 Four sections were given a rating of “no finding” due to a lack of sufficient data to arrive at a finding of substantial compliance or noncompliance.
- 9 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 10 of 177
Remedial Plan. The 2nd form of understaffing is found in those facilities that were in fact fully staffed based on the staffing levels of the Approved Remedial Plan. This second category of understaffing is based on the fact that psychiatric and mental health staff are unable to fully complete significant aspects of the Settlement Agreement. It has become painfully clear to the monitoring team over the first two years of the Settlement Agreement that the staffing levels of the Approved Remedial Plan are totally inadequate to meet the mental health and psychiatric needs of the mentally ill offender population of the Department. The only chance the Department has of ever meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement is to significantly augment the staffing levels called for in the Approved Remedial Plan and then fully staff all facilities.
The following areas, which will be reported in great detail in the body of the report, require immediate attention: mental health and psychiatric evaluations, treatment planning, medications and their proper distribution, transition of offenders from crisis care and segregation, moving crisis beds out of control units, enforced medications, removing mentally ill offenders from segregated housing, stopping custody staff from acting as gatekeepers to the Crisis Intervention Team, the overuse of physical restraints, medical records, the lack of confidentiality, discipline of mentally ill offenders and use of force and verbal abuse. I refer the reader to the summaries associated with each section of the Settlement Agreement for greater details of each of these areas of noncompliance.
The final area I wish to point out in this summary is the persistent evidence of physical abuse perpetrated by the custody staff at Pontiac on the mentally ill offenders housed in the mental health unit as well as other segregated housing units at Pontiac. I have personally visited Pontiac seven times over the past two years. I have never directly observed this abuse as the custody staff are too savvy to assault the mentally ill offenders in my presence. I have interviewed numerous mentally ill offenders, however, who have provided extremely credible reports of physical abuse and verbal abuse. At least one of these assaults is documented in the offender’s medical record and was corroborated by mental health staff. I have recently received more first-hand information about the culture of abuse that exists at Pontiac. I am requesting that the Department conduct a full scale investigation of this abuse and report the results to the monitoring team as this is clearly a component of the Settlement Agreement. I have also received information regarding alleged incidents of custody staff intimidating mental health staff at Logan and Pontiac. I am also requesting that the results of the investigation into these incidents be provided to the monitoring team.
The monitoring team has met 100’s of dedicated mental health staff, custody staff and administrators during the first two years of the Settlement Agreement. It is a shame that the Department allows the hard work and dedication of these staff to be sullied by a minority of individuals who have no business working in corrections.
- 10 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 11 of 177

A summary of compliance findings is as follows:

Requirement
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
(IV)(a), (b), (c), (d) (IV)(e), (f), (g)
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
(V)(a) (V)(b), (c) (V)(d) (V)(e) (V)(f), (g) (V)(h), (i) (V)(j)

Compliance Status
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance

VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
(VI)(a), (b)
VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
(VII)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance

VIII: TRANSITION FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
(VIII)(a) (VIII)(b)(i), (b)(ii)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Noncompliance

- 11 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 12 of 177

Requirement
IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
(IX)(a), (b) (IX)(c) (IX)(d), (e) (IX)(f)

Compliance Status
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance No finding Substantial compliance Noncompliance

X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
(X)(a),(b)(i) (X)(b)(ii) (X)(c)(i) (X)(c)(ii) (X)(d),(e) (X)(f)
(X)(g) (X)(h) (X)(i)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Target date has not arrived Substantial compliance Target date has not arrived Noncompliance 22 institutions: Substantial Compliance; 4 Noncompliance Target date has not arrived Target date has not arrived Substantial compliance

XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
(XI)(a) (XI)(b),(c), (d)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Noncompliance

XII: MEDICATION
(XII)(a) (XII)(b) (XII)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: Substantial Compliance for 15 institutions Noncompliance for the remaining institutions

- 12 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 13 of 177

Requirement
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
(XIV)(a) (XIV)(b) (XIV)(c)
XV: SEGREGATION
(XV)(a)(i) (XV)(a)(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi), (vi)(sic) (XV)(a)(vii) (XV)(b)(i),(ii), (iii), (iv) (v), (vi) (XV)(c)(i) (XV)(c)(ii) (XV)(c)(iii), (iv), (XV)(c)(sic) (XV)(d)
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
(XVI)(a), (b)

Compliance Status
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance No finding Noncompliance Target date has not arrived Noncompliance Noncompliance Target date has not arrived
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance

XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL Overall: Noncompliance

HEALTH PURPOSES

Subfindings supporting overall

finding:

(XVII)(a)
(XVII)(b),(c) (XVII)(d)

Substantial compliance as to 14 institutions; Noncompliance as to the rest of the institutions Substantial compliance Noncompliance

XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS (XVIII)(a)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
- 13 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 14 of 177

Requirement (XVIII)(b)
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
(XIX)(a) (XIX)(b) (XIX)(c),(d)
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION XXI: STAFF TRAINING
(XXI)(a) (XXI)(b) (XXI)(c)

Compliance Status Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: No finding Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: No finding
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance

XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS

Finding: No finding

XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
(XXIII)(a) (XXIII)(b),(c) XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
(XXV)(a),(b)(c)(d)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Noncompliance
Finding: Substantial compliance for 11 facilities Noncompliance for the remaining facilities
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Noncompliance

XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY

Overall: Noncompliance

- 14 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 15 of 177

Requirement IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(XXVI)(a), (b)
XXVII: MONITORING

Compliance Status Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance
Finding: no finding

XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING Finding: no finding

DETAILED FINDINGS
This Section details the Monitor’s findings for each provision of the Settlement.
Overall structure: This Section is organized along the same structure as the Settlement; each major section below corresponds with a substantive section of the Settlement. That said, the Settlement includes provisions that appear multiple times across different sections. The Monitor attempts in this report to address each substantive requirement in that section of the Settlement where it appears.
Compliance with specific provisions of policies or law incorporated by reference: Unlike the Settlement itself, the report lays out the specific provisions of the various Administrative Directives (“ADs”), administrative code (“Code”), or the Mental Health Standard Operating Protocol Manual (“Manual” or “SOP Manual”) that are incorporated by reference in the Settlement. This significantly lengthens the report, but it is critical that the monitoring team evaluates these substantive requirements, especially given that many of them are central to providing the kind of treatment, out-of-cell opportunities, conditions, and protection from harm contemplated in the Settlement. For example, it is in the ADs and the Manual that one finds detailed requirements on suicide prevention, including crisis placement, crisis intervention teams, and suicide reviews. However, the team will apply the compliance/non-compliance rating only to the provision of the Settlement, not to individual provisions of ADs or the Manual or Code incorporated by reference. In this way, IDOC may be out of compliance with one or two provisions of the cited AD, for example, but, depending on the severity (including the importance of the particular provision of the AD) or how widespread that non-compliance is, nonetheless may be in substantial compliance with the provision of the Settlement.
Compliance ratings: As discussed above, the team institutes the “Substantial Compliance” and “Non-compliance” ratings for each provision, as specified in the Settlement. In actual fact, these may mask true performance. In practice, IDOC has made limited progress on a number of requirements. These possibly could be more accurately described as “partially compliant,” but by the terms of the Settlement, those provisions must be found in Non-compliance.
Section II (t) of the Amended Settlement Agreement defines “Substantial Compliance” as
- 15 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 16 of 177
follows: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOCwide or at specific facilities. For the purposes of this report, most compliance ratings will be IDOCwide. This was done because the changes to the mental health delivery system contemplated in the Settlement represent a major shift in both the clinical care provided to the offenders and the overall culture of the IDOC. As the monitor of this seismic shift for IDOC, to date, I felt it more appropriate to consider system-wide compliance prior to evaluating the compliance of specific facilities. Two years of reviews have yielded enough data to assess certain practices, and specific facilities have begun to reach substantial compliance for some requirements. Most Settlement Agreement provisions are complex with many factors to fulfill, so the substantial compliance findings are few, but this is an important step forward.
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
Summary: The monitoring team visited all four R&C facilities. The findings were that all R&C units were conducting screenings in a timely manner by appropriate staff in confidential settings utilizing the proper form. When records were available, they were reviewed by the screening MHPs. Problems with obtaining essential mental health records from the referring jails were present at all four R&C facilities. After two years of dealing with this problem, the Department still hasn’t come up with a plan to address it. MHPs at the R&C facilities also do not have timely access to essential mental health records of those offenders who have previously been incarcerated in IDOC. Again, the Department has not come up with a solution to this issue in the first two years of the Settlement Agreement.
“Evaluations of Suicide Potential” were being properly administered to offenders transferred from an R&C facilities, including offenders transferred back to NRC on writs.
Policies and Procedures have been developed to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue the medication without interruption. This was generally being accomplished but problems were noted in the timely continuation of medications. Problems also existed, however, in the timely follow up by psychiatric providers as well as the changing of offenders’ medications without sufficient explanation.
(IV)(a): Specific requirement: All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at pg. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101(II)(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by IDOC Administrative
- 16 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 17 of 177
Directive 04.04.100 (II)(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
Findings: The monitoring team visited all four of IDOC’s reception centers during this reporting period. This requirement was being met at all four of IDOC’s reception centers (Northern Reception Center [NRC], Logan, Menard and Graham.) For example, incoming offenders were screened upon arrival at Graham. 16 of 17 offenders reviewed had their screening accomplished within the 24-48 hours requirement at the NRC.
(IV)(b): Specific requirement: The mental health screening conducted upon admission to IDOC shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional [MHP]3 and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement.
Findings: All of the reception centers were fulfilling this requirement. At the NRC, for example, 17 of 17 screenings reviewed confirmed that IDOC Form 0372 was being used and that the screenings were conducted by MHPs or unlicensed staff that were being supervised by licensed MHPs.
(IV)(c): Specific requirement: Offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed this requirement at the facilities inspected during this reporting period. This requirement was being met at all of the inspected facilities. Staff consistently spoke of this practice being routine. In the monitoring team’s chart reviews, the Evaluation of Suicide Potential was completed within one day for at least 64 new arrivals and only one appeared to have been missed.4 There were a few notable exceptions at Pontiac, but overall, this requirement is being met.
(IV)(d): Specific requirements: In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
Findings: All of the reception centers were conducting mental health screenings in spaces that ensured sound confidentiality.
(IV)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue
3 The Settlement uses MHP to indicate Mental Health Professional. This report adopts that convention as well. 4 The team recorded new arrival information as it was discovered among random chart samples in different levels of care. The team did not cross-reference lists of arrivals to verify that these evaluations were present in every case.
- 17 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 18 of 177
receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
Findings: IDOC has developed policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody. AD 04.04.101, effective date 5/1/2016 (Mental Health Non-Emergency Services), states in section II(F)(1)(a) “The Chief of Mental Health Shall: Develop and Maintain a Mental Health Standard Operating Procedural (SOP) Manual.” Page 78 of the SOP Manual under the section, Psychotropic Medication, states “for those offenders who arrive at an IDOC facility on a verifiable, prescribed psychotropic medication, the psychotropic medication shall be continued (bridged) for up to 30 days or until such time as a psychiatric provider can evaluate the inmate for ongoing psychotropic medication. This evaluation may be no more than 30 days from arrival into an IDOC facility.”
Throughout the monitoring period, however, the reception centers have not been able to consistently meet the requirements of this subsection. That is, bridge orders are inconsistently written for those offenders who arrive with a verifiable prescription. At NRC, delays of three weeks and a delay of two months were noted in initiating the bridge orders. Similar delays in initiating bridge orders were noted at Graham. Dr. Kapoor noted that at Menard psychotropic medications orders were consistently ordered for offenders who entered the facility with a verifiable prescription for psychotropic medications.
An especially difficult problem was noted at the Logan R&C. R&C staff reports that offenders frequently arrive from county jails without adequate medical records. This includes absence of essential information such as current medications. When this occurs, staff is responsible for calling the jail and requesting information, which sometimes can take several days to arrive. The warden and the psych administrator were alerted to this problem and stated that they will follow up with the county jails to ensure continuity of care.
Another significant problem is that these offenders whose medications are bridged at reception centers do not routinely see a psychiatric provider within the 30-day window called for in this subsection. These delays are noted to be several weeks to several months.
Once offenders transfer within IDOC, however, medication continuity was excellent. In a monitoring team study of patients under psychiatric care at eight institutions,5 66 patients arrived at a monitored institution during 2017 or 2018, and 95% of them received their psychotropic medication within one day. Psychiatrists or other physicians did write 30-day bridge orders and a majority of new arrivals were seen within that time. Indeed, 36% were seen sooner, a better practice for patients who are unknown to the staff. With 23% of new arrivals, however, it took longer to meet with psychiatry, up to five months. Problematic examples occurred at most institutions monitored and were most often seen at Danville. Big Muddy River had good practice with no delayed cases noted.
As the continuation of medications is such an important issue, the Department will continue to receive a noncompliance rating until the above-mentioned problems are addressed.
5 Big Muddy River, Danville, East Moline, Hill, Illinois River, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, Robinson. Whenever a study is described in this report as occurring at eight institutions, it refers to this group of facilities.
- 18 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 19 of 177
(IV)(f): Specific requirement: Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
Findings: Overall, this requirement is generally being met throughout the Department. The monitoring team, however, encountered several significant problems with this requirement during the reporting period. At NRC, there were numerous examples where the offenders’ medications had been changed by the prescribers. In none of these cases were the reason(s) for the changes documented in the medical record. There was also no documentation that the prescribers discussed with the offenders the reason for these changes, what the new medication was expected to do, what alternative treatments were available and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication. At Menard, the documentation of the psychiatric contacts was noted to be especially poor, with no clinical rationale for the psychiatrist’s treatment decisions documented.
(IV)(g): Specific requirement: Screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening).
Findings: As previously reported, the reviewed screenings generally address the topic areas outlined in this section, however, the mental status examinations documented on IDOC Form 0372 continue to be inadequately completed. That is, descriptions of the offenders’ mental status are often very terse with phrases such as “okay” or “I’m fine.” It is critically important to adequately document an offenders’ mental status as it is the basis of diagnostic and treatment decisions. Also, of note, is the overall poor quality of the medical records at NRC, Menard and Graham, making it difficult to follow the clinical course of an offender.
Specific requirement: The screening process shall also include review of the records, which accompany the offender.
Findings: There remains significant problems with offenders’ records:
• Not all offenders coming from county jails are accompanied by their medical/mental health records. For those offenders who are accompanied by medical/mental health records, staff routinely reviews them. There are, however, a significant number of offenders who arrive at the reception centers from county jails without records. The staff is at a tremendous disadvantage in the absence of these records. They must rely on self-reporting which routinely results in delays in continuing previously prescribed medication, both psychiatric and non-psychiatric. These delays can be clinically dangerous to the offenders.
• Another serious problem concerns offenders who have previously received psychiatric care
- 19 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 20 of 177
within IDOC. There is currently no mechanism for reception center staff to retrieve these records in a timely manner. Again, this puts reception center staff at a disadvantage and the offenders at risk of harm. • Of note, both of these problems have been reported to IDOC for at least a year. The monitoring team is not aware of any progress being made to address these significant problems. The Quarterly Report of April 25, 2018 states on page 3 “However, if records do not accompany offenders, the Department does not have the authority to mandate that jails provide mental health records and the Agreement does not require it.” The Monitor is well aware that the Department cannot “mandate” jails to provide this records. The Department could easily coordinate with county jails to have mental health records accompany the offender to the R&C center, which would greatly reduce their risk of harm. • It is notable that this quarterly report is silent on obtaining the records of offenders who have previously spent time in IDOC. The Department absolutely has control of these records.
This subsection of the Settlement Agreement will be found to be in noncompliance until such time as the Department develops a system where previous treatment records of offenders arriving at an R&C center are available at the time of mental health screening.
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
Summary: Mental health evaluations are not being conducted in a timely manner in IDOC as reflected by the backlog of 495 mental health evaluations as of May 18, 2018. Of note, Western’s backlog is 174 and Graham, an R&C facility, has a backlog of 109. This is obviously a significant problem that the Department has not been able to remedy during the first two years of the Settlement Agreement.
The Department does have the required policies and procedures detailing the manner in which referrals and evaluations are to be conducted. As noted above, the Department is not able to meet the requirement of completing a mental health evaluation within 14-days of referral.
As reported extensively in the first two monitoring reports, there remains credible evidence to show that custody staff continue to act as “gate keepers” to the Crisis Intervention Teams. This is a very serious problem that demands immediate attention from IDOC leadership.
(V)(a): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.
Findings: IDOC’s Quarterly report of April 25, 2018 states “All items in subsection (a) through (j) are in place and are currently being implemented.” Regarding subsection (a), nothing could be further from the truth. The Wexford-produced backlog data, reporting on the week of
- 20 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 21 of 177
May 18, 2018, documents that there is a total of 495 Mental Health Evaluations that are anywhere from 1 to 60 days backlogged. Please note, a backlog of one day reflects that the wait time for a mental health evaluation has already been 15 days. The facilities where the backlogs are occurring: Western (174), Graham (109), Lawrence (53), Pinckneyville (23), Menard (30), Hill (26), Pontiac (27), Dixon (2), Illinois River (35), Centralia (8), Logan (4), Danville (2), Big Muddy (1) and Vienna (1). The Department has not made any progress in reducing this backlog over the reporting period as the backlog has actually increased. The reported backlog for mental health evaluations for the week ending May 26, 2017 was 404.
Similarly, in an analysis of 76 relevant patients’ health care records,6 the monitoring team found 70% had timely evaluations. While the late evaluations were generally completed one to two weeks later, a few took two to four months to complete or appear to have been missed altogether. East Moline had an impressive 100% compliance on this requirement in this sample. Hill and Lawrence had the furthest to go; Lawrence’s systems were more-timely in providing evaluations to men who transferred straight to Segregation than to those transferring into general population.
(V)(b): Specific requirement: Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
Findings: The monitoring team found that referrals are being made by staff utilizing the proper forms as well as by self-referral by the offender. As one indication, when reviewing the health care records of 176 patients, the monitoring team noted more than 225 referrals. These were made among mental health staff; after Segregation rounds; by custody, medical, and other staff; by families and cellmates; and by self-referral. MHPs at many institutions noted that receiving staff referrals, including from custody staff, has become commonplace, and that some custody staff alert them to unusual behavior or other signs of mental health decline, not solely suicidality. While not all custody staff have adopted these practices, these are important steps forward.
(V)(c): Specific requirement: IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
Section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) provide:
Referrals for mental health services may be initiated through staff, credible outside sources such as family members, other offenders or self-reporting.
(a) To ensure proper handling of requests from credible outside sources, the Department shall ensure mail room staff and facility operators, gatehouse staff and other staff who may come in contact with family members, visitors or other interested persons are aware of procedures for receiving and addressing inquiries regarding referrals for mental health services. Additionally, the contact information and procedures by which outside sources
6 In a sample of 176 records drawn from eight institutions, 76 patients had arrived at the reviewed institutions in 2017 or 2018 and had not recently been evaluated at a reception center.
- 21 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 22 of 177
may refer offenders for mental health services shall be provided on the Department’s website.
(b)The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall ensure a procedure for referring offenders for mental health services is established.
(1) Referrals from staff shall: (a) Be initiated on the Mental Health Services Referral, DOC 0387; (b) Be submitted to the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management through the chain of command; and (c) Include a copy of the Incident Report, DOC 0434, if applicable.
(2) The facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in the offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others, if not treated immediately.
(c) Procedures for self-referrals by offenders for mental health services shall be provided in the offender handbook. The offender will be encouraged to submit their requests on the Offender Request, DOC 0286.
Findings: As previously reported, the Department has an Administrative Directive (04.04.100), effective date of 6/1/2017, which has been approved by the Monitor and addresses the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement. The Administrative Directive received wide distribution within the Department with a memo that reinforced the requirements contained therein and instructed all wardens to have the requirements read at roll call repeatedly. As each institution is responsible for establishing these procedures, the monitoring team has reviewed relevant Institutional Directives. Performance looks strong, with more than half of the institutions to date having demonstrated they have Institutional Directives carrying forward all of these provisions; the team will continue its review in the upcoming monitoring period.
As noted in other sections of this report, staff and self-referral procedures are clearly in use in all institutions where the monitoring team has inquired. There were a few examples in health care records or logs of referrals demonstrating that staff also accept and respond to referrals from offenders’ families, others outside the prisons, or offenders on behalf of each other. In monitoring team interviews of mailroom and Visiting staff, some spoke knowledgeably and gave examples of referrals they had made, while others seemed unaware of the procedures or their role. The monitoring team has verified that information for outside sources to make referrals is on the IDOC website.
(V)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
Findings: As reported in the midyear report, this requirement is not being met throughout the Department. For example, due to the large volume of mentally ill offenders processed by NRC,
- 22 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 23 of 177
only those offenders who have previously been designated SMI receive a mental health referral and evaluation.
(V)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests, which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
Findings: As stated in V(c) above, the Monitor approved Administrative Directive 04.04.100, effective date of 6/1/2017, outlines how other offenders and/or family members may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation and this is carried forward in nearly all of the Institutional Directives reviewed to date. The policy is reflected in offender handbooks and the IDOC website. While examples of such referrals were few, the team did encounter such referrals on facility logs and in health care records, and staff described a few examples during interviews. The monitoring team did not review record keeping mechanisms during this monitoring period.
(V)(f): Specific requirement: Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral.
Findings: As stated in V(a) and V(d) above, this requirement is not being met for initial evaluations. Of note, the average weekly backlog for mental health evaluations between 3/165/4/18 has been 421. This means that over this seven-week period, an average of 421 offenders per week who have been referred for a mental health evaluation have had to wait longer than the 14-day requirement.
MHP response to referrals for routine mental health services in mainline institutions appeared much better than the evaluation timelines. The monitoring team analyzed referrals present in the health care records of 176 patients across eight institutions.7 MHP notes in those records reflected responses to referrals from other mental health staff, Segregation rounds, custody staff, medical, other staff, families, other offenders, and by self-referral. Of the 144 referrals answered by MHPs, 94% were timely.8 A handful of exceptions took three to six weeks for response, or seem to have been missed, but these were rare. This 94% rate of timely mental health evaluations is curious given that the backlog numbers for the institutions in question were 140 for the week of May 18, 2018. This finding calls into question the accuracy of the data reported by Wexford.
(V)(g): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.
Findings: IDOC 04.04.100 has been updated, with the approval of the Monitor since the original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The pertinent section of AD 04.04.100 which applies to this requirement is II (G)(4)(b)(3). It states “The facility Crisis
7 This sample was drawn from records at Big Muddy River, Danville, East Moline, Hill, Illinois River, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, and Robinson. 8 These included first responses to noncompliance referrals, as provided in policy. The analysis did NOT include calls expressly labeled as seeking a Crisis Intervention member; those are analyzed separately.
- 23 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 24 of 177
Intervention Team shall (emphasis added) be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior that may endanger themselves, if not treated immediately.”
The monitoring team has received complaints from plaintiffs’ counsel and from numerous offenders at a variety of facilities that custody staff act as gatekeepers for the Crisis Intervention Team. These complaints have been present throughout the duration of the Settlement Agreement. The Monitor met with the Director on November 10, 2016 to discuss this issue. The Director assured the Monitor at that time that he considered this to be a very serious issue and that he would speak to his wardens. The situation improved immediately. Since that intervention by the Director, however, these complaints of gate keeping have steadily increased. The Crisis Intervention Team plays an exceedingly important role in the mental health care delivery system. Due to a combination of staffing shortages and the tremendous workload shouldered by the MHPs, the Crisis Intervention Team often is the only way for mentally ill offenders to speak with a clinician. Numerous mentally ill offenders have informed the monitoring team that they have to threaten to harm themselves in order to be seen by the Crisis Intervention Team. This situation requires immediate attention by IDOC leadership staff.
(V)(h): Specific requirement: The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(3).
Findings: IDOC Form 0374 is routinely used by mental health staff to record the results of a mental health evaluation at all of the facilities monitored.
(V)(i): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by mental health professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D./Psy.D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.
Findings: This requirement is being met at all of the facilities monitored.
(V)(j): Specific requirements: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The deadline for fully implementing the requirements of this section of the Settlement Agreement was November 22, 2017. As noted above, IDOC has not been able to fulfill the requirements of this section as reflected by the tremendous number of backlogged mental health evaluations (assuming the data is accurate.)
- 24 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 25 of 177
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
Summary: As previously reported, IDOC continues to fulfill the requirements of this section of the Settlement. The required policy has been in place since at least 2013. Each facility has produced its own orientation manual which satisfy this requirement. A comprehensive orientation program was present at each facility monitored.
(VI)(a): Specific requirement: In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, § II (G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.
Findings: IDOC does not utilize a department-wide orientation manual. Each facility has produced its own orientation manual. The Monitor has previously reviewed the orientation manual from each facility and found them to fulfill the requirements of this section.
(VI)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: AD 04.01.105, Facility Orientation, effective 7/1/13, governs facility orientation. This AD states “The Department shall establish a comprehensive orientation program for incoming offenders at all correctional facilities that shall include the distribution of an orientation manual prepared in a format consistent throughout the Department.” A comprehensive orientation was present at each facility monitored.
VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
Summary: Treatment plans are generally not being prepared collectively in the Department. The only facility that has accomplished this throughout the reporting period is the STC at Dixon. Joliet, Logan and Illinois River began this in February 2018; Elgin, the inpatient facility has done this since its opening in April 2018.
As of May 18, 2018, there was a backlog of 484 treatment plans in the Department.
The Monitor has encouraged the Department to rethink its approach to treatment planning throughout the first 18 months of the Settlement Agreement due to the overall poor quality of the treatment planning process. The Department’s response was to modify the treatment planning document, 0284, which the Monitor approved for use starting February 1, 2018. It is too early to determine if this new form will help the Department satisfy the treatment planning requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
- 25 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 26 of 177
In a review of mentally ill offenders at the outpatient level of care, the monitoring team found that 92% had a treatment plan within the year preceding the review. This compares with only 1530% of mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation having their treatment plans reviewed and updated per the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
Prior to February 1, 2018, 100% of the mentally ill offenders assigned to crisis care did not have their treatment plans reviewed and updated upon entrance and weekly thereafter. In response to this glaring deficiency, the Department developed a treatment planning document for use during an offender’s stay on crisis care. This form was approved by the Monitor and implemented February 1, 2018. Again, it is too early to determine if this new form will meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Problems were noted, however, in incorporating this crisis care plan into the offender’s overall treatment plan when discharged from crisis care.
Finally, the Department is not meeting its requirements regarding the frequency of psychiatric follow ups. This is reflected in the psychiatric backlog data. As of May 18, 2018, there was a backlog of 1209 psychiatric evaluations and follow ups throughout the Department.
(VII)(a): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (II)(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.
Findings: This subsection of the Settlement Agreement continues to be problematic for IDOC. It remains the interpretation of the monitoring team that “such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team” means that all mental health staff involved in an offender’s care will meet together at the same time to discuss the offender’s case and collaboratively prepare the treatment plan. This is not occurring in almost any facility in the Department.
One of the reasons that IDOC has been unable to meet this requirement is lack of a sufficient number of qualified mental health staff. As will be discussed in greater detail in Section IX, the first two years of the Settlement Agreement have demonstrated that the staffing levels of the Approved Remedial Plan are inadequate to address the needs of the mentally ill population of IDOC. It is my firm opinion that the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including the issue of Treatment Planning, cannot be met with the staffing levels set by the Approved Remedial Plan.
The facilities where treatment planning is accomplished collectively include Logan9, Joliet and Illinois River. They only began doing this, however, in February 2018. The inpatient facility at Elgin, which opened on April 2, 2018, prepares treatment plans collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team. Finally, the STC RTU unit at Dixon has been collectively preparing treatment plans since January 2017. At Lawrence and Illinois River, all disciplines confer in a
9 Logan has been conducting multi-disciplinary treatment plan meetings with offenders in RTU and inpatient level of care, but not for those offenders in outpatient since December 2016.
- 26 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 27 of 177
daily meeting about crisis watch and other key cases. Here and in other institutions, there are occasional chart notes indicating that an MHP and a psychiatrist have conferred about the patient’s treatment needs. At Lawrence, staff have instituted a 30 minute per line case consultation time for psychiatrists and MHPs, and the psychiatric physician’s assistant and psychiatrist confer weekly. These measures are useful toward coordinating care, though they are not a substitute for full treatment planning on the whole caseload.
The remainder of the facilities prepare their treatment plans in much more haphazard fashions. One example is that the MHP will prepare a treatment plan independently and then the other members of the treatment team will sign the plan at a later date. Another method observed is that a given mentally ill offender will have two treatment plans in his record. One plan has been prepared by the MHP and another plan prepared by the psychiatric provider. The monitoring team has observed that these plans often have inconsistent diagnoses and differing approaches to patient care.
In a review of 135 general population health care records, 92% had treatment plans within the year preceding the review. The few that seemed to be missing any treatment plans were at Big Muddy River, Hill, and Illinois River. However, this review was concentrated at eight institutions; equally important is the fact that as of the week of May 18, 2018, there were a total of 484 treatment plans that were backlogged across the Department. Regardless of how one interprets the term “collectively”, this backlog of 484 treatment plans results in a non-compliance finding for this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
(VII)(b): Specific requirement: The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on form 0284 or its equivalent.
Findings: The Monitor has been encouraging IDOC to modify Form 0284 throughout the duration of the monitoring process. This was due in part to the fact that Form 0284 in its original structure was very long, cumbersome and did not facilitate the provision of mental health care to the mentally ill offender population. The Monitor approved a modification to Form 0284 effective February 1, 2018. It was the Monitor’s hope that this modified treatment planning document would better facilitate the delivery of mental health services. Of note, the Monitor made it very clear that this modified treatment planning form did not absolve the Department of its responsibility to prepare the treatment planning form “collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.” The monitoring team has reviewed numerous files in which the new form was being utilized. The new form is a slight improvement over the previous one. It is too early to arrive at any more definitive opinions on the utility of this new form and whether it results in improved mental health services for the mentally ill offender population of IDOC.
It is also too early to determine if this new form will satisfy the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. That is, does it include treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. The monitoring team will continue to review offender records in order to better evaluate this new form’s effectiveness in addressing these treatment planning requirements.
- 27 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 28 of 177
The majority of the team’s monitoring preceded the implementation of the new form. The original IDOC Form 0284 has been in use throughout most of the monitoring period. The vast majority of these treatment plans were boilerplate in nature with little reference to the patient’s particular issues or interventions tailored to addressing them. For example, in an analysis of 135 general population health care records, across eight institutions, only 12% of the treatment plans were tailored to the patient. The same issue was present in Segregation settings and in the other facilities that the team monitored.
(VII)(c): Specific requirement: Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes).
Findings: Previous reviews of this issue by the monitoring team has determined that the overwhelming majority of outpatients have a treatment plan. The poor quality of these plans is addressed in other sections. In a review of 135 general population health care records, there were few who had reached the point where an annual update would be due; those 13 patients all had updated treatment plans, and 10 of them were timely. However, more than 30% of the patients had updated plans in the interim, suggesting that staff thought it was clinically indicated.
Prior to February 1, 2018, treatment plans were not reviewed and updated when an offender had a level of care change, including going in and out of crisis care, as discussed in the next section. As discussed below, treatment plans were updated on Segregation placement in only 30% of the placements reviewed.
Specific requirement: Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: Prior to February 1, 2018, treatment plans were not reviewed and updated upon entrance to crisis care and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge. In fact, there was a complete absence of treatment planning for mentally ill offenders going into crisis care. Lawrence was an exception; in 88% of the 40 crisis watch admissions the monitoring team reviewed, a treatment plan form was completed, but the content was generic enough that it did not constitute a change in plan. In a review of 86 crisis watch records across seven other institutions, there were treatment plans in only five of these placements. Treatment plan updates after discharge were similarly rare, even after lengthy or repeated crisis watches in which one would want to address the drivers. None of these eight institutions updated the treatment plans weekly or upon discharge.
In response to the Monitor’s concerns about this lack of treatment planning, the Department developed a treatment planning form for use while an offender was in crisis care. This form was approved by the Monitor and implemented on February 1, 2018. It is too early to arrive at any definitive opinions about the use of this new treatment planning form. Its use has improved the treatment of mentally ill offenders on crisis in those cases reviewed by the monitoring team. The overall utility of this form is yet to be determined. That is, when the offender is discharged from crisis care it is not clear how this new treatment plan will be incorporate into the offender’s overall
- 28 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 29 of 177
care. More clinical experience with this new crisis treatment planning form is needed before a final opinion can be reached regarding its usefulness.
The inpatient psychiatric unit at Elgin opened on April 2, 2018 with five patients. A review of these five patients on April 24, 2018 revealed that the treatment planning requirement on admission is being met. The majority of mentally ill offenders who carry the “inpatient” level of care designation is not housed at Elgin. This cohort was not monitored for their frequency of treatment planning for this report.
Specific requirement: For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: The newly opened RTU at the Joliet Treatment Center is meeting this requirement. Dr. Kapoor noted that the RTU at Logan and the STC RTU at Dixon are meeting this requirement, but in the X-House at Dixon, treatment plans are completed sporadically and without input of a multidisciplinary team.
Specific requirement: For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: In the monitoring team’s analysis of 123 placements, 15% showed a treatment plan update within one week. IDOC indicated that its internal audit found a much higher compliance rate.10 Another 15% did update the treatment plan, but it was untimely.
Among the subset clearly in Segregation long enough to require monthly updates,11 staff did update these plans each month in 73% of the placements, and another handful had updated plans in some months but not others.
This requirement is not consistently being met anywhere in IDOC. The lack of an adequate number of mental health staff is the reason that this requirement is not being met. The monitoring team has conducted 31 facility visits during this reporting period. At each of these facilities the staff reported that if they performed the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement then they would have to omit performing another requirement. As will be explained in Section IX, the Authorized Remedial Plan does not allow for enough staff to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
(VII)(d): Specific requirement: Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:
10 In IDOC’s April 2018 quarterly report, it cited a February 2018 audit; it appears this may be different from the March 2018 audit cited elsewhere. It is unclear how many Segregation charts were included in the February 2018 audit. The audit found only one case to be noncompliant in updating the treatment plan within one week. No findings were reported as to monthly treatment plan updates. 11 This totaled 30 placements in the monitoring team’s sample.
- 29 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 30 of 177
(i) For offenders at the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.
(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.
(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days with no extension of the follow-up appointments.
Findings: This requirement is not consistently being met in the majority of IDOC facilities. This is due in large part to the chronic understaffing of psychiatric providers as demonstrated by the following backlog data:
• As of the week of 5/18/18, there was a total backlog of 1209 psychiatric visits o 16 face-face evaluations o 505 face-face follow ups o 11 telepsych evaluations o 677 telepsych follow ups
• At the time of the midyear report, November 3, 2017, there were a total backlog of 2106 psychiatric visits o 100 face-face evaluations o 928 face-face follow ups o 153 telepsych evaluations o 925 telepsych follow ups
• At the beginning of the reporting period, May 26, 2017 there were a total backlog of 3397 o 195 face-face evaluations o 1117 face-face follow ups o 228 telepsych evaluations o 1857 telepsych follow ups
Regarding the subsections (i)-(iii):
(i): For mentally ill offenders at the outpatient level of care, psychiatric visits routinely exceeded this 30-day threshold. This occurred in the absence of any documentation of stability. For more on this issue, please see XII(b), below.
(ii): This requirement was being met for offenders at the RTU level of care at the STC at Dixon and the Joliet Treatment Center but not at the RTU at Logan. The problems encountered at Logan were due in large part to an inadequate number of psychiatric providers.
(iii): The mentally ill offenders designated as “inpatient” level of care were generally evaluated by psychiatric providers at least every 30 days. The actual inpatients at Elgin hadn’t
- 30 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 31 of 177
been there for 30 days at the time of the monitoring visit. A discussion with the attending psychiatrist, Dr. Zarif, confirmed that all of the inpatients will be evaluated much more frequently than every 30 days.
In a review of 176 mentally ill offenders across eight institutions only 47% of responses by psychiatric providers were timely and the late responses were generally much later. While the majority of late responses took three weeks to two months, it was not uncommon for them to take longer or for the referral to receive no response at all.12 This was particularly troubling in the significant minority where the patient had discontinued medication but was asking to resume it. All reviewed institutions had examples of good practice; the patterns of problematic practice were found more often at Pinckneyville, Danville, Hill, and Big Muddy River.
A review of the psychiatric backlog data for the reporting period demonstrates that the psychiatric backlog has been partially reduced by the use of telepsychiatry. In my letter to Dr. Hinton of October 1, 2017, I described how the Department was in an emergency due to its lack of psychiatric services for the mentally ill offender population. I went on to state that “telepsychiatry can play a role in addressing this emergency.” I also listed eight concerns that I had about the use of telepsychiatry. To date, Dr. Hinton has not acknowledged receipt of this letter. This lack of acknowledgement is especially troubling in that on October 2, 2017 Dr. Hinton rolled out a plan to reduce the huge psychiatric backlog. His plan included an increased use of telepsychiatry. During the recent evidentiary hearing, Dr. Hinton reaffirmed the increased use of telepsychiatry within the Department. During this same hearing I stressed the need for the Department to develop an evidence-based protocol for the use of telepsychiatry. Finally, in a letter to Dr. Hinton on March 3, 2018, I posed the following questions:
• “Please send me the current protocols, with references, that staff follows when providing psychiatric care vis telepsychiatry;
• Please send me the actual percentage of time that IDOC utilizes telepsychiatry versus faceface care;
• In addition to this data, please send me a breakdown, by facility, of FTE’s of onsite psychiatric providers versus tele-psychiatric providers.”
Although Dr. Hinton acknowledged receipt of this letter, he is yet to respond to my questions. Based on this lack of an approved evidence-based protocol, I call into serious question the use of telepsychiatry within the Department. IDOC will receive a rating of noncompliance in all requirements involving the use of telepsychiatry until such time that an evidence-based protocol for the use of telepsychiatry is submitted to the Monitor for approval.
(VII)(e): Specific requirement: Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.
12 Specifically, in this sample, there were 99 staff or self-referrals to psychiatrists. Where multiple referrals were made before a response, this was counted only as 1 referral from the first date. Noncompliance referrals are excluded as they were analyzed separately. In this sample, 47 were seen (or scheduled, if the patient was a no-show) within 14 days. Another 14 were seen in 3-4 weeks, 18 were seen in 6-8 weeks, 11 were seen in 10-14 weeks, 1 was next seen after 6.5 months, and 9 appeared to receive no response.
- 31 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 32 of 177
Findings: As previously reported, during the current reporting period, the monitoring team reviewed several hundred medical records of SMI offenders. Multiple progress notes were present in all of the medical records reviewed. It is impossible to determine if these progress notes reflect “each clinical contact with an SMI offender.” There was a range of quality observed in these reviewed notes. Some were very poor and did little to elucidate “future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment.”
VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
Summary: MHPs approve the return of SMI Offenders to general population from a specialized treatment setting; the STC at Dixon is the only facility that utilizes a multidisciplinary team to fulfill this function.
Menard and Stateville proper were the only facilities who were conducting the five-day follow up requirement for offenders coming off crisis care during the entire reporting period. The monitoring team observed four other facilities that began meeting this requirement as of December 2017.
The Evaluation of Suicide Potential was mostly conducted (81%) within the first week of an offender’s discharge from crisis care. Only 56% were seen monthly thereafter.
Finally, the requirement for a 30-day follow up of mentally ill offenders discharged from crisis care to general population or an outpatient level of care was only verified in five facilities.
(VIII)(a): Specific requirement: SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team. The Settlement provides a definition of “Specialized Treatment Setting”: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
Findings: The monitoring team confirmed that the treating MHPs approve the return of SMI offenders to general population from a specialized treatment setting. At the time of this report, the only treatment team performing this duty is at the STC at Dixon. Treatment teams have been formed at several facilities, such as Logan and the Joliet Treatment Center. The monitoring team was unable to evaluate if these newly formed teams were performing this function.
(VIII)(b)(i): Specific requirement: For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form, which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor.
Findings: IDOC did create such a form and systems are in place to remind clinicians of
- 32 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 33 of 177
these contacts. IDOC set the expectations for this follow-up effective in December 2017. The monitoring team has only verified that certain facilities are performing this five working day follow-up of offenders transitioning from Crisis placement. These include Logan, East Moline, Pinckneyville and Illinois River, which began these follow up visits in December 2017. Also, as previously reported, Stateville proper and Menard were conducting these follow up visits at the time of the midyear report.
Specific requirement: This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from crisis watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
Findings: The monitoring team analyzed 53 crisis watches for which this follow-up would be expected.13 Among those records, 81% were seen within seven (7) calendar days with an administration of the Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) and another small handful were seen slightly late. The monitoring team observed other facilities who were in compliance with these standards as well. IDOC reports that a March 2018 internal audit found strong results on this practice.14
Only a few facilities conduct the six months of follow up. Of 45 relevant crisis watches analyzed,15 only 56% of the patients had been seen monthly; another 11% had been seen during some months but were missed in others. Institutions conducting this follow-up well include: Menard, Stateville proper, Lawrence, Robinson, and Pinckneyville.
(VIII)(b)(ii): Specific requirement: Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within 30 days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (F)(2)(c)(4)(c).
Findings: This is not generally occurring throughout IDOC. The major reason for this not occurring is lack of a sufficient number of staff, even in those facilities which are “fully staffed” per the requirements of the Approved Remedial Plan. The monitoring team did observe this happening in a few facilities during the reporting period. These include Menard, Pontiac, Pinckneyville, Logan and Illinois River.
13 Records in this sample were reviewed at Big Muddy River, Danville, East Moline, Hill, Illinois River, and Robinson. This sample excludes those who had not reached the seven-day point as of the review, or who had been readmitted to crisis watch before that date. 14 IDOC’s April 2018 quarterly report notes that only 5 charts were found to be out of compliance with this requirement. The entire audit reviewed 375 charts; it is unclear how many of those included crisis watches. 15 Records in this sample were reviewed at Big Muddy River, Danville, East Moline, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, and Robinson. Monitors counted a record as in compliance if it had a contact in each of the months since crisis watch discharge, regardless of how many months had elapsed (up to six). The sample omitted any patients who had been out of crisis watch less than 30 days.
- 33 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 34 of 177

IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
Summary: The Department has not met its staffing requirements for the RTU at Dixon and Logan. The target date for meeting staffing requirements for the RTU at Pontiac is July 6, 2018. Given the significant staffing shortages at Pontiac at the time of this report, it is highly unlikely that they will meet this requirement.
The RTU at Joliet has also not met its staffing requirements.
Throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement, the defendants have not proposed amendments to the Approved Remedial Plan of May 2016.
The Monitor conducted an analysis comparing psychiatric and mental health backlog data with the Department’s current staffing situation. Due to a variety of reasons, the Approved Remedial Plan of May 2016 is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. This staffing plan needs to be completely rethought.
The Department is including hiring progress reports in its Quarterly Reports.
Finally, this report serves as official notification that the Department has never met its staffing goals throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement.

(IX)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates: Dixon Correctional Center and Logan Correctional Center – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date; Pontiac Correctional Center – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date.

Findings: All staffing levels are current as of 4/20/18:

• Dixon: o Mental Health Unit Directorso Pre-Doc-intern psychologistso Staff psychologistso QMHPso BHTso Psychiatrists-
• Logan: o Mental Health Unit Directorso Post-Doc psychologistso Staff psychologisto QMHPs-

3.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 2.97 FTEs vacant 4.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 5.20 FTEs vacant
3.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant

- 34 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 35 of 177

o Psychiatristso Rec therapisto Staff assistanto BHTso RN-mental health• Pontiac:
o Mental Health Unit Directorso Post-Doc psychologistso QMHPso Psychiatrists-

4.41 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant
2.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 4.15 FTEs vacant

The deadline for Dixon and Logan to have the required number of staff was February 6, 2018. The deadline for Pontiac is July 6, 2018. Dixon and Logan are clearly not in compliance with Logan’s staffing deteriorating during the reporting period. Although the deadline for Pontiac has not arrived, it is very unlikely they will be in compliance by July 6, 2018.

(IX)(b): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Findings: As of 4/20/18, the following vacancies were reported for Joliet:

• Post-Doc psychologist• Pre-Doc psychologists• Staff psychologist• QMHPs• BHTs• RN-MH• Psychiatrists-

1.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTEs vacant 11.00 FTEs vacant 4.50 FTEs vacant

Joliet is currently noncompliant with this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.

(IX)(c): Specific requirement: Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.
Findings: The defendants did not propose an amendment to the staffing plan within three months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement. Given the persistent staffing problems coupled with the tremendous backlogs of psychiatric and MHP services, the Monitor undertook a staffing analysis which compared psychiatric and mental health backlog data to IDOC’s current staffing situation. The actual study is attached to this report as appendix 1. A brief summary follows:

- 35 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 36 of 177
• The Illinois Department of Corrections’ (IDOC) total offender population has decreased from 48,653 in 2014 to 41,011 in 2018. However, its mental health caseload has risen from 10,910 in 2014 to 12,140 in 2018. Further, IDOC’s SMI population has risen from 4,662 in 2014 to 5,035 in 2018.
• IDOC’s original staffing plan, the Approved Remedial Plan of May 2016, was based on a smaller mentally ill and SMI population than IDOC currently maintains.
• Based on the data provided by IDOC and Wexford, it is evident there is a substantial backlog of cases for both facilities that are not “fully” staffed, and for those that are “fully” staffed. Of note, IDOC provided this data to the monitoring team, which had nothing to do with its collection.
• The data provided by IDOC and Wexford, however, does not capture all of the areas where backlogs may exist. This data only includes psychiatric and mental health evaluations, follow up visits and treatment planning. Other significant areas of treatment deficiencies include but are not limited to individual and group psychotherapy, care for those offenders assigned to crisis watches and segregation status, proper implementation of disciplinary and restraint procedures, use of force issues, multidisciplinary treatment planning and monitoring medication compliance.
• The original staffing plan is no longer appropriate to adequately meet the needs of IDOC’s mentally ill and SMI offender population. This staffing plan needs to be totally rethought if IDOC hopes to fulfill the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
(IX)(d): Specific requirement: To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Based on 31 facility visits, it is readily apparent that the Mental Health Professionals holding positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan have these positions allocated solely to the provision of mental health services mandated by the Settlement Agreement.
(IX)(e): Specific requirement: In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.
Findings: The Quarterly Reports prepared by IDOC contain hiring progress reports.
(IX)(f): Specific requirement: In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This
- 36 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 37 of 177
provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX.
Findings: As reported in IX(a), above, Dixon and Logan have not met their staffing target requirements for both psychiatrists and MHPs. As reported in IX(b), above, Joliet has not met it staffing target requirements. The following facilities have also not met their staffing target requirements:
• Psychiatric vacancies: Graham, Lawrence, Menard, Pinckneyville, Pontiac, Shawnee, Stateville R&C, Stateville proper, Western and Danville (12 of 28 facilities)
• MHP vacancies: Big Muddy, Danville, Graham, Hill, Illinois River, Lawrence, Lincoln, Menard, Pinckneyville, Pontiac, Robinson, Shawnee, Stateville proper, Western, Southwestern Illinois, Stateville NRC and Vienna (19 of 28 facilities)
• This section of the report will serve as official notification to parties that the abovelisted facilities have not met their target staffing requirements.
X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
Summary: The four required RTU facilities have been identified. The RTUs at Dixon and Logan have met their target dates for beds. The target dates for additional construction at Dixon and for the RTU beds at Pontiac and Joliet, as well as additional beds for Logan, have not arrived. The need for higher levels of care is starkly illustrated by the numbers of crisis care stays over 10 days, multiple crisis care placements—as many as 25 per patient in less than a year, restraints use, referrals to RTU, and length of wait for those beds.
The Department is currently not reporting the number of hours that offenders assigned to an RTU are actually receiving. This number is reported as “offered.”
The Department has made good progress in the creation of an inpatient facility. At the time of this report, however, it had not made 22 beds available to females. The target date for this requirement was April 6, 2018. As of April 24, 2018, the census was five.
Crisis beds continue to be located in control units in a few institutions. Most facilities use control unit beds rarely, if at all, but the higher usage rates at a few facilities call into question whether theirs can be considered overflow usage. In crisis care, there continues to be a lack of “aggressive mental health intervention.”
Adequate RTU treatment space is present at the Logan and Joliet. There should be adequate treatment space at Dixon and Pontiac upon completion of their current construction projects.
(X)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders
- 37 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 38 of 177
only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.
Findings: IDOC is meeting this requirement. Renovations, upgrades and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential care have occurred at all four facilities (Dixon, Logan, Joliet and Pontiac).
(X)(b): RTU beds for male offenders
(i): Specific requirement: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
Findings: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately 626 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;
(B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: Dr. Hinton provided the Monitor with the following numbers on May 2, 2018:
• Dixon-RTU bed count of 676. The deadline for additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space is July 6, 2018.
• Pontiac-No number was provided for RTU beds at Pontiac. The deadline for this requirement is July 6, 2018. Based on the monitoring team’s visits to Pontiac, it doesn’t appear that this deadline will be met.
• IYC-Joliet-The deadline for the 360 RTU beds and programing space is October 6, 2018. Dr. Hinton reported the RTU bed count to be 422. During my tour of Joliet on February 5, 2018, the Warden informed me that 422 RTU beds would eventually be available. She did not provide me with a time line for these beds to come on line. This 422 number does not represent the actual number of offenders receiving RTU level of care. The census on April 12, 2018 was 37 and on May 1, 2018 was 41.
• This subsection of the Settlement will be reported as “Target date has not arrived.”
(X)(c): RTU beds for female offenders
(i): Specific requirement: IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108
- 38 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 39 of 177
female offenders at Logan CC.
Findings: Dr. Hinton informed the Monitor on May 2, 2018 that the RTU bed count at Logan was 122. Warden Austin informed the Monitor on March 13, 2018 that the RTU bed count was 80 and that it had been at that number since November 2016. The Warden also spoke about the opening of Building 41 that has 22 beds for offenders designated at the inpatient level of care.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings:
(A) The deadline for creating RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders was February 6, 2018. The requirement has been met.
(B) The deadline for creating RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders is July 6, 2018. This will be reported as “target date has not arrived.”
(X)(d): Specific requirements: The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains an RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
Findings: There has been an urgent need for beds at higher levels of care, including RTU beds, throughout the first two years of the Settlement Agreement. Objective evidence of this need includes:
§ Institutions without an RTU have initiated 61 referrals in recent months.16 § Logan has been filling 10 beds per month internally; Dixon did not report to the monitoring
team its internal referrals. § With the system’s highest levels of four-point restraints use, second highest number of
enforced medication decisions, an average of 80 crisis watches per month, and very high rates of incident reports, there is undoubtedly an urgent need at Pontiac. This facility has made two referrals to a higher level of care in recent months, so the need is as yet
16 This total draws on logs from all institutions except Logan and Dixon. The logs principally reflect referrals in February and March 2018, but some capture some 2017 referrals as well.
- 39 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 40 of 177
unquantified. This lack of referrals to higher levels of care is extremely bothersome given that Pontiac houses a large number of the most severely impaired, mentally ill offenders in the Department. § Crisis watch beds are used for very lengthy periods. At least 63 people lived on crisis watch for twice as long as the intended use, or more, and were not referred to higher levels of care (that is, in addition to the 61 noted above).17 Some of these patients were on watch for months, including two patients who have lived there for 10 months, one of them in restraints for most of that time. § Over a recent nine-month period, at least 428 men and women have had from 3 to 25 crisis watches each, a potential sign of instability. § Once referred, there can be significant waits for the existing higher level of care beds. While some transfer in a short time, waits of one month to more than six months are more the norm.18
Dixon RTU: At the time of the midyear report, mentally ill offenders were being offered approximately 6 hours per week of structured time and 12 hours per week of unstructured time. IDOC began reporting structured and unstructured out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders in segregation in January 2018. They are not currently reporting these hours for mentally ill offenders assigned to an RTU. The Quarterly Report of April 25, 2018 is silent regarding the number of out-of-cell hours offered and/or completed for mentally ill offenders assigned to an RTU. Similar to the reporting requirements for mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation, the Monitor will request that IDOC maintain this data for mentally ill offenders assigned to an RTU.
Pontiac Mental Health Unit: The Monitor has had numerous discussions with the Chief of Mental Health regarding the status of the RTU at Pontiac. The current understanding is that the RTU won’t officially open until sometime after the completion of the construction projects. There are many mentally ill offenders currently housed on the Mental Health Unit that are assigned an RTU level of care designation. These offenders are among the most impaired of the entire IDOC system. Multiple reviews of these particular offenders reveal that during the reporting period, they received significantly less out-of-cell time than is required by this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. This lack of required out-of-cell time has resulted in an over usage of crisis watches, restraints and use of force incidents. The Monitor is hopeful that the new facility will allow for these extremely mentally ill individuals to finally receive the care they so desperately need.
Logan RTU: Documenting the out-of-cell time for the mentally ill offenders assigned to RTU level of care is similar to Dixon. That is, the out-of-cell time is reported as “offered” and not the actual number of hours of participation. The number of hours offered, however, does exceed the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
Joliet RTU: Similar to Dixon and Logan, Joliet does not report actual participation in outof-cell activities. At the time of the Monitor’s February 6, 2018 visit, mentally ill offenders are being offered 15 hours of structured and unstructured hours of out-of-cell activities per week.
17 This number is at minimum and cannot be completely discerned, as some institutions do not record discharge dates when an admission spans two months. 18 At least one-third of referrals waited for these periods. An equal number of log entries are missing information needed to calculate these lengths of time.
- 40 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 41 of 177
(X)(e): Inpatient beds
Specific requirement: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (‘IGA’) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget approval contingent date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
Findings: IDOC has made reasonable progress in fulfilling the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. It had an IGA in place by September 7, 2016 with DHS to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. A facility for female offenders was opened April 2, 2018, six days before the deadline. Of note, only five female offenders have been admitted into the facility as of April 24, 2018. The Chief of Mental Health informed the Monitor during his April 24, 2018 visit to the facility that he would provide a detailed plan about how the patient population would be increased to the 22-bed minimum. This detailed plan was not received by the submission of this report.
(X)(f): Crisis beds
Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
Findings: IDOC is yet to fulfill the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Pontiac has maintained crisis beds in Control Units for the entire duration of the Settlement Agreement. As noted above, the specific requirement states “These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after the approval of the
- 41 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 42 of 177
Settlement Agreement.” Pontiac still maintains crisis cells in North House. IDOC has attempted to characterize these crisis cells in North House as “overflow” cells. The Monitor has personally inspected Pontiac on four occasions during the reporting period. On each of these visits there have been multiple mentally ill offenders housed in the crisis cells on North House. Custody staff confirm that the crisis cells in North House “always” house mentally ill offenders. Logs indicate 19% of Pontiac’s crisis watches occurred in North House in 2017 and early 2018.19 The staff at Pontiac also utilize cells in the Mental Health Unit and the Infirmary for purposes of housing mentally ill offenders on crisis watches.
Due to construction projects occurring in the protective custody unit during this reporting period, crisis clients could not be housed on this unit. This meant that the crisis cells in North House were even more significantly utilized – more than half of the crisis watches in the months for which the Monitor has data.20
During the monitoring period, Lawrence routinely housed its crisis watches in a control unit building. The administration identified and rehabilitated alternative space and remedied this problem as of the first quarter of 2018. A number of institutions report using Segregation on an overflow basis but a few, in addition to Pontiac, raise concerns. Logs show that Stateville proper has used “overflow” on an increasing basis throughout 2018. Lincoln has few crisis watches, but it was a concern that 25% were in segregation on overflow. With both Stateville and Lincoln, around half of the overflow placements exceeded the 72 hours allowed. Dixon is among those reporting it also uses segregation on an overflow basis, though it appears this is rare; there were no such cases appearing on logs from June 2017 through February 2018.
After comparing the locations of Segregation, crisis watch overflow, and crisis watch cells at each institution with their crisis watch logs, it does appear that control units are not being used, or are used very rarely for overflow, in the rest of IDOC’s institutions.21 Monitors’ observations and staff interviews were consistent with the logs in at least seven sites. Thus, the following institutions are in substantial compliance with this provision: Big Muddy River, Centralia, Danville, Decatur, East Moline, Graham, Hill, Illinois River, Jacksonville, Kewanee, Lawrence, Logan, Menard, Pinckneyville, Robinson, Shawnee, Sheridan, Southwestern Illinois, Taylorville, Vandalia, Vienna, and Western Illinois.
Specific requirement: Section II (e) of the Settlement Agreement states in part: Crisis beds are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.
19 According to Crisis Watch logs provided by IDOC monthly from October 2017 through January 2018. IDOC indicated there was lack of clarity when recording housing location on logs provided prior to that time. 20 Per Crisis Watch logs provided by IDOC in February and March 2018. 21 This was verified for 16 institutions in logs or monitors’ onsite visits. An additional 6 institutions do not include cell locations on their logs, but their crisis watch censuses are not high, there is no indication of improper practice, and the consistency across institutions over time suggests that the risk of violation is low and any violation there would likely be “minor or occasional.”
- 42 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 43 of 177
Findings: IDOC has never fulfilled the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. In the previous two reports to the court, the monitoring team has emphasized the important role that crisis beds play within a well-functioning mental health system. Currently in IDOC, the crisis beds do not serve as a “short-term, aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.” This deficiency is due to multiple reasons that include but are not limited to:
• Inadequate mental health and psychiatric evaluations • Consistently poor treatment planning • Insufficient individual and group psychotherapy • Substandard psychiatric care • Absence of a reliable medication distribution system • Custody staff acting as “gate keepers” for the Crisis Intervention Teams • Overreliance on segregation to house mentally ill offenders • Extremely inadequate support for mentally ill housed in segregation • Custody staff that participate in physical and emotional abuse of mentally ill offenders and
administrators that turn a blind eye to such abuses • Insufficient availability of more intensive levels of psychiatric care.
All of this contributes to the fact that crisis beds are extremely oversubscribed. This oversubscription of crisis beds results in stays that often exceed 10 days. A review of crisis-watch logs for a majority of the monitoring period revealed that at least 392 crisis watches exceeded the expected 10 days.22 Among those, 61 people lived in crisis watch from one to ten months.
Little to no “aggressive mental health interventions designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender” occurs with the mentally ill placed on crisis watch. These offenders receive a suicide risk assessment upon entry and daily contacts with an MHP. These contacts do not always occur in a confidential setting which functionally negates their benefits. Psychiatrists rarely see patients at this level of care. Starting in February 2018, a monitor-approved “Crisis Care Plan” began to be used department wide23. This Crisis Care Plan has begun to address the treatment planning requirements stated in the Settlement Agreement. Although called for in the Settlement Agreement, psychiatric providers do not consistently evaluate mentally ill offenders placed on crisis. IDOC still has a long way to go to meet the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
(X)(g): Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own ADs,
22 The team reviewed crisis watch logs from all institutions from June 2017 through February 2018, except the materials spanned July 2017 through February 2018 for Pontiac and Stateville. This number is at minimum and cannot be completely discerned as some institutions do not log the discharge date when an admission spans two months. 23 This Crisis Care Plan was approved to address the complete lack of treatment planning that had previously been occurring with offenders placed on crisis.
- 43 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 44 of 177
forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC is currently meeting this requirement at Logan and Joliet. Dixon and Pontiac should satisfy this requirement upon completion of their construction projects.
(X)(h): Specific requirement: The treatment and other space required by subsections (d)(g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.
Findings: The target dates for this requirement have not arrived.
(X)(i): Specific requirement: Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.
Findings: As previously reported, the Monitor received the required floor plans within the time frame specified in the Settlement. These floor plans are consistent with the requirements of the Remedial Plan.
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
Summary: Regional Directors have been hired and working full time throughout the reporting period.
A Statewide Quality Improvement Manager has been hired but has only been working full time in this position since January 16, 2018.
Seven clinical supervisor positions were vacant at the time of this report.
Four of ten required central office staff positions are vacant at the time of this report.
(XI)(a): Regional Directors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.
- 44 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 45 of 177
Findings: As reported previously, IDOC hired three regional directors who are all licensed psychologists prior to the filing of the Settlement Agreement. They are:
• Dr. Horn, northern regional director, hired March 2014 • Dr. Sim, central regional director, hired January 2015. He was working full time
in this capacity until he was appointed to be the Statewide Quality Improvement Manager on February 16, 2017. He was working in this dual capacity, devoting 75% of his time to his central regional director duties until January 16, 2018. On this date, Dr. Luke Fairless, a licensed psychologist, became the full-time central regional director. • Dr. Reister, southern regional director, hired December 2014.
(XI)(b): Statewide Quality Improvement Manager
Specific requirement: IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This position was filled on 2/16/17, eight days before the deadline, by Dr. Sim. For the first 11 months he held this position, Dr. Sim was only devoting 0.25 FTE to the duties of Statewide Quality Improvement Manager. He only began working full-time in this position on 1/16/18. Dr. Sim’s part-time role in this position is emblematic of the fact that IDOC is yet to operate a statewide continuous quality improvement program.
(XI)(c): Clinical supervisors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.
Findings: IDOC is yet to satisfy the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. As of the time of submission of this report, the following facilities do not have a clinical supervisor in place:
• Danville (backlog of 2 mental health evaluations, 1 mental health treatment plan and 110 mental health follow ups)
• Elgin
- 45 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 46 of 177
• Graham (backlog of 109 mental health evaluations, 124 mental health treatment plans and 257 mental health follow ups)
• Jacksonville • Lawrence (backlog of 53 mental health evaluations, 16 mental health treatment plans and
152 mental health follow ups) • Robinson (backlog of 1 mental health treatment plan and 28 mental health follow ups) • Vandalia (backlog of 14 mental health treatment plans and 18 mental health follow ups) • Western’s clinical supervisor began May 14, 2018. (backlog of 174 mental health
evaluations, 113 mental health treatment plans and 136 mental health follow ups) Persistent vacancies exist almost two years after the deadline. It is obvious that these vacancies are contributing to the problems that IDOC is having in fulfilling the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. These vacancies are also causing unnecessary suffering for the mentally ill offender population. This is especially evident at Graham, which serves as one of the Department’s R&C centers. All backlog data is current as of May 18, 2018.
(XI)(d): Central office staff Specific requirement: IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facilityspecific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement. Findings: The deadline for fulfilling the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement was November 22, 2017. To date, IDOC has filled the position of Training Director, Statewide Quality Improvement Manager, Chief of Psychiatry, and the three Regional Directors. Four (4) central office staff positions remain vacant. Of note, the only positions that were filled at the time of the November 22, 2017 deadline were the Regional Directors, the Training Director and 0.25 FTE of the Statewide Quality Improvement Manager. This is yet another example where IDOC is not able to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and the mentally ill offender population is unnecessarily suffering.
- 46 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 47 of 177
XII: MEDICATION
Summary: Medication administration is documented contemporaneously in a given offender’s medical record. The Department has not been able to ensure that SMI offenders with a new prescription are seen at least twice within the first 60 days of starting a medication. Mentally ill offenders are also not seen at least every 30 days or every 60 to 90 days once stability has been documented. At the time of this report, there was a backlog of at least 1182 psychiatric follow up visits.
There continue to be serious problems with medication distribution, documentation of medication efficacy and side effects, and following protocols for blood work and medical/neurological evaluations and informed consent.
There continues to be a serious problem with medication noncompliance. Staff do not routinely follow protocols for proper intervention with offenders who are displaying poor medication compliance.
(XII)(a): Specific requirement: In accordance with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
Findings: There are many problems associated with the proper prescribing, distribution and monitoring of medications within IDOC. The one issue that is consistently being met, however, is the contemporaneous recording on the offender’s medical records of all medications administered and contacts with medical staff as to medications. IDOC is in compliance with the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
(XII)(b): Specific requirement: Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5) provides: Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, subject to the following:
(a) For offenders in the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist,
- 47 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 48 of 177
consideration for the extension of follow-up appointments may be considered, with no follow up appointment to exceed 90 days.
(b) For offenders at a Special/Residential Treatment Unit level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments may be considered with no extension to exceed 60 days.
Findings: Throughout the Settlement Agreement’s implementation, IDOC has not been able to meet the requirements of this subsection. There may be isolated locations where these requirements are being met, such as the STC RTU unit at Dixon and the Joliet Treatment Center. Overall, however, they are not being met as reflected in the number of follow-up visits that are not being completed on time. As of May 18, 2018, there are 1182 psychiatric follow-up appointments backlogged throughout the Department. This backlog includes 188 mentally ill offenders assigned to the RTU level of care.
In fact, Dixon experienced a falling off of services during the monitoring period. Dr. Kapoor noted in August 2017 that this facility was meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. That is, psychiatrists were seeing offenders every 30 days in confidential settings. On a follow-up visit in January 2018, she reported that this situation had deteriorated in that visits were routinely occurring every 2-3 months. Of note, these visits were occurring cell side or at tables in the dayroom that didn’t allow for confidentiality.
The monitoring team analyzed the frequency and type of psychiatric appointments in the health care records of 164 patients under psychiatrists’24 care across an additional eight institutions in 2017-2018. Psychiatric staff offered the best care at Lawrence and Illinois River, where there were a number of examples of seeing patients monthly as a routine and then increasing the interval to no more than 90 days once the patients appeared stable. This was not universally true, but it occurred far more than in the other sites.
In most of these sites, there were examples of closer follow up in situations that called for it: patients new to the caseload or a particular medication, patients experiencing side effects, after crisis watch placements, or after medication was discontinued at the patient’s request. At least 76 instances of this closer follow-up were evident. Occasionally psychiatrists saw patients twice in 60 days after a new medication, as required, but it was rare. There were, however, examples where psychiatrists did not follow up with patients in these vulnerable situations, seeing them only after 90 days without there being the requisite stability. Offenders at Logan, for example, reported that, due to being unable to speak directly with a psychiatrist about problems with their medications or discuss alternatives, they often stopped taking their medications.
Apart from the practice at Lawrence and Illinois River described above, the frequency of appointments did not seem to follow a pattern. Some appointments occurred at 90 days, sometimes serially, but they were punctuated by at least 27 instances of patients not being seen for 4, 5, 6, 7 or even 8 months. As noted in prior Monitor’s reports, some psychiatrists renewed, changed, or
24 The team will use “psychiatrist” and “psychiatric” to refer to psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, and psychiatric physician’s assistants.
- 48 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 49 of 177
discontinued medication without seeing the patient at the time or soon thereafter. This was observed to some extent at nearly all of the institutions monitored and was most prevalent at Pinckneyville. Pinckneyville designed and has been implementing a corrective action plan on point. IDOC has made efforts to reduce this practice and fewer instances were observed in 2018.
It is common for IDOC psychiatrists to write medication orders for four to six months. This occurred for at least 32% of the patients reviewed. While not a specific feature of the Settlement Agreement, it is inappropriate psychiatric practice. The monitoring team also has concerns about psychiatric response to referrals from screening, related to side effects, patient requests to resume medication, and follow-up on patient noncompliance with medication. These are discussed in sections (V)(b) and (XII)(c)(vi), respectively.
(XII)(c): Specific requirement: In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:
(i): Specific requirement: The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
Findings: IDOC continues not to meet this requirement. In terms of writing and filling medication orders, continuity was good from month to month and with new orders, though gaps— usually one or a few days, but occasionally for four to ten weeks—were evident with 30 medication orders in charts reviewed. However, ensuring proper delivery of the prescribed medications was problematic, especially in segregated housing units. Medications are administered at the cell front through the food slot. This allows for “cheeking” of the medication. That is, offenders appear to have taken their medications but actually are able to hoard the pills and capsules. This hoarded medication then is traded for commissary items, for other medications or for use in suicide attempts. The monitoring team is not aware of any efforts made by IDOC to address this issue.
(ii): Specific requirement: The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskinesia [sic], high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
Findings: This continues to be a problem. As stated in the midyear report, “in the overwhelming majority of the medical records reviewed during the reporting period, little to no attention was paid to either the efficacy or the side effects of the prescribed medications.” Since the midyear report, no real improvement in this regard has been noted by the monitoring team. Again, the most likely explanation for these note deficiencies is the lack of a sufficient number of staff, who then have less time for thorough practice and documentation, as well as completing fewer appointments. As reported above, as of May 18, 2018, there was a total backlog of 1182 psychiatric follow up appointments throughout IDOC. The highest rates were at Menard (289), Shawnee (167), Pontiac (144) and Stateville (116).
(iii): Specific requirement: Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
- 49 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 50 of 177
Findings: This is occurring haphazardly within the Department. That is, in the majority of the medical records reviewed, there was some evidence of lab work being obtained, blood pressure monitoring and neurological evaluation. Unfortunately, these efforts were random in nature and didn’t appear to follow any standard protocol.
(iv): Specific requirement: The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
Findings: As reported above, there were some lab work being performed to address side effects but not based on any accepted protocol. Also, it didn’t appear that the results of this lab work were taken into consideration in the administration of psychotropic medications.
(v): Specific requirement: That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanation from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
Findings: First of all, over 1,000 mentally ill offenders did not even have the opportunity to receive this explanation or ask questions because their appointments hadn’t occurred. During the reporting period, a significant number of psychiatric visits did not occur in confidential settings. This lack of confidentiality dissuades the offender from speaking openly and honestly about their treatment. The only facilities where this requirement was being met were the STC at Dixon, Joliet and Elgin.
(vi): Specific requirement: That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
Findings: IDOC’s compliance is very poor on this requirement. In reviewing the health care records of 164 patients, the monitoring team encountered at least 50 occasions in which the patients did not take their medication for extended periods. Only three clearly were referred at the three-day point; the timing of some referrals is unclear, while 12 were referred after one to three weeks of nonadherence. It appears half were not referred at all. Once referred, many were seen in a reasonable time, but 20% were delayed from two and one-half weeks to two months. Illinois River is among those institutions with this difficulty, but since the monitoring team’s site visits, staff report proactive steps they have taken across multiple departments to improve this issue.
When questioned why this requirement was not being accomplished, staff at a variety of facilities reported that they just didn’t have the time to do this. This lack of time has recently become exacerbated by the Department’s appropriate emphasis on the following requirements of the Settlement Agreement: (the following is a partial listing)
• five-day follow ups of offenders recently discharged from crisis care • treatment planning requirements for those offenders in crisis care and segregation • the direct participation of MHPs in the disciplinary process
- 50 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 51 of 177
• attempts at multidisciplinary treatment planning • providing adequate number of structured out-of-cell activities for mentally ill
offenders assigned to segregation
XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION
Summary: Offenders are subject to enforced medication in half of IDOC’s facilities, with the great majority concentrated in just 3 institutions. When considering an enforced medication order, IDOC convenes Treatment Review Committees composed of the required professionals who have been trained for the purpose. Offenders generally receive notice, though proof of compliance could be stronger.
Offenders usually attend the hearings; there is no indication of difficulty exercising this right. Requests for witnesses appear rare; in the one reviewed instance, witness testimony was denied on a questionable basis.
While notices and hearing packets cite the required rationale, the clinical evidence was not strong in 15% of reviewed cases. Appropriate hearing decisions are issued. It is noteworthy that, for a sizeable number of offenders, decisions have remained in effect for 10 to 27 years.
Reviewed videos depicted humane and effective practice when administering enforced medication.
The monitoring team finds 15 institutions in Substantial Compliance with subsection XIII.
Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70. The cited provision of the Administrative Code is lengthy and includes numerous detailed provisions:
a) Administration of Psychotropic Medication 1) Psychotropic medication shall not be administered to any offender against his or her will or without the consent of the parent or guardian of a minor who is under the age of 18, unless: A) A psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that: i) The offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) The medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) The offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others; and B) The administration of such medication has been approved by the Treatment Review Committee after a hearing (see subsection (b) of this Section). However, no such approval or hearing shall be required when the medication is administered in an emergency situation. An emergency situation exists
- 51 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 52 of 177
whenever the required determinations listed in subsection (a)(1)(A) of this Section have been made and a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that the offender poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm to self or others. In all emergency situations, the procedures set forth in subsection (e) of this Section shall be followed. 2) Whenever a physician orders the administration of psychotropic medication to an offender against the person’s will, the physician shall document in the offender’s medical file the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination that the standards in subsection (a)(1) of this Section have been met and: A) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be notified as soon as practicable; and B) Unless the medication was administered in an emergency situation, the Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee shall be notified in writing within three days. b) Treatment Review Committee Procedures The Treatment Review Committee shall be comprised of two members appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer, both of whom shall be mental health professionals and one of whom shall be a physician. One member shall serve as Chairperson of the Committee. Neither of the Committee members may be involved in the current decision to order the medication. The members of the Committee shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall designate a member of the program staff not involved in the current decision to order medication to assist the offender. The staff assistant shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 2)The offender and staff assistant shall receive written notification of the time and place of the hearing at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The notification shall include the tentative diagnosis and the reasons why the medical staff believes the medication is necessary. The staff assistant shall meet with the offender prior to the hearing to discuss the procedural and mental health issues involved. 3) The offender shall have the right to attend the hearing unless the Committee determines that it is likely that the person’s attendance would subject the person to substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm or pose a threat to the safety of others. If such a determination is made, the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination shall be documented in the offender’s medical file. The staff assistant shall appear at the hearing whether or not the offender appears. 4) The documentation in the medical file referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this Section shall be reviewed by the Committee and the Committee may request the physician’s personal appearance at the hearing. 5) Prior to the hearing, witnesses identified by the offender and the staff assistant may be interviewed by the staff assistant after consultation with the offender as to appropriate questions to ask. Any such questions shall be asked by the staff assistant unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 6) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses be interviewed by the Committee and may submit written questions
- 52 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 53 of 177
for witnesses to the Chairperson of the Committee. These questions shall be asked by the Committee unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. If any witness is not interviewed, a written reason shall be provided. 7) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses appear at the hearing. Any such request shall include an explanation of what the witnesses would state. Reasonable efforts shall be made to have such witnesses present at the hearing, unless their testimony or presence would be cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility, or for other reasons including, but not limited to, unavailability of the witness or matters relating to institutional order. In the event requested witnesses are unavailable to appear at the hearing but are otherwise available, they shall be interviewed by the Committee as provided for in subsections (b)(6) and (9) of this Section. 8) At the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may make statements and present documents that are relevant to the proceedings. The staff assistant may direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing. The offender may request that the staff assistant direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing and the staff assistant shall ask such questions unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 9) The Committee shall make such investigation as it deems necessary. The staff assistant shall be informed of any investigation conducted by the Committee and shall be permitted to direct relevant questions to any witnesses interviewed by the Committee. The staff assistant shall consult with the offender regarding any statements made by witnesses interviewed by the Committee and shall comply with requests by the offender to direct relevant questions to such witnesses unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 10) The Committee shall consider all relevant information and material that has been presented in deciding whether to approve administration of the medication. 11) A written decision shall be prepared and signed by all members of the Committee that contains a summary of the hearing and the reasons for approving or disapproving the administration of the medication. Copies of the decision shall be given to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Any decision by the Committee to approve involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be unanimous. The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Committee. 12) If the Committee approves administration of the medication, the offender shall be advised of the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Agency Medical Director by filing a written appeal with the Chairperson within five days after the offender's receipt of the written decision. c) Review by Agency Medical Director
- 53 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 54 of 177
1) If the offender appeals the Treatment Review Committee’s decision, staff shall continue to administer the medication as ordered by the physician and approved by the Committee while awaiting the Agency Medical Director’s decision on the appeal. 2) The Chairperson of the Committee shall promptly forward the written notice of appeal to the Agency Medical Director or a physician designated by the Agency Medical Director. 3) Within five working days after receipt of the written notice of appeal, the Agency Medical Director shall: A) Review the Committee’s decision, make such further investigation as deemed necessary, and submit a written decision to the Chief Administrative Officer; and B) Provide a copy of the written decision to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chairperson of the Committee. 4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Agency Medical Director. d) Periodic Review of Medication 1) Whenever any offender has been involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication continuously or on a regular basis for a period of six months, the administration of such medication shall, upon the offender’s written request, be reviewed by the Treatment Review Committee in accordance with the procedures enumerated in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section. Every six months thereafter, for so long as the involuntary medication continues on a regular basis, the offender shall have the right to a review hearing upon written request. 2) Every offender who is involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, and the psychiatrist shall document in the offender's medical file the basis for the decision to continue the medication. e) Emergency Procedures Subsequent to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in an emergency situation: 1) The basis for the decision to administer the medication shall be documented in the offender's medical file and a copy of the documentation shall be given to the offender and to the Agency Medical Director for review. 2) A mental health professional shall meet with the offender to discuss the reasons why the medication was administered and to give the offender an opportunity to express any concerns he or she may have regarding the medication. f) Copies of all notifications and written decisions shall be placed in the offender’s medical file. g) Grievances An offender may submit a grievance concerning the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication directly to the Administrative Review Board in accordance with 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Subpart F. In considering the grievance, the Board shall confer with the Agency Medical Director.
- 54 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 55 of 177
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed institutional logs and a 18% sample of the cases therein. 25 Over the period of review, the monitoring team learned of 195 people subject to enforced medication. They were highly concentrated at Dixon (109), Pontiac (30), and Logan (14). Another 11 institutions had numbers in the single digits and another 13 did not use enforced medication at all. The use of this intervention has increased since 2017.
For all non-emergency cases reviewed, facilities fulfilled their obligation to convene a Treatment Review Committee composed of the required professionals or a reasonable substitution, such as a Medical Director where a psychiatrist is not generally onsite. Each facility reviewed has provided a list of staff who have been trained and serve as Treatment Review Committee members.
Records verified that a Staff Assistant is always appointed for the patient. It appears that providing written notice, with all the required elements, to the patient is routine; this was clearly documented in 77% of cases and there was some indication that the compliance percentage is higher. Patients regularly attend the hearings. With the two refusals in this sample, the hearing record described the committee’s attempts to engage the patient. In one case, the patient was excluded because he had been assaultive toward staff the night before as well as the same day. While another handful of documents omitted mention of the patient’s attendance, there was no indication that patients are not being provided that right.
The basis for enforced medication decisions must be that i) the offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) the medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) the offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others. While hearing packets cite this rationale, the clinical evidence was not strong in 15% of reviewed cases to warrant this intrusive measure. There were examples of this concern across most institutions reviewed. Among the emergency medication documents, one stood out as offering no rationale at all.
Reviews yielded only one patient who asked for witnesses. They were denied; one was understandably considered irrelevant but denying the other on the basis of being an inmate seemed contrary to the patient’s rights. Each record did contain a written summary of the hearing and the committee’s reasons for its decision. These were generally detailed and well-reasoned; two declined to approve the enforced medications for well-supported reasons and one of those offered an alternative plan. The monitoring team also reviewed a handful of videos of enforced medication being administered at Pontiac and Illinois River and these were handled well by custody and nursing staff.
It remains noteworthy that, once in place, these decisions can remain in effect for very lengthy periods. The monitoring team has encountered at least 19 people subjected to enforced medication for 10 to 27 years. While the Code does not set time limits, these lengths of time are antithetical to a mechanism meant for acute situations. IDOC leaves it to the patients to raise the right of appeal available to them every six months. The Monitor would prefer to see IDOC adopt a practice of annual reviews, which is more in keeping with the nature of these decisions.
25 IDOC provided logs for all institutions for June 2017 through February 2018. The team reviewed 30 records of enforced medication hearings, and documentation of 6 emergency uses. These were drawn from 12 of the 14 institutions at which these practices occurred.
- 55 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 56 of 177
All of Hill’s and Sheridan’s cases were in compliance. The following institutions are in substantial compliance with XIII: Centralia, Danville, Decatur, East Moline, Graham, Hill, Jacksonville, Kewanee, Lincoln, Robinson, Sheridan, Southwestern Illinois, Taylorville, Vandalia, and Vienna.
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
Summary: MHPs are informed of housing changes by security staff. MHPs are also consulted about post-segregation housing recommendations. MHPs do not report that their housing recommendations are overridden by security staff.
(XIV)(a): Specific requirements: Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
Findings: IDOC has created a form that is well-designed to guide practice on all three provisions of XIV, and IDOC reports that it is widely in use. During the monitoring period, IDOC administration distributed a memo to all facilities reinforcing this requirement and those that follow in (b) an (c). The monitoring team has confirmed that at least 65% of institutions have carried forward the Settlement Agreement language in Institutional Directives, and facilities such as Pontiac, Graham, and Illinois River have enhanced it with procedures that will better facilitate the policies being carried out. While local policies are not required by the Settlement Agreement, they are a good mechanism to support implementation of this section’s provisions.
During site visits, staff often spoke of good collaboration on housing decisions. For example, at Logan staff reported that security officers consult with mental health staff regarding housing decisions, as did staff at Danville, East Moline, Hill and Lawrence. At Dixon and Big Muddy River, on the other hand, the placement office was not always proactively informing mental health staff about housing moves. It is noteworthy that, in facilities where mental health appointments all take place in the mental health offices, general population cell moves would not affect scheduling or access. MHPs and administrative staff responsible for scheduling do report monitoring the Offender 360 database regularly, as required under this provision.
(XIV)(b): Specific requirement: For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII (a)(v)(F), below.
Findings: This is generally occurring in the institutions monitored with the exception of Dixon and Robinson, which committed to changing practice to conform to this requirement. As
- 56 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 57 of 177
previously reported, several facilities send a daily email about cell moves of mentally ill offenders, especially those assigned to segregation.
(XIV)(c): Specific requirement: If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation.
Findings: This requirement is being met. Interviews with mental health administrators and staff revealed that security officers did not override their recommendations for housing placement for mentally ill offenders.
XV: SEGREGATION
Summary: Double-cell reviews are in place, and all facilities are in the process of implementing this requirement.
The segregation units are countertherapeutic for the mentally ill offenders housed there. These units tend to be filthy, loud, chaotic and worsen the psychiatric and medical conditions of those offenders who are housed there. The mentally ill offenders should be removed from segregated housing.
The monitoring team found varying degrees of compliance with the requirement of continuing, at a minimum, the treatment specified in the ITP when a mentally ill offender is placed in Segregation.
The Department is not meeting the requirement that an MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation.
MHPs were not routinely reviewing and updating treatment plans of offenders within one week of placement in segregation. A separate sample of 30 charts demonstrated a higher rate of monthly reviews, however.
The Department began collecting data on structured and unstructured out-of-cell activities in January 2018. Chief Funk should be complemented on her efforts to get this program off the ground. Of note, refusals are still being counted toward the total number of out-of-cell hours which is contrary to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
The requirements regarding the reduction of segregation time were not monitored during the current reporting period.
As to all of the above requirements, the analysis applies equally to offenders in the Administrative Detention/Disciplinary Segregation/Investigatory Status/ Temporary Confinement.
- 57 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 58 of 177
XV(a)(i): Specific requirement: Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
Of note, AD 05.03.107 provides: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility with segregation and protective custody units designed to double cell offenders shall develop a written policy that includes, but is not limited to, the following for routine segregation and protective custody placement:
• Segregation placement • PC placement • Documentation • Review of documentation and final determination • Compatibility contraindications • Review with other inmates • Upon determination to double-cell:
o Documentation o Suitability review following placement o Documentation upon release • Documentation and Reassessment for disciplinary report
Findings: The following was noted in the midyear report: “The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states “Double-cell reviews are in place, and all facilities are in the process of implementing the requirements of this Section. On June 23rd, a memo was sent to all wardens reminding them of the requirements outlined in this section. Additionally, wardens were instructed to draft institutional directives reiterating the requirements in this section. The Monitor had requested a list of facilities that have complied with this requirement. On November 20, 2017, the Monitor received confirmation from Chief Funk “that all facilities have an institutional directive relative to the double celling of special populations.” Additionally, Psych Administrators at several institutions, including Logan, Lawrence, and Illinois River, convincingly described to the monitoring team the particulars of this process and its routine nature. The monitoring team confirms that this requirement continued to be met during the second half of the reporting period. The Department is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XV(a)(ii): Specific Requirement: Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670. Section 504.620 is detailed and covers a number of issues regarding conditions in segregation: double celling, secure fastening of the bed, clean bedding, running water, lighting, placement above ground with adequate heat and ventilation, food passage and visual observation, use of restraints inside the cell, cleaning materials, showers and shaves, toiletries, clothing and
- 58 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 59 of 177
laundry, dentures, glasses and other hygienic items, property and commissary, food, visits, medical, chaplain and correctional counselor visits, programs, exercise, phone calls, mail privileges and reading materials. Section 504.630 provides for the same conditions and services in investigatory status as in segregation status. Section 504.670 addresses recreation, including requiring five hours of recreation for inmates who have spent 90 or more days in segregation, yard restrictions, and related documentation.
Findings: Not much has significantly changed in regard to this requirement during the reporting period. The segregation units are countertherapeutic for the mentally ill offenders housed there. These units tend to be filthy, loud and chaotic with the exception of the RTU at Logan. They do not contribute to the provision of mental health treatment. In other correctional systems with a large population of mentally ill offenders in segregated housing, the mentally ill offenders are separated from non-mentally ill offenders. That is, there are segregated housing units just for the mentally ill. IDOC should seriously consider this as an option if it is not willing to remove all mentally ill offenders from segregated housing. The current situation results in the deterioration of the mentally ill offenders assigned to segregated housing units.
XV(a)(iii): Specific requirement: Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
Findings: It is important to note that the overall quality of treatment planning in IDOC is poor. A modified treatment planning document was approved for use by the Monitor on February 1, 2018. It is too early to state what effects this new form has had on the overall quality of treatment planning. Given these facts, the monitoring team found varying degrees of compliance with this requirement during the reporting period. Assistant Monitor Ginny Morrison reviewed the records of at least 123 Segregation placements in 2017-2018. This review involved the following facilities: Big Muddy River, Danville, East Moline, Hill, Illinois River, Lawrence, Pinckneyville and Robinson. She found that the treatment plans in place in general population appeared to be followed after the offenders’ segregation placement. Also, Menard was found to be providing weekly or semi-weekly counseling visit to the mentally ill offenders in segregation.
These findings contrast with those at Pontiac where the ITP is rarely implemented when a mentally ill offender is placed in segregation. This fact may also reflect the very poor quality of treatment planning that is generally encountered at Pontiac.
XV (a)(iv): Specific requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
Findings: The monitoring team analyzed health care records related to 123 Segregation placements,26 across eight institutions, during the monitoring period. These are the same institutions noted in XV(a)(iii), above. Those records showed contact by an MHP or BHT within
26 The number of patients differs because some had multiple Segregation placements in 2017-2018; each placement was analyzed. All men reviewed were on the mental health caseload.
- 59 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 60 of 177
the first two days in only 31% of the placements. A previous analysis of 76 segregation placements in 2017 found a compliance rate of only 36%. Since the team’s site visits, Danville described proactive steps it has taken to improve on this requirement.
Similar findings were encountered at other monitored facilities. Logan only began meeting this requirement in February 2018. This was also true for Illinois River. The staff at Pinckneyville reported to the Monitor that their efforts at meeting this particular requirement come at the expense of meeting other requirements of the Settlement Agreement such as following up incidents of medication noncompliance. Finally, Dr. Kapoor reported that Dixon is not meeting this requirement.
The findings of the monitoring team are in stark contrast to those reported by IDOC in its Quarterly Report of April 25, 2018. It states “Following internal auditing in March 2018, the Department found only four (4) instances of a mentally ill offender not being seen by an MHP within 48 hours of placement in segregation out over 375 chart reviews across 19 facilities.” The Monitor has not reviewed this “internal auditing” but assumes that it is the monthly CQI report. As is reported in section XXVI, below, the CQI auditing instrument has not yet been verified as an accurate measure of the clinical activities of IDOC. Also, this audit of 375 charts was not particularly directed at offenders who had recently been placed in segregated housing. In order for this number of four (4) to be meaningful, the number of reviewed charts of mentally ill offenders who have been recently placed in segregated housing should also be reported.
XV (a)(v): Specific requirement: As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: In the monitoring team’s same analysis of 123 placements, 15% showed a treatment plan update within one week. IDOC indicated that its internal audit found a much higher compliance rate.27 Another 15% also updated the treatment plan, but it was untimely. A previous analysis reported on the midyear report showed a 22% compliance rate with this requirement.
Among the subset clearly in Segregation long enough to require monthly updates,28 staff did update these plans each month in 73% of the placements, and another handful had updated plans in some months but not others.
XV(a)(vi): Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
27 In IDOC’s April 2018 quarterly report, it cited a February 2018 audit; it appears this may be different from the March 2018 audit cited elsewhere. It is unclear how many Segregation charts were included in the February 2018 audit. The audit found only one case to be noncompliant in updating the treatment plan within one week. No findings were reported as to monthly treatment plan updates. 28 This totaled 30 placements in the monitoring team’s sample.
- 60 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 61 of 177
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings:
Continuation of ITP with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation: This was not occurring during the reporting period. Of note, the monitoring team found no evidence of “enhanced therapy” being provided to the mentally ill offenders in segregation.
Rounds: There is excellent practice on this requirement. Of 145 Segregation placements reviewed by the monitoring team, 92% consistently met this standard. In the remaining placements, rounds documentation was present but appeared to reflect missed contacts. Big Muddy River, Danville, and East Moline each had 100% performance on this responsibility. Hill, Illinois River, and Pinckneyville had the farthest to go; Pinckneyville has designed and is implementing a corrective action plan on this point. IDOC reports that Pontiac conducts weekly rounds in two of it Segregation buildings, and biweekly rounds in the other building.
Pharmacological treatment: Although many mentally ill offenders are prescribed medications, significant problems exist with ensuring proper medication compliance. This includes problems ensuring that offenders actually take their medication. Also, offenders are not evaluated and followed up per the requirements the settlement agreement.
Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP: There were MHP contacts in 46% of the 123 relevant Segregation placements in the monitoring team’s review. The team did not compare the frequency of contact to the treatment plans.
Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established: Multidisciplinary teams had not been established at the institutions the monitoring team reviewed as of the time of those visits.
MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing: Clinicians at Danville, East Moline, Hill, Illinois River, and Lawrence all described good systems for giving input into post-segregation housing and good receptivity to it. Big Muddy River had not begun this practice as of summer 2017 but committed to doing so.
- 61 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 62 of 177
Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record: Clinical contacts were routinely documented in all records reviewed by the monitoring team.
Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation: This requirement is not regularly met in the Department. The monitoring team did not find any examples of increased unstructured out-of-cell time being indicated by the offender’s ITP. The monitoring team also did not find any instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation, who refuse out-of-cell unstructured time, had these refusals appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
XV(a)(vi):29 Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-ofcell time in accordance with subsection (c) below.30
Findings: For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, the requirement is to provide mentally ill offenders a minimum of six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-ofcell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-of-cell time per week. As noted in the wording of this requirement, the actual language is “will receive.” Accordingly, the statement of “offer the amount of out of cell time” as noted on page 16 of the Quarterly Report of April 25, 2018 is not applicable to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As reported previously, The Department has not had a system to accurately track the requirements of this subsection. The Monitor met with the Department’s leadership team, including the Director, on February 6, 2018 while on a tour of the Joliet Treatment Center. The Department agreed to begin tracking both structured and unstructured out-of-cell time utilizing a form that had been developed by the staff at Pinckneyville. This new tracking scheme would provide a weekly accounting of unstructured and structured out-of-cell time per individual mentally ill offender. The department further agreed to collect this data from all facilities beginning in January 2018 and forward the data for the months of January, February and March 2018 to the Monitor by April 15, 2018. Chief Funk is the staff responsible for implementing this program of data collection.
This program of data collection got off to a slow start. That is, for the month of January, only 21 of 28 facilities reported their structured out-of-cell data and none reported their unstructured out-of-cell data. These figures did not significantly improve for February with 21 of 28 facilities reporting structured out-of-cell data and 2 of 28 facilities reported their unstructured out-of-cell data. The facility response rate did improve for March with 23 of 28 reporting structured out-of-cell data and 23 of 28 reporting unstructured out-of-cell data. The Monitor is aware that some of the non-reporting facilities may not have had mentally ill offenders that required this type of out-of-cell activities. These facilities should have submitted reports to that effect rather than not submitting a report at all.
29 This numbering from the Settlement Agreement is in error but this report will continue to use it to remain consistent with the numbering in the Settlement Agreement. 30 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on page 20 of the Settlement Agreement
- 62 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 63 of 177
The reporting of the data is also problematic. Refusals to participate in structured and unstructured activities are counted towards the total. The Department is not consistently meeting the 12-hour requirement. For example, looking at the week of 3/18/18 at Pontiac, only 4 of 48 mentally ill offenders received at least 6-hours of structured out-of-cell activities. A notation of “limited staff” was made in an attempt to explain why the remaining 44 mentally ill offenders did not receive the required out-of-cell time. Also, at Pontiac for the week of 3/26/18, only 7 of 48 mentally ill offenders actually received the required 6 hours of unstructured out-of-cell time although 34 of 48 were reported to have met this threshold. In the case of the 34, refusals were counted toward the total.
The Monitor notes that this data collection represents a major shift in the way that the Department has been tracking this information. These initial efforts are acknowledged as a significant improvement but a lot of work remains to be done. At this point in the Settlement, it is the opinion of the Monitor that the Department still is not consistently providing the required outof-cell time to those mentally ill offenders who have been in segregated housing for more than 60 days. This opinion is based on chart reviews conducted in numerous facilities as well as a review of the data collected for January, February and March 2018.
Chief Funk should be applauded for her efforts at attempting to implement this seismic shift in the way the Department conducts its business. The Monitor will be working directly with her to build on these initial accomplishments.
Anecdotally, health care records reflect significant time in mental health-run groups at Pinckneyville and Lawrence, and in some instances at Illinois River and Danville. Danville counseling leadership described an excellent system to provide tailored programming in the rare event that men are in Segregation beyond 60 days; reportedly, this typically occurs 1:1, as it is even more rare for multiple men to have terms that long at the same time. The administrations at Big Muddy River, East Moline, and Robinson indicated that Segregation terms are almost always 30 days or less, and logs and other information supported that. Nevertheless, East Moline and Lawrence provided groups to their patients well before the 60-day point.
Pontiac has been creative and ambitious in creating new space for programming. In early 2018, it opened new rooms, converted dead space, and had further retrofits under way. As of April 2018, the administration reported it can run three groups concurrently because of these expansions.
XV(a)(vii): Specific requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP31 unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
31 IDOC’s compliance with the portion of this provision regarding MHP recommendations for placement into crisis care is discussed elsewhere this report.
- 63 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 64 of 177
Findings: The Department is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XV(b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
XV(b)(i): Specific requirements: IDOC will organize Review Committees (‘Committees’) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period.
XV(b)(ii): Specific requirements: The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period.
XV(b)(iii): Specific requirements: With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period.
XV(b)(iv): Specific requirements: The committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period.
XV(b)(v): Specific requirements: The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period.
XV(b)(vi): Specific requirements: These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period.
XV(c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
- 64 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 65 of 177
XV(c)(i): Specific requirements: With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/ Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
20 Illinois Administrative Code Section 504 Subpart D: Segregation, Investigative Confinement and Administrative Detention—Adult provides:
Applicability, definitions, and responsibilities for IDOC staff regarding placement of offenders in segregation status; segregation standards for offenders placed into segregation, investigative confinement, administrative detention; and standards for recreation for offenders in segregation status.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
II (G): Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
II (H): Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or
- 65 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 66 of 177
the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
- 66 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 67 of 177
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: Please see section XXV, Discipline of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders, for a discussion about the disciplinary process.
II (I): Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: The Department does not have a functioning system to meet the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Weekly rounds, conducted by BHTs, do take place in segregation. These rounds are conducted at cell side and do not function as mental health assessments. As reported above, custody staff continue to act as gatekeepers to the Crisis Intervention Teams. Problems also exist in the proper continuation of the offenders’ ITP while they are in segregation.
XV(c)(ii): Specific Requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: The target date has not arrived for this requirement.
- 67 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 68 of 177
XV(c)(iii): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
1) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP.
2) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
3) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). 4) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP. 5) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. 6) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. 7) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. 8) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings: Please see section (a)(vi), page 61, above for a discussion about this requirement.
XV(c)(iv): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.32
Findings: Please see section (a)(vi), page 63, above for a discussion about this requirement
XV(c)(v): Specific Requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendation shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: The Department is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
32 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on pages 19 and 20 of the Settlement.
- 68 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 69 of 177
XV(c)33: Specific Requirement: Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-ofcell time per week.
ii. For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-ofcell time per week.
iii. For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours outof-cell time per week.
iv. For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours outof-cell time per week.
Findings: Please see (a)(vi), pages 62- 63, above, for a discussion of this requirement.
Structured out-of-cell time & unstructured out-of-cell time: Again, please see (a)(vi), pages 62-63, above, for a discussion regarding this requirement. Of note, it is the hope of the Monitor that the Department will fine tune its collection of out-of-cell data. This would allow for a definitive assessment of this very important issue.
The 60-day requirement: As was reported in the first annual report, it remains a serious concern that this particular requirement of the Settlement only calls for increased out-of-cell time for offenders in segregation for more than 60 days. Any amount of segregation causes its own unique set of mental health issues. It can exacerbate preexisting mental health issues as well as causing new mental illness to occur.
During the current reporting period, the monitoring team noted that Stateville Proper is offering all mentally ill offenders in segregation structured out-of-cell time. Pinckneyville is offering structured out-of-cell time to mentally ill offenders in segregation after 55 days. The staff told me that they will attempt to offer structured out-of-cell time after 45 days in the future. Chart reviews confirmed that East Moline and Lawrence provided groups to their patients very soon after placement, well ahead of the 60-day point.
Segregation-like settings: The Monitor has a similar concern regarding out-of-cell time for those inmates who, while not in formal segregation, are in segregation-like confinement for a prolonged period of time. Mentally ill offenders often stay in R&C units for longer than 60 days. This is a particular problem at the Stateville and Menard R&Cs. Efforts should be made to provide mentally ill offenders in R&C units the same amount of structured and unstructured out-of-cell time that is provided to offenders housed in control units.
33 As above, this appears mislabeled in the Settlement but is carried forward here.
- 69 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 70 of 177
XV(d): Specific Requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is struggling to meet the overall requirements of this section of the Settlement. The deadline for most of these provisions is 2.5 years in the future. The monitoring team will continue to closely review these issues moving forward.
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
Summary: Crisis Intervention Teams had been established and trained at all facilities. The monitoring team does not have information if crisis intervention team members participate in quarterly quality assurance meetings.
The expected policies have been demonstrated in 22 facilities. The training requirements associated with this section of the Settlement Agreement have been met.
Crisis Intervention Teams are present in all monitored facilities. Crisis watch is overutilized due to an overall lack of adequate mental health and psychiatric services. Gatekeeping by custody staff remains a concern. Aggressive mental health and psychiatric treatment does not occur on crisis watch. Some crisis cells are still located in segregated housing units.
There were five completed suicides during the monitoring period. Post-suicide reports are completed in a timely manner. These reports do not contain a robust corrective action component. As such, the potential lessons learned from these tragedies is not being adequately utilized by the Department to improve its overall quality of mental health and psychiatric services.
(XVI)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
The section titled “Identification, Treatment and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” from the IDOC Mental Health SOP Manual34 provides general guidelines for the handling of suicidal offenders. AD 04.04.102, however, provides a number of specific requirements:
34 The Settlement references “Mental Health Protocol Manual.” IDOC has changed the name of this manual to “Mental Health SOP Manual.”
- 70 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 71 of 177
II (F) Requirements: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall: 1)Establish a Crisis Intervention Team. a. The Crisis Intervention Team shall consist of: (1) A Crisis Intervention Team Leader who shall be an MHP; (2) All facility MHPs and nursing staff; and (3) At least one member of the facility’s security staff of the rank of Lieutenant or above. NOTE: Other Crisis Intervention Team members may be chosen from facility staff upon the recommendation of the Team Leader to ensure at least one member is on site at all times. b. Prior to serving, all members of the Crisis Intervention Team shall receive training in accordance with Paragraph II.g.1. Crisis Intervention Team Members on leave of absence shall be required to make up missed training upon return and prior to resuming service on the Crisis Intervention Team. c. All Crisis Intervention Team Members shall participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.
(1) Meetings shall be held to: (a) Review all events involving offender suicide during the previous quarter; (b) Review the Facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan in accordance with Paragraph II.G; and (c) Assess the adequacy of the facility’s training program in relation to the facility’s needs
(2) Meetings shall be documented in writing and shall: (a) Include the date and minutes of the meeting, a list of all persons in attendance and any recommendations or issues noted; (b) Be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer, the respective Regional Psychological Administrator and the Chief of Mental Health
Findings: Every IDOC institution operating as of July 2017 has provided a list of staff designated to the Crisis Intervention Team and has represented that each listed person has participated in the required training. Not all lists reflect staff’s positions, but many indicate that MHPs, nurses, and lieutenants are included. This has also been confirmed during onsite interviews and the monitoring team has observed crisis intervention paperwork signed by nurses, MHPs, and other disciplines. The monitoring team does not have information about whether Crisis Intervention Team Members participate in quality assurance meetings.
2) Designate a Crisis Care Area. a. Crisis care areas shall be used to house offenders determined by an MHP to require removal from his or her current housing assignment for the purpose of mental health treatment or observation. b. Excluding exigent circumstances as determined by the Director or a Deputy director, segregation units shall only be utilized for crisis care areas if no other crisis care areas are available, and only until alternative crisis care areas are available. c. Cells designated as crisis care areas shall: Allow for visual and auditory observation of the entire cell; Allow for prompt staff access; Control outside stimuli; Contain beds that are suicide resistant and constructed of a metal base, cinder block, concrete slab or herculite material; Contain a pass through or chuck holes that open out of the cell; Contain mesh coverings over all vents; Contain laminated glass over all windows or be safely and security glazed windows; and Be made appropriately suicide resistant and provide
- 71 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 72 of 177
adequate lighting and temperature.
Findings: Each institution has provided the locations of their designated crisis care areas. The monitoring team has viewed the crisis care areas in each facility toured and has found them to have the required features. For the most part, crisis care is not in segregation, but there are notable exceptions. For a full discussion, please see X(f), above.
II (G): Prevention and Intervention Plan
The Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the facility’s mental health authority, shall establish a written procedure for responding to, and providing emergency mental health services, including prevention and intervention of emergency mental health situations. The procedure shall be reviewed annually and shall be approved by the Chief of Mental Health and shall include, at a minimum, provisions for the following: training, referrals for emergency mental health situations, crisis intervention team response, crisis watch, response to self-inflicted injuries and suicide, and quality improvement reviews.
Findings: To date, 22 institutions have provided this written procedure with the required components. The monitoring team will verify the status of procedures in the remaining facilities in upcoming monitoring periods.
1) Training The Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training shall establish standardized training programs that provide information on emergency mental health services. All training shall be provided by an MHP, or in the absence of the MHP, a current crisis team member and, where appropriate, shall include enhanced content specific to the facility. a. Level I Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all staff that have regular interaction with offenders, and shall include a minimum of one hour of the following: (1) Elements of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan; (2) Demographic and cultural parameters of suicidal behavior in a correctional setting, including incidence and variations in precipitating factors; (3) Risk factors and behavioral indicators of suicidal behavior; (4) Understanding, identifying, managing and referring suicidal offenders, including the importance of communication between staff; (5) Procedural response and follow-up procedures including crisis treatment supervision levels and housing observation; and (6) Documentation requirements. b. Level II Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all personnel identified in the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan as having the authority to initiate a crisis watch. Level II training shall consist of a minimum of four hours of in-depth didactic and experiential training in assessing suicide risk and procedures for initiating a crisis watch. c. Level III Training shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members, excluding MHPs, and shall consist of 24 hours of advanced training in the philosophy of suicide prevention and continuous quality improvement of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan.
- 72 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 73 of 177
(1) Crisis Intervention Team members shall also be trained by an MHP, designated by the Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training. This training will give the Crisis Intervention Team member the ability to instruct on the standardized training curriculum that provides information on emergency mental health services during cycle training, in the absence of the MHP. (2) Training shall be completed prior to active service with the Crisis Intervention Team. d. Clinical Continuing Education shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members and shall consist of a minimum of one hour per quarter of training to assist Crisis Intervention Team members in monitoring facility policy and procedure and in reviewing suicide attempts or completions. Clinical Continuing Education Training may be obtained through participation in the quarterly Crisis Intervention Team quality assurance meeting.
Findings: This training requirement has been met.
2) Referrals for Emergency Mental Health Situations Staff shall immediately notify the Crisis Intervention Team, through his or her chain of command, of any situation whereby an offender exhibits behavior indicative of mental or emotional distress, imminent risk for harm to self or an attempted suicide.
Findings: There are extensive references to staff notifying the Crisis Intervention Team found in incident logs, incident reports, health care records, referral documents, fourpoint restraints documentation, and use of force videos. For example, in reviewing a sample incident logs, all but two facilities recorded Crisis Intervention Team referrals and these totaled 627 in just a few months. IDOC has supplied the monitoring team with memos to wardens reinforcing this requirement as a very important obligation and encouraging investigation of all accusations of failure to notify the Crisis Intervention Team. At the same time, it has been very troubling that the Monitor has received sustained complaints at some institutions from offenders asserting that their requests for crisis intervention did not receive a response.
3) Crisis Intervention Team Response a. At least one Crisis Team member shall be on site at all times. The designated Crisis Intervention Team Leader shall be available by phone when not on site. b. The Chief of Mental Health and the respective Regional Psychological Administrator shall be notified within 24 hours of the suicide of an offender, and within 72 hours of any attempted suicide. c. Upon notice of a potential crisis situation, a Crisis Intervention Team member shall: (1) Implement necessary means to prevent escalation and to stabilize the situation. (2) Ensure that the offender is properly monitored for safety. (3) Review the situation with the Crisis Team Leader or and MHP to determine what services or referrals shall be provided. If the Crisis Intervention Team Leader is not on grounds and cannot be reached by telephone, and there are no MHPs on grounds, the Crisis Team member shall contact an alternative MHP and the review may be
- 73 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 74 of 177
completed via telephone. (4) Initiate a crisis care treatment plan to monitor and facilitate the delivery of services, including referrals for mental or medical examination, and any additional recommendations of the MHP. The crisis care treatment plan shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Log, DOC 0377. Referrals for additional examination or services following the offender’s release from a crisis care treatment level of care shall be documented on a DOC 0377. (5) If determined that the offender does not need to be placed in the crisis care area, notify the Shift Commander of any additional care requirements for security staff.
Findings: Please refer to section V(g), above.
4) Crisis Watch a. A crisis watch shall be initiated when: (1) An offender exhibits behavior that is likely to cause harm to him or herself. (2) Mental health issues render an offender unable to care for him or herself. (3) Gestures, threats or attempts of suicide are made. (4) The Evaluation for Suicide Potential, DOC 0379, if administered, indicates need. (5) Less restrictive measures have failed or are determined to be clinically ineffective.
Findings: Each institution provides a log of crisis watch placements to the monitoring team monthly. In any given month, one or two low custody-level institutions may have no placements, but all other facilities use crisis watch regularly. From June 2017 through February 2018, 4,480 crisis watches were captured on logs. Examples of placement for each of the specified reasons have been evident in health care records, crisis watch logs, and incident logs, and MHPs confirm in interviews that there regularly are placements for these reasons.
b. Determination to initiate a crisis watch shall be made by an MHP. If an MHP is not available, the following individuals, in order of priority, may initiate a crisis watch: (1) Respective Regional Psychologist Administrator, (2) Any Regional Psychologist Administrator, (3) Chief of Psychiatry, (4) Chief of Mental Health Services, (5) Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Leader, (6) Back-up Duty Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Member c. Offenders in crisis watch shall not be transferred to another facility unless clinically indicated and approved by the Chief of Mental Health or in the absence of the Chief of Mental Health, the Chief of Psychiatry. d. Upon initiation of a crisis watch, an MHP shall determine: (1) The appropriate level of supervision necessary in accordance with Paragraph II.E.; and (2) Allowable property, including the type and amount of clothing. e. Unless medically contraindicated: (1) Water shall be available in the cell or offered at regular intervals. When water is not available in the cell, the offers shall be documented on the DOC 0377. (2) Meals not requiring utensils shall be provided in the cell or crisis care area. If contraindicated, alternative nutrition sources shall be provided.
- 74 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 75 of 177
f. The offender’s vital signs shall be taken by health care staff within 24 hours of placement on crisis watch, or sooner if the offender has been placed in restraints for mental health purposes. g. Prior to placement in a designated crisis care area, the offender shall be stripsearched and the cell inspected for safety. h. Offenders shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, dependent upon level of supervision. All observations shall be documented within the appropriate staggered intervals, on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378, and shall include staff’s observation of the offender’s behavior and speech, as appropriate. i. The offender shall be evaluated by an MHP, or in his or her absence, a Crisis Intervention Team member, in consultation with the Crisis Team Leader, at least once every 24 hours. The evaluation shall assess the offender’s current mental health status and response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented on the DOC 0377. j. An offender’s crisis watch shall only be terminated by an MHP following the completion of an evaluation assessing the offender’s current mental health status and the offender’s response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented in the offender’s medical record and the termination of the crisis watch shall be documented on the DOC 0377.
Findings: Health care records reflected that MHPs, Crisis Intervention Team members, or regional administrators make the decision to initiate crisis watch, including specifying the level of supervision. The monitoring team has observed orders concerning allowable property, and has observed patients consuming meals without utensils, but has not systematically reviewed whether these are ordered. In all videos viewed by the monitoring team in which a patient was brought to crisis watch by a tactical team, the videos confirmed that a strip search takes place; the video and reports are silent as to whether the cells are inspected for safety. There are a troubling number of incidents in which patients have materials in crisis watch with which they self-injure.
It is common for the monitoring team to observe officers conducting continuous or periodic watches and recording them on the Crisis Watch Observation Log. The team has also noted these logs stored in health care records but has not undertaken a review of them.
It is the practice in IDOC for MHPs to meet with crisis watch patients daily. The monitoring team analyzed 126 crisis watch placements drawn from eight institutions. MHPs at Big Muddy River, Lawrence and Pinckneyville met these patients daily with only a very rare missed day. Hill, East Moline and Illinois River generally upheld the standard, but there were some cases with significant gaps. Danville and Robinson appeared to struggle with this requirement, with substantial gaps, or sometimes no documentation at all, in a majority of the placements reviewed. Progress notes reflected meaningful therapeutic contacts and, where the monitoring team was able to observe these contacts, they were tailored, goal-directed, genuine treatment. As discussed in subsection XIX, these contacts could be hampered in facilities that conducted them cell side—which the team observed among these institutions as well as other facilities outside this group--but were
- 75 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 76 of 177
run effectively in private rooms at other institutions. MHPs did evaluate and document the patients’ readiness for discharge consistently in this sample reviewed.
5) Response to Self-Inflicted Injury and Suicides a. Responses to medical emergencies shall be in accordance with AD 04.03.108 and shall include immediate notification of an MHP. b. In the event of attempted suicide, the preservation of the offender’s life shall take precedence over preservation of the crime scene; however, any delay in response due to security factors shall be noted in the Incident Report, DOC 0434.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement.
6) Quality Improvement Reviews a. Mortality Review: In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief of Mental Health shall designate an MHP to complete a psychological autopsy. The psychological autopsy shall be documented on the Psychological Autopsy, DOC 0375, and shall be submitted to the Chief of mental Health within seven working days of assignment. b. Administrative Review
(1) In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief Administrative Officer shall: (a) Establish a clinical review team who shall systemically analyze the event. The Review Team shall consist of: i. Mental health and medical staff, including an MHP, a psychiatrist and a registered or licensed practical nurse. Medical staff chosen for the clinical review team shall have no direct involvement in the treatment of the offender for a minimum of 12 months prior to the event. ii. A security staff supervisor. NOTE: Facility administrators or staff, whose performance or responsibilities maybe directly involved in the circumstances of the suicide, shall not be chosen for the review team. (b) Designate a clinical review team Chairman who shall ensure all relevant documentation pertaining to the offender and his or her treatment including, but not limited to, the master file, medical record, Medical Director’s death summary and the DOC 0375, if applicable, is available to the clinical review team. (2) Within ten working days following the suicide, the clinical review team shall complete a review to: (a) Ensure appropriate precautions were implemented and Department and local procedures were followed; and (b) Determine if there were any personal, social or medical circumstances that may have contributed to the event, or if there were unrealized patterns of behavior or systems that may have indicated earlier risk. (3) Upon completion of the review, the Chairperson shall submit a written report to the Chief Administrative Officer, the facility’s Training Coordinator, the Chief of Mental Health and the respective Deputy Director
- 76 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 77 of 177
summarizing the review team’s findings and providing any recommended changes or improvements.
Findings: Five mentally ill offenders committed suicide during the monitoring period. The Administrative Reviews and Psychological Autopsies were completed on four of the five suicides at the time of this report.
As reported in the first annual and midyear reports, the Administrative Reviews in these cases make recommendations, but they contain no clear corrective action plan that delineates who is responsible for following up on each recommendation, the time frame in which changes should be made, or the plan to reassess problem areas. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102 (Suicide Prevention and Intervention and Emergency Services) is also vague in this area, specifying no action beyond simply reporting the Administrative Review team’s findings to the Chief Administrative Officer, Training Coordinator, and Chief of Mental Health. This is a critical flaw in IDOC’s suicide prevention strategy, rendering the mortality reviews essentially meaningless for affecting systemic change. Also, the psychological autopsy refers to the corrective actions in the administrative review. The net result is the lack of a systematic, departmental corrective action plan. This means that the lessons learned from these suicides, at best, remain at the particular institution where the suicide occurred.
These post-suicide reports are an essential tool that the Department could better use to improvement the treatment of all mentally ill offenders. These reports, including corrective action plans, require wide dissemination throughout the Department. It has been the Monitor’s observation that these post-suicide reports are not being utilized in this manner.
(XVI)(b): Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Not much has significantly changed regarding these requirements during the reporting period. As was previously reported, IDOC has shown some improvement in its ability to meet the requirements of this section of the Settlement during the monitoring period. Overall, however, IDOC falls short of being in substantial compliance. All the items in this section are of critical importance. Ongoing concerns about the responsiveness of the Crisis Intervention Teams requires constant supervision and training of all staff involved. The poor quality of psychiatric and mental health services leaves mentally ill offenders at increased risk for suicide and contributes to their spending excessive periods of time in crisis and restraints. The administrative review process of offender suicides needs to be rethought. The current process does not allow for corrective action to be implemented throughout IDOC to prevent future suicides.
- 77 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 78 of 177
XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
Summary: Restraints are used in just over half of IDOC facilities but are concentrated in just three. Orders are issued only by the correctly licensed staff who observe the time limits but may not always conduct face-to-face assessment even though they are onsite.
It appears that some facilities could attempt less intrusive means more often, though very recent improvements are promising. Criteria for release are always indicated.
A significant minority of restraints uses—about 20%--extended from one to four days. Documents suggested there could be very long intervals between efforts to monitor and mitigate the health effects. However, previous practice in restraining offenders over their heads has been corrected, and there was no indication of restraints being used as a disciplinary measure.
The monitoring team is finding 14 institutions in Substantial Compliance with subsection XVII(a), the use of restraints for mental health purposes.
(XVII)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC AD 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for the Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
IDOC AD 04.04.103 provides for:
II (G): Requirements
1. Restraints for mental health purposes shall be applied under medical supervision and shall only be used when other less restrictive measures have been found to be ineffective.
a. Under no circumstances shall restraints be used as a disciplinary measure.
b. Restraint implementation shall be applied by order of a psychiatrist, or if a psychiatrist is not available, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist. (1) If a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, a Registered Nurse (RN) may initiate implementation of restraints for mental health purposes. (2) The nurse shall then immediately make contact with the psychiatrist within one hour of the offender being placed into restraints and obtain an order for the implementation. If the psychiatrist is not available, the nurse shall make contact with the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist.
- 78 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 79 of 177
2. Crisis treatment shall be initiated in accordance with AD 04.04.102.
a. The initial order for the use of restraints shall not exceed four hours.
b. Should subsequent orders become necessary, the time limit may be extended, but no subsequent order for restraint extension shall be valid for more than 16 hours beyond initial order. Documentation of the justification for extension of the restraint order shall be recorded in the offender’s medical chart.
c. If further restraint is required beyond the initial order and one extension, a new order must be issued pursuant to the requirements provide herein.
II (H): Orders for Restraints
1. Only a psychiatrist who has conducted a face to face assessment, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, who has conducted a face to face assessment, may order the use of restraints for offenders in a crisis treatment supervision level of continuous watch or suicide watch when the current crisis level does not provide adequate safeguards.
2. If a psychiatrist, physician or licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, and the Crisis Team Member, after consultation with the on-call Crisis Team Leader or Mental Health Professional, in accordance with AD 04.04.102, has recommended the use of restraints, a RN may obtain an order from a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist via telephone.
3. The offender must be assessed, face to face by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist within one hour of being placed in restraints. If a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site within the hour time limit, a RN shall conduct a face to face assessment, and present that assessment to the psychiatrist, the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist via a telephone consultation, and document accordingly in the medical chart. Verbal orders shall be confirmed, in writing, by the ordering individual within 72 hours.
4. Orders for restraints shall be documented on the Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes, DOC 0376, and shall include: a. The events leading up to the need for restraints, including efforts or less intrusive intervention; b. The type of restraints to be utilized; c. The length of time the restraints shall be applied; d. The criteria required for the offender to be taken out of restraints (e.g. the offender is no longer agitated or combative for a minimum of one hour, etc.; and e. The offender’s vital signs, checked by medical staff, at a minimum of every four hours. The frequency of vital signs checks for offenders with serious chronic health conditions may be required more frequently during the restraint period.
II (I) Implementation and Monitoring 1. Restraints shall be applied in a bed located in a crisis care area, or similar setting that
is in view of staff. Immediately following the placement of an offender in restraints
- 79 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 80 of 177
for mental health purposes, medical staff shall conduct an examination of the offender to ensure that: a. No injuries exist; b. Restraint equipment is not applied in a manner likely to result in injury; and c. There is no medical contraindication to maintain the offender in restraints. 2. Monitoring and documentation of visual and verbal checks of offenders in restraints for mental health purposes shall be performed as a continuous watch status or a suicide watch status in accordance with AD 04.04.102. All checks shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378. 3. Two hours after application of restraints, and every two hours thereafter, an offender may be allowed to have movement of his or her limbs. Movement shall be accomplished by freeing one limb at a time from restraints and for a period of time of approximately two minutes. Movement shall only be allowed if the freeing of the limb will not pose a threat of harm to the offender being restrained, or others. Limb movement shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart and by the watch officer on the DOC 0378. Denial of free movement and explanation for the denial shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart by medical staff. 4. Release from restraints for short periods of time shall be permitted as soon as practical, as determined by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or clinical psychologist. 5. The amount of restraint used shall be reduced as soon as possible to the level of least restriction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the offender and staff. 6. Clothing shall be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with the application and monitoring of restraints. The genital area of both male and females, and the breast area of females shall be covered to the extent possible while still allowing for visual observation of the restraints. Females shall not be restrained in a position where the legs are separated. 7. Restraints shall be removed upon the expiration of the order, or upon the order of a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, or in the absence of one of the approved aforementioned professionals being physically on site, an RN who, based upon observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition, determines that there is no longer cause to utilize restraints. Observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition shall be documented in the medical chart. 8. Offenders shall remain in, at minimum, close supervision status for a minimum of 24 hours after removal of restraints. Should any other crisis level or care status be utilized, justification of the care shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart. 9. Documentation of the use of restraints for mental health purposes shall be submitted to the Agency Medical Director and shall include the DOC 0376 and subsequent nursing and mental health notes. 10. All events whereby the use of restraints has been issued shall be reviewed during quality improvement meetings in accordance with AD 04.03.125.
Findings:
The Department modified its policy concerning restraints, Administrative Directive 04.04.103, in November 2017. The monitoring team reviewed institutional logs and a 23% sample
- 80 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 81 of 177
of the restraints uses therein.35 Over the period of review, there were 196 uses of restraints for mental health purposes. They were highly concentrated at Pontiac (90), Logan (46), and Dixon (36). Both Dixon and Pontiac saw substantial reductions in their use of this method in recent months. Another 12 institutions used restraints minimally—four or fewer times in the period reviewed—and another 12 did not use them at all.
Reviewing for adherence to IDOC policy, the team found that initial orders are always written for four hours or less. They are generally written by psychologists and occasionally by psychiatrists or other physicians, all of whom meet requirements. A face-to-face assessment is required unless there are no such professionals onsite; this was only clearly met in 62% of reviewed cases.36
Making efforts at less intrusive intervention was also a weakness. Orders are written on DOC 0376, which calls for this information, but no reviewed cases had such an entry. In some cases, increasing the level of supervision, or consultation with a psychiatrist, were evident, but these were a minority. Since March, Pontiac staff, supported by regional and headquarters staff, have concentrated on routinely employing less intrusive means, and this has significantly reduced the number of restraints uses in a very short time. While all institutions recorded the rationale for the orders, as required, about 25% of them suggested that less intrusive methods would ordinarily have been called for. There was no indication of restraints being used as a disciplinary measure.
Orders were consistently reviewed timely and 40% of restraints were removed by the end of four hours. Where extension orders were written, they were written for no more than 16 hours, with extremely rare exceptions. For the most part, initial and extension orders did specify criteria for release and it was assessed both at the orders’ expiration and, in about 25% of cases, well before then. A troubling countertrend at Pontiac, however, was the 10% where staff notes suggested the criteria had been met, but restraints were not removed for several more hours.
Policy requires staff to release a restrained person’s limbs every two hours and to monitor vital signs every four hours. The records from most institutions either showed problems in this regard or were not provided. Illinois River, Joliet, Pinckneyville, and Western Illinois documented good practice with limb releases. Pontiac’s practice was highly variable; a majority were compliant or nearly so, but noncompliant records showed disturbingly long gaps. The monitoring team also reviewed videos of 12 limb releases at Pontiac. All were handled respectfully with a reasonable amount of time unrestrained; access to food, water, and toileting; and nursing checks of restraint tightness and radial and pedal pulses.
A significant minority of restraints uses—about 20%--employed multiple extension orders extending up to four days. These occurred almost exclusively at Pontiac. In one complex and disturbing case, a patient at Stateville has been restrained continuously for at least nine months.
A few institutions bear highlighting in this discussion. Pontiac has had significant issues in
35 IDOC provided logs for all institutions for July 2017 through February 2018, as well as March and April logs for Pontiac, the institution with the highest amount of usage. The team reviewed 45 records drawn from 12 of the 15 institutions at which restraints were used, and the sample was more heavily weighted to Pontiac. 36 A case was determined to be compliant if each order—initial and extension—involved a face-to-face assessment OR a telephone order where the need for an order arose outside of business hours.
- 81 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 82 of 177
restraints use during the year but has also made meaningful progress in addressing them. It has by far the highest use, twice as many as the next institution. It also is responsible for nearly all restraints lasting longer than 20 hours;37 there are only two other instances systemwide. Staff is 100% compliant in ensuring that orders are written and renewed within the required lengths of time and with criteria for release included, but there are indicia that less restrictive means have not been attempted as much as advisable, telephone orders sometimes substitute for face-to-face assessments during working hours, and there can be long gaps in the documentation of limb releases and vital sign monitoring. Through 2017, at least some patients were restrained with their hands above their heads. However, each of these factors shows significant improvement in April. Pontiac bought new restraints beds in early 2018 and all subsequent videos viewed by the monitoring team demonstrate that patients’ arms are now consistently restrained by their sides. Staff has concentrated on attempting less intrusive methods and the number of cases dropped dramatically in April. Several aspects of documentation also improved that month. These are promising signs.
While Stateville only has one restraints case, it is an extraordinary and troubling one in which the man has been continuously restrained since May 2017, reportedly both for mental health and medical reasons. While it is clear a higher level of care is indicated, the patient has been treated at Dixon and staff report they have made referrals to the Illinois Department of Mental Health, a private psychiatric hospital, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, each of which denied a transfer. An Interstate Compact exchange was reportedly considered but rejected as inappropriate.
Orders for this man are renewed at the required intervals each day. The monitoring team has reviewed over 300 pages of these orders; they appear to show extremely infrequent face-toface contacts and capture much less detail than is present in some shorter-term cases about releases for walks, showers, or attempts to manage the patient without restraints. However, staff provided a summary of efforts in recent months, including planned, specific incentives and a weekly clinical and custody administration case conference, and there are reportedly dozens of health care record volumes with additional, related information. The Monitor will review this case in more depth and work with IDOC to determine the placement and treatment options that have a greater chance of reducing this highly undesirable situation.
In general, the restraints cases reviewed by the monitoring team at Logan and Dixon were handled well. With much of the restraints use concentrated at these institutions, continued monitoring is warranted in the upcoming year.
Hill and Western Illinois infrequently used restraints, restricted the use to short periods, and consistently fulfilled requirements in all the domains discussed above. The following institutions are in substantial compliance with XVII(a)’s provisions concerning Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes: Big Muddy River, Centralia, Decatur, East Moline, Hill, Jacksonville, Kewanee, Lincoln, Robinson, Southwestern Illinois, Taylorville, Vandalia, Vienna, and Western Illinois.
37 That is, going beyond an initial order and one extension order.
- 82 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 83 of 177
(XVII)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60, and Administrative Directive 05.01.126. The Administrative Code sections are titled Section 501.30: Resort to Force; Section 501.40: Justifiable Use of Force; and Section 501.60: General Use of Chemical Agents.
IDOC AD 05.01.126 provides for:
II (F): The Chief Administrative Officer shall ensure a written procedure for the use and control of security restraints is established. The written procedure shall provide for the following:
Use of Security Restraints
(1) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints shall be used: (a) To prevent an offender from escaping. (b) To retake an offender who has escaped. (c) To prevent or suppress violence by an offender against another person or property. (d) When transporting an offender outside the facility for the purposes of transfers, writs, etc., except when transporting offenders to assigned work details outside the facility, pregnant offenders for the purposes of delivery, or offenders assigned to the Moms and Babies Program on approved day release while transporting a minor child. (e) When transporting a transitional security offender for other than job related or programmatic activities directly related to successful completion of the transition center program.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints may be used: (a) When moving an offender who is in disciplinary segregation or who is in segregation pending investigation within the facility; or (b) Whenever the Chief Administrative Officer deems it is necessary in order to ensure security within the facility or within the community.
(3) Offenders on funeral or critical illness furlough shall be restrained in accordance with AD 05.03.127.
Inventory and Control
(a) A written master inventory of all security restraints, dated and signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, shall be maintained.
(b) All security restraints that have not been issued to staff shall be stored and maintained in a secure area or areas that are not accessible to offenders.
(c) A log documenting issuance and return of security restraints shall be maintained in a secure area or areas. The log shall include: (1) Date and time issued; (2) Receiving employees name; (3) Issuing employees name; (4) Date and time returned; and (5) Name of employee receiving the returned restraints.
- 83 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 84 of 177
(d) A written report shall be filed on lost, broken, or malfunctioning security restraints. The report shall be reviewed by the Chief of Security and maintained on file with the security restraints inventory records for no less than one year.
Findings: The Department is meeting these requirements at the majority of its facilities. The Monitor has previously reviewed the Institutional Directives called for in this subsection of the Settlement Agreement for 21 facilities. This was reported in the midyear report.
(XVII)(c): Specific requirement: Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.
Findings: In the monitoring team’s reviews, there was no indication that restraints were used for punishment.
(XVII)(d): Specific requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Due to the problems noted in subsection (a), above, the provisions of this subsection have not been fully implemented at this time.
Psychiatrists in other correctional as well as community settings routinely evaluate patients that require restraints for the need of emergency psychotropic medication. It is unclear to the Monitor why IDOC doesn’t adhere to this minimal standard of care. The Department should review this practice and strongly consider the appropriate administration of emergency psychotropic medications for those mentally ill offenders that require placement in restraints. The use of medications would likely reduce the length of time that a mentally ill offender has to remain in restraints.
XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS
Summary: The required forms are in wide use in IDOC. A modified 0284 (treatment planning form) was approved by the Monitor as was a new “Crisis Care” form. These forms were put into use on February 1, 2018.
The disorganized and incomplete condition of the medical records is often an impediment to treatment and continuity of care.
(XVIII)(a): Specific requirement: In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of Suicide Potential);
- 84 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 85 of 177
0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
Findings: Throughout 2017-2018, the monitoring team has observed the first 10 forms consistently in use in health care records throughout the state. Reviewers have occasionally encountered form 0371 documenting refusals. In the suicides that have come to the Monitor’s attention, a 0375 Psychological Autopsy was completed. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this provision.
(XVIII)(b): Specific requirement: No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(7): The medical record shall be transferred to the receiving facility at the time of offender movement.
(7)(a): In the event that an offender is transferred from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice to an IDOC facility, the entire original medical record shall be transferred with the offender. The transferring youth center may keep a copy of the medical record. Such movement shall be treated as a departmental transfer with regard to documentation.
(7)(b): The medical record and, if applicable, medication shall be sealed in a clear plastic envelope through which the offender’s name and ID number can be easily identified.
(1) If the information on the DOC 0090 is not urgent in nature, the DOC 0090 shall be placed inside the front cover of the medical record.
(2) If the DOC 0090 contains urgently needed medical or medication disbursement information, the following steps shall be taken: (a) The DOC 0090 shall be folded in half to promote confidentiality and a notation of “URGENT MEDICAL INFORMATION” shall be made in bold print on the exposed (blank) side of the DOC 0090. (b) The folded DOC 0090 with the notation side up shall be enclosed on top of the medical record inside the clear plastic so that these individuals can be immediately identified and evaluated upon arrival at a new institution. (c) Prior to transferring an offender who has significant medical problems as determined by the transferring facility Medical Director, the transferring Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing shall telephone the receiving Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing to advise of the transfer.
(7)(c): A member of the receiving health care staff shall complete the Reception Screening section of the DOC 0090. The DOC 0090 shall be placed chronologically in the progress notes section of the medical record; no progress note shall be required.
Findings: The monitoring team did not evaluate this requirement during the current monitoring period.
- 85 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 86 of 177
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
Summary: The monitoring team did not review the DOC 0269 forms during the reporting period. AD 04.04.100 was updated during the reporting period to reflect that all mental health and psychiatric interactions with offenders “shall” be conducted in a confidential manner. This has not been happening consistently during the reporting period. The best example of confidential interactions between staff and offenders occurs during the intake screening process. Please note that the incidence of confidential interactions has improved over the duration of the Settlement Agreement. Unfortunately, there still remains numerous examples of critical staff-offender interactions occurring in nonconfidential settings. These include but are not limited to daily crisis watch contacts, routine MHP contacts and psychiatric evaluations.
The Monitor approved an omnibus informed consent document on November 7, 2017. This was done to address the deficient state of informed consent practices within the Department. More experience with this new form is required to properly assess its efficacy.
XIX(a): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E) (10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E) (10) provides: Offender medical and mental health records are confidential. Access to medical and mental health records shall be limited to health care staff, other Department personnel and outside State and federal agencies on a need-to-know basis as determined appropriate by the Facility Privacy Officer or the Health Care Unit Administrator. All staff having access to medical records or medical information shall be required to sign a Medical Information Confidentiality Statement, DOC 0269, and a new DOC 0269 shall be signed during cycle training annually thereafter. The most recent DOC 0269 shall be retained in the staff member’s training file.
Findings: The subsection of the Settlement Agreement was not monitored during this reporting period.
Specific requirement: Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services:
XIX(b): Specific requirement: Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
- 86 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 87 of 177
Findings: IDOC modified AD 04.04.100, effective date 6/1/2017, to address the policy and procedure requirement of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Training on these policies and procedures is included in correctional staff training. IDOC will receive a rating of noncompliance for this subsection due to the fact that they were over six months tardy in responding to this requirement.
(XIX)(c): Specific requirement: Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)).
This section Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Confidentiality of the clinician-offender relationship is grounded in ethical and legal principles. It rests, in part, on the assumption that a patient will be deterred from seeking care and discussing the important matters relevant to therapy if there is not some guaranteed confidentiality in that relationship.   Clinicians should clearly specify any limits of confidentiality of the offender-clinician relationship. This disclosure should occur at the onset of treatment, except in emergencies. Notwithstanding these necessary limits on confidentiality, relevant guidelines should be adhered to, to the greatest degree possible.   36  
Requests from outside organizations for Mental Health-related information about offenders shall be referred to the Treating Mental Health Professional. The release of any Confidential Mental Health Records must be accompanied by a consent form or release of confidential information form signed by the offender on an Authorization for Release of Offender Mental Health or Substance Abuse Treatment Information, (DOC 0240). In addition, the CAO shall be notified of this request.
Offender disclosures made to a Mental Health Professional in the course of receiving Mental Health Services are considered to be confidential and privileged, with the following exceptions: Threats to physically harm self-and/or others; Threats to escape or otherwise disrupt or breach the security of the institution; Information about an identifiable minor child or elderly/disabled person who has been the victim of physical or sexual abuse; All other information obtained by a Mental Health Professional retains its confidential status unless the offender specifically consents to its disclosure;
In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
Findings: Subsection II(F)(2)(b) of AD 04.04.100, effective date 6/1/2017, establishes the requirement for confidentiality within IDOC. It states “All mental health services shall, (emphasis added), be conducted in a manner which ensures confidentiality and sensitivity to the offender
- 87 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 88 of 177
regardless of status or housing assignment. As reported in the midyear update “Throughout the course of this reporting period, the monitoring team found persistent examples of this requirement not being met. These include but are not limited to daily crisis evaluations being conducted cell side, custody staff standing within hearing distance of clinical encounters, and groups being held in open areas where custody routinely pass through.”38
The best examples of IDOC fulfilling their confidentiality requirements can be found in the R&C units. As reported in section IV above, the monitoring team observed that all mental health screening took place in settings that allowed for confidentiality. This fact is evidence that IDOC is capable of meeting the requirements of this section of the Settlement Agreement.
IDOC continues to struggle with meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Daily crisis evaluations are being conducted cell side at Pontiac North House. This problem at Pontiac was exacerbated during the reporting period as construction occurred on the protective custody gallery. This meant that during the period of construction, mentally ill offenders were not able to be housed on this gallery where they at least had the option of being seen in a confidential setting.
Confidentiality practices are varied with crisis watch patients in the minimum- and medium custody institutions monitored. Hill and Illinois River have good practice, using private offices for crisis watch contacts. Big Muddy River, Danville and East Moline were seeing patients cell side but have since made important improvements allowing these contacts to be private; East Moline took the added step of retrofitting a space to make this possible.
Dr. Kapoor reports that although confidentiality of mental health assessments in the XHouse at Dixon has improved, crisis assessments are still done at cell side in complete view of officers and within earshot of other inmates. In addition, it appears that psychiatric evaluations are again being conducted cell side, even though the facility built confidential evaluation rooms in the X-House for this purpose.
Confidentiality practices are strong for general population and Segregation contacts at the minimum- and medium custody facilities the monitoring team visited. The team observed all of these spaces and tested out their sound level, and their sound and visual privacy, and clinicians reported that they feel confidentiality is protected and they have good cooperation with custody staff in this regard. Big Muddy River, Danville, East Moline, Hill, Illinois River, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, Robinson, and Stateville all permit 1:1 contacts with no officer in the room nor posted close enough to hear. These occur in offices in the mental health unit, in the infirmary, on the living units, and in hallway offices. Only one institution routinely posts an officer in the room for telepsych appointments, and the monitoring team encouraged a change in this practice.
At these institutions, general population groups are generally offered in education building classrooms. Converted rooms on or near the housing units provide group space in Segregation and, in a few instances, for general population. Some are completely away from traffic. Others are adjacent to other activity, but prisoners do not queue there and groups do not seem unduly exposed to officers. Officers are not in the rooms; in some cases, they are posted outside, but the monitoring
38 Monitor’s Midyear report of November 22, 2017, pages 89-90.
- 88 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 89 of 177
team observed them to be at a reasonable distance. Two institutions do not meet these standards in their Segregation structured activity space; the monitoring team discussed alternatives with their administrations.
Some progress is being made in other institutions in that more staff offices and interviewing rooms are being constructed where staff are able to see their patients in a confidential setting. IDOC reports that different institutions—including Stateville NRC, Pontiac, and Menard--have carried out construction to create confidential clinical space or improve existing space for this purpose. The monitoring team has observed a substantial increase in treatment space at Pontiac in 2018, including creative use of space for groups in West House and a very private space nearing completion for MHP individual contacts, and telepsych, in that same building. Additionally, IDOC reports that some institutions have adjusted offender movement patterns in service of supporting confidentiality in mental health appointments.
(XIX)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into the IDOC AD 04.04.101 section II (E)(2) within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Before initiating psychotropic medication, the psychiatric provider must complete at least a brief history and Mental Status Examination to determine that the offender (a) has a basic understanding that he or she has a Mental Health Problem, (b) understands that medication is being offered to produce relief from that problem, and (c) is able to give consent to treatment. The clinician must also inform the offender about alternative treatments, the appropriate length of care, and the fact that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without compromising access to other Health Care. With the exception of Mental Health emergencies, informed consent must be obtained from the offender each time the Psychiatric Provider prescribes a new class of Psychotropic Medication.39
Findings: For the first 18 months of the Settlement Agreement, there was little indication that IDOC paid attention to this important requirement. This lack of attention was due in large part to the tremendous shortages of both MHPs and psychiatric providers. On 11/7/17 the Monitor approved the use of a new omnibus consent form in hope that this new form would help address these deficiencies. At the time of this report, it is too early to fully assess the impact of this new
39 The Manual defines “Informed Consent”: “Informed Consent is defined as consent voluntarily given by an offender, in writing, after he or she has been provided with a conscientious and sufficient explanation of the nature, consequences, risks, and alternatives of the proposed treatment.” This section of the Manual also provides: “Offenders should be advised of the Limits of Confidentiality prior to their receiving any Mental Health Services.” This requirement is nearly identical to the requirement discussed above regarding confidentiality, so the team does not address it again here under Informed Consent.
- 89 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 90 of 177
form. The monitoring team will continue to monitor this important issue moving forward.
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
Summary: Changes of SMI designation is currently not being surveyed by the Department. Overall population data reveals that the absolute number of SMIs in the Department has increased during the reporting period. This absolute increase, however, does not address this requirement. The Monitor will request that IDOC collect data on this topic during the 3rd year of the Settlement Agreement. Reports continue to reach the Monitor regarding mental health staff being pressured to remove on offender’s SMI designation prior to disciplinary proceedings. The Monitor will personally investigate these alleged incidents during the next reporting period.
Specific requirement: The determination that an offender, who once met the criteria of seriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender’s mental health treatment team and documented in the offender’s mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
Findings: As was previously reported: “The monitoring team found good practice on this requirement at Dixon; team members also spoke with the Psych Administrators at three institutions to learn their local practices. At Stateville, change in diagnosis or SMI status are both data points that are logged after every psychiatry appointment; in such cases, the full mental health team reportedly would meet to discuss whether they concur. Hill staff report they would consult the IDOC and Wexford regional administrators and would follow the patients for three to six months after any such change in designation, particularly if the inmate was being considered for removal from the caseload.
The Pinckneyville Psych Administrator anticipates such changes would be rare, since they have not occurred during her tenure and she finds little disagreement among the department’s disciplines. She asserts that, should such a case occur, she would convene a case conference and would only approve the change if the entire treatment team agreed. When offenders request to be seen only as needed or to come off the caseload, there are forms for department or Wexford approval and, like Hill, the staff would maintain the SMI designation while monitoring the inmate for a number of months.
This information serves as part of the picture concerning changes in SMI designation; the monitoring team has not undertaken a systematic investigation of this issue. The monitoring team continues to receive reports that mentally ill offenders are losing their SMI status prior to disciplinary proceedings. These reports are unsubstantiated at this time. The monitoring team will attempt to conduct a systematic review on this issue for the 2nd annual report.”40
The Monitor attempted to conduct a systematic review of this issue for the 2nd annual report. This review was presented with challenges as change of SMI designation is not a statistic
40 Midyear report of Monitor Pablo Stewart, M.D., page 92
- 90 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 91 of 177
that is surveyed by IDOC. An overall review of the number of SMI offenders within IDOC demonstrates that this number continues to rise. For example, the number of SMI offenders was 5027 on December 22, 2017. This number rose to 5111 on April 12, 2018. This statistic, however, only establishes that the overall number of SMIs is increasing. It does not say anything about individual SMI offenders who may be losing their status inappropriately. The Monitor has continued to receive reports of mental health staff being pressured by facility leadership to remove the SMI designation of a mentally ill offender prior to disciplinary proceedings. Th Monitor will personally investigate these incidents moving forward.
Beginning in year three of the Settlement Agreement implementation, I will request that IDOC track the number of mentally ill offenders who have a change of their SMI designation including the reason why the change was made.
XXI: STAFF TRAINING
Summary: IDOC timely submitted a staff training plan. The implementation of that plan was also accomplished in a timely manner.
The Department should modify its training protocol to include a peer-mentor component.
XXI(a): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has met this requirement by submission of this plan and program for staff training to the Monitor within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
XXI(b): Specific requirement: Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII (a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas: i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population; ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal; iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication; iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability; v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises; vi) Suicide prevention; vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or
- 91 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 92 of 177
needing mental health care; and viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
Findings: Chief Lindsay confirmed that this training requirement was completed within the requisite timeframe. The monitoring team will work with IDOC to review verification of this training as well. As I testified during the evidentiary hearing, this training should include a peermentor component. That is, after the classroom training is completed, staff should be paired with experienced peer-mentors to more closely observe how the theoretical information about dealing with mentally ill offenders is applied in real world situations.
XXI(c): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has developed a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff within the deadline of May 22, 2017.
XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
Summary: This requirement was not reviewed during the current reporting period.
(XXII)(a): Specific requirement: Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
Findings: This requirement was not reviewed by the monitoring team for the 2nd annual report.
XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
Summary: The Department still has problems ensuring the continuity of care when mentally ill offenders are transferred within and between facilities.
- 92 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 93 of 177
XXIII(a): Specific requirement: To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
Findings: IDOC is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XXIII(b): Specific requirement: When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
Findings: This requirement has not been consistently met during the reporting period. The monitoring team came upon numerous examples where the receiving facility had not been made aware of an offender’s particular mental health needs. This problem also is occurring in transfers within a given facility. Problems were noted at Dixon in transfers between the STC and the segregation unit in the X-house.
XXIII(c): Specific requirement: The provisions of this section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: As the above-described problems occurred during the 2nd year of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC is currently not meeting this requirement
- 93 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 94 of 177
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
Summary: Incident logs suggest that use of force is concentrated at three institutions, took place rarely at another 17 facilities, and did not occur during the monitoring period at six institutions. The monitoring team finds 11 institutions in Substantial Compliance.
A large majority of the reviewed incidents were handled professionally and according to procedure. Tactical teams rigorously follow required procedures with 55% of reviewed activations resulted in no force. Takedowns kept the level of force to a minimum and were clearly well-handled in at least 75% of reviewed cases. With a mentally ill population, it is always a question whether force is used when the patient’s mental state prevents him from understanding and complying and other means are necessary to gain control; in the incidents reviewed, however, IDOC managed this situation well. A large number of staff are newly receiving de-escalation training and it will be institutionalized in new officer training and in De-escalation Response Teams.
On the other hand, the monitoring team does have some concerns about whether force is always being employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate (the idea of necessary force), and only to the degree reasonably necessary (the idea of force not being excessive). About 30% of reviewed incidents demonstrated these types of problems or, more often, raised questions and bear continued monitoring by facility leadership and the monitoring team.
Corporal punishment is an open question with persistent complaints at Pontiac that the Monitor finds credible and which have not, in his view, been adequately addressed in almost 24 months of raising it. Multiple examples of alleged custody staff abuse as well as several alleged incidents of unprofessional conduct at Logan are very troubling.
Specific requirements: IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108(B)41 and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.30
Section 501.30 of the code, “Resort to Force,” provides: a) Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable
or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary to achieve a permitted purpose. b) Use of force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary. c) Medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force, which results in bodily injury. d) Corporal punishment is prohibited.
AD 05.01.173, “Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions” provides:
F. General Provisions
41 AD 03.02.108(B) does not appear to be the correct citation. The monitoring team believes the Settlement contemplated AD 03.02.108(I)(B).
- 94 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 95 of 177
1. Use of force shall be terminated as soon as the need for force is no longer necessary.
2. Nothing in this directive shall preclude staff from immediately using force or applying restraints when an offender’s behavior constitutes a threat to self, others, property, or the safety and security of the facility.
3. Restraints shall be applied in accordance with Administrative Directive 04.04.103 or 05.01.126 as appropriate.
4. Failure by the offender to comply with the orders to vacate is considered a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution and may result in the use of chemical agents in accordance with Department Rule 501.70
5. Unless it is not practical or safe, cell extractions shall be video recorded from the time circumstances warrant a cell extraction until the offender is placed in the designated cell.
NOTE: Any interruption in recording, including but not limited to changing a video tape or battery shall orally be documented on the video tape.
6. Use of force cell extractions shall be performed by certified Tactical Team members as designated by the Tactical Team Commander. The Tactical Team Commander shall designate one or more members who may function as the Tactical Team Leader.
G. Equipment
1. The following equipment items shall be available to and used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Orange jump suits; b. Protective helmets and full-face shields; c. Knife resistant vests; d. Protective gloves; e. Restraints minimally including hand cuffs and leg irons; f. Protective convex shields; g. Batons (36-inch length by 1.5 inches in diameter of oak or hickory); h. Gas masks; i. Leather boots, purchased by the employee, a minimum of 8 inches high for ankle protection; and j. Video camera with a minimum of two batteries and a video tape.
2. Chemical agents shall be available and may be used in accordance [with] Department Rule 501.70.
501.70: Use of Chemical Agents in Cells (Consent Decree) provides:
a) This Section applies only to the transfer of a committed person who has refused to leave his cell when so ordered. The transfer of a committed person shall be undertaken with a minimal amount of force. Only when the individual threatens bodily harm to himself, or other committed persons or correctional officers may tear gas or other chemical agents be employed to remove him.
b) Prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents, the committed person shall be informed that such tear gas or other chemical agents will be used unless he complies with the transfer order.
- 95 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 96 of 177
c) The use of tear gas or other chemical agents may be authorized only by an officer the rank of Captain or above. (For purposes of this rule, the shift supervisor or higher authority in the Juvenile Division may authorize the use of tear gas or other chemical agents.)
d) Precautionary measures shall be taken to limit the noxious side effects of the chemical agents. In addition, the following procedures shall be followed whenever tear gas or other chemical agents are used to compel a committed person to leave his cell:
1) If circumstances allow, ventilation devices, such as windows and fans, shall be readied prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents. In any event, these devices shall be employed immediately after tear gas or other chemical agents are used. The purpose of this procedure is to minimize the effect of tear gas or other chemical agents upon other committed persons located in the cell house.
2) Gas masks shall be available for use by correctional officers at the time the tear gas or other chemical agent is used.
3) When a gas canister is placed inside a committed person’s cell, the gas will quickly take effect and correctional officers shall enter the cell as soon as possible to remove the individual.
4) The committed person shall be instructed by the correctional officer to flush his eyes and skin exposed to the chemical agent with water. If the individual appears incapable of doing so, a member of the medical staff present shall perform this task. If no member of the medical staff is present, the correctional officer shall undertake this procedure.
e) An incident report shall be prepared immediately after the use of the chemical agent. This report shall be signed by each correctional officer involved in the transfer, who may indicate disagreement with any fact stated in the report.
f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall examine these incident reports to ensure that proper procedures were employed. Failure to follow proper procedures will result in disciplinary action.
g) Before Section 501.70 is modified, legal staff must be consulted. This Section was promulgated pursuant to Settlement litigation by order of the court. It may not be modified without approval of the court.
3. The following equipment items may be used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Throat protectors (cut resistant); and b. Elbow, groin, knee, and shin protectors
H. Tactical Team Structure for Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions
- 96 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 97 of 177
The Tactical Team shall consist of six certified Tactical Team members for a single offender cell extraction and seven certified Tactical Team members for a multiple offender cell extraction. One member of the team shall serve as the Tactical Team Leader; however, the team leader shall not be the person responsible for video recording the incident.
1. For a single offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the offender against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. Two members (also known as Number 2 and 3 persons) shall secure the offender’s arms and hands and place restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. c. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall secure the doorway with a baton to prevent the offender from escaping, and if necessary, to assist in the application of restraints. d. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; remain outside of the cell with a baton in the event the offender should attempt to escape from the cell; and deploy chemical agents if necessary. e. The video recording member (also known as Number 6 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
2. For a multiple offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the first offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. The assistant shield person (also known as Number 2 person) shall use a shield; secure the second offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. c. A member (also known as Number 3 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member in most need of assistance by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. d. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member with the other offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. e. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team members with the most combative offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands for placement of restraints. f. A member (also known as Number 6 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; secure the doorway with a baton to prevent an offender from escaping, and if necessary, deploy chemical agents and assist in the application of restraints. g. The video recording member (also known as Number 7 person) shall
- 97 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 98 of 177
remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
I. Calculated Use of Force Cell Extraction Procedures
1. Once an officer has ordered an offender to move from the cell and the offender refuses, the officer shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
2. The Lieutenant or above shall again order the offender to vacate the cell. If the offender refuses, the Lieutenant or above shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
3. On site personnel shall begin video recording the offender’s actions.
4. When time and circumstances permit, the Shift Commander shall obtain the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer for calculated use of force cell extractions. In all other situations, the Shift Commander or above shall approve the cell extraction.
5. If the decision is made to proceed with a cell extraction, the Shift Commander shall activate the Tactical Team.
6. The Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Secure the area by removing all non-involved staff and non-secured offenders; b. Ensure the video camera is present and recording the offender’s actions; and c. Notify medical staff of the pending cell extraction.
7. Upon notification of a pending cell extraction, Health Care staff shall check the offender’s medical file for pertinent medical information and be present in a secure area that is close to, but not in the immediate vicinity of the cell extraction.
8. Upon arrival of the Tactical Team, the Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Brief the Tactical Commander of pertinent information; b. Ensure the transfer of the video tape to a designated Tactical Team member to continue recording; c. Notify the Duty Administrative Officer of the incident, pending cell extraction, and other information as it becomes available; and d. Be available, if needed, but remain out of the immediate area of the cell extraction.
9. Prior to the use of force, the Tactical Team leader shall: a. Orally attempt to obtain the offender’s voluntary compliance to vacate the cell or area prior to the use of force. In cells or areas with two or more offenders, each offender shall be given the opportunity to comply and be voluntarily removed. Whenever possible, offenders who comply shall be placed in restraints and removed prior to action being taken. b. Issue three direct orders for the offender to comply. c. Advise the offender that failure to comply with the orders to vacate may result in the use of chemical agents.
- 98 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 99 of 177
10. If the offender does not vacate the cell voluntarily, the Tactical Team shall remove the offender from the cell.
11. Following removal from the cell, the Tactical Team shall escort the offender to a designated area to be examined by Health Care staff.
12. Following the completion of the cell extraction including medical care, the Tactical Team member who video recorded the incident shall: a. Label the video tape with the date and location of the incident, offender name(s) and number(s), and the name of the employee who recorded the incident; b. If available, activate any security measures such as breaking the security tab on the VHS (Video Home System) video tape to prevent the video tape from being erased or recorded over; c. Tag the video tape as evidence and process it in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.112.
13. Unless otherwise directed to maintain longer, the video tape shall be retained in a secure area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer for three years following the date of the extraction.
14. Each employee who participated in the cell extraction or who was otherwise involved shall complete an Incident Report and other appropriate reports documenting the incident in its entirety. When necessary, the incident shall be reported in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.105. (AD 01.12.105 provides general instructions on the reporting of “unusual incidents.”)
15. The Shift Commander shall ensure: a. A search of the involved area is completed after removal of the offender; b. The area is decontaminated if chemical agents were used; and c. Appropriate reports are completed and processed.
16. The Shift Commander or above shall debrief with the Tactical Team.
Findings: For purposes of this assessment, the monitoring team considers “use of force” to encompass takedowns or other physical means to bring an offender under control, beyond ordinary restraints; use of OC; and activations of tactical teams, whether they ultimately engage in force or not. In the monitoring team’s understanding, uses of force are not tracked separately, but are included in facility incident logs. In doing so, facilities sometimes use different recording methods and language. For these reasons and because it is difficult to prove a negative, it is not possible to establish with certainty the exact number of uses of force or whether all are captured in the system. While one can neither confirm nor rule out the claims of undocumented uses of force, the substantial number that are documented indicates a functional system in place. Incident logs indicate that there are six IDOC institutions that did not use these types of force in the period reviewed, 17 facilities where it is rare, and three facilities where it is concentrated— Dixon, Logan, and Pontiac. Of note, the most seriously mentally ill offenders are housed at these three facilities.
- 99 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 100 of 177
To assess compliance with use of force requirements, the monitoring team reviewed documentation of 192 incidents involving mental health patients, drawn from 18 facilities.42 Documentation sources varied. All were identified by log entries, many of which gave a detailed description. Some were supplemented by emailed or incident report summaries, while apparently full incident reports supported 82 of the reviews. Additionally, the team reviewed 29 videos of calculated use of force.43
As noted above, the following are the keys to appropriate use of force under the Code: (a) force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary, (b) use of force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary, (c) medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force, which results in bodily injury, and (d) corporal punishment is prohibited.
While much is being handled well, the monitoring team does have some concerns about whether force is always being employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate (the idea of necessary force), and only to the degree reasonably necessary (the idea of force not being excessive).
First, the positive. A large majority of the incidents appeared to have been handled professionally and according to procedure. Tactical teams rigorously follow the Administrative Directive steps44 and, when a team was activated, 55% of reviewed incidents concluded without force being used. OC was often used to break up offender fights to prevent further injury. Takedowns kept the level of force to a minimum and were clearly well-handled in at least 75% of reviewed cases. With a mentally ill population, it is always a question whether force is used when the patient’s mental state prevents him from understanding and complying and other means are necessary to gain control; in the incidents reviewed, however, IDOC managed this situation well and, with very few exceptions, the force was necessary given the patient’s behavior in his decompensated state.
There were, however, exceptions where it appeared other means were available and could have been adequate. There were incidents where a general population offender was running away from an officer, or turning away from the wall and arguing during handcuffing, and the officer’s response was to use OC. Despite the general pattern of responding as needed with decompensated patients, there were a few videotaped cases where there was no apparent danger or urgency to a crisis watch or segregation extraction; delaying the extraction and attempting other means of influence would have been an adequate next step that might have rendered force unnecessary.
Some other cell extractions used OC but the tactical team almost immediately entered the cell and very rough takedowns were necessary because of the offender’s violent resistance. Giving the OC time to take effect would have been an adequate next step that, while there are no
42 These were identified in institutional incident logs spanning June 2017 through March 2018. Some incidents were reviewed from each of 18 institutions; since the highest number of incidents is evident at Pontiac, that institution provided the largest number of incidents in this review as well. 43 The team also reviewed videos of enforced medication administration and use of four-point restraints, but those are not included in this analysis. They are discussed in sections XIII and XVII, respectively. 44 Based on those steps visible in the videos viewed.
- 100 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 101 of 177
guarantees, might have rendered additional force unnecessary. About 24% of the OC use was to stop an offender in the act of self-harm either in crisis watch or in housing. Reports depicted a few of these cases as very urgent, but most did not have that appearance. IDOC policy calls for this intervention, but in the Monitor’s experience, such usage should be extremely rare and the Monitor objects to this type of use as a general policy.
Some other incidents suggested that force may have exceeded the degree reasonably necessary. There were incidents where the custody staff, including supervisors, wrote that they punched the offender. There were incidents where only one of the statements mentioned an offender’s injury, or its occurrence was unexplained or other key facts were missing, or those descriptions were highly unusual; these reports raise questions. There are also suggestions of unnecessary suffering where decontamination appeared delayed or may or may not have been refused; it was also common in videos for offenders to be kept on their knees for 10- to 20-minute stretches after they were restrained and were awaiting steps in the process.
All told, about 30% of reviewed incidents demonstrated these types of problems or, more often, raised questions. Among these identified issues, the most frequently occurring were reports with missing or unusual descriptions of key information, and OC use to stop self-injury. For all other issues, each had a small number of examples, so they may or may not rise to a pattern, but they bear monitoring both by the institutional leadership and the monitoring team.
As to the other core features of the Code, use of force did appear to be terminated as soon as force was no longer necessary although, as mentioned, while the need to continue control of certain offenders remained, there may be equally effective, and less harsh, methods to do so without maintaining them on their knees for lengthy periods. Officers routinely offered medical screening and care on the videos, and the screening was sometimes recorded, and officers noted its occurrence in reports. It does appear this takes place, although fairly often there was no incident report statement from nursing staff or note evident in the health care record so it was not possible to definitively verify this.
Corporal punishment did not come to the monitoring team’s attention in these reviews,45 which suggests the prohibition is being honored. At the same time, the Monitor must take into account the equally serious, ongoing reports of physical abuse carried out by the custody staff on mentally ill offenders at Pontiac. The Monitor has personally interviewed numerous mentally ill offenders at Pontiac who give very credible reports of abuse being carried out by the custody staff especially on the mental health unit and on the North House. The Monitor also has received copies of at least 25 court filings that outline similar incidents of physical abuse as well as multiple reports from plaintiffs’ counsel about these type of incidents. The Monitor has reported these incidents to IDOC leadership for at least the past 18 months to no avail. The Monitor takes this issue extremely seriously and looks forward to immediately working with IDOC to resolve this issue.
In terms of the specific Administrative Directive requirements governing tactical teams, OC use, and cell extractions, these appear well-executed. The tactical teams are constituted as required, and members are assigned to and perform the specified roles. A review of videos
45 There could be an argument that the extended kneeling is corporal punishment, but there is no indication of intent in those actions.
- 101 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 102 of 177
indicates the specified equipment is available and in use. The monitoring team did not examine the chain of command authorizations, notifications, and preparations preceding and after the incidents, but the fact that other aspects of the reports and filmed procedures hue closely to the requirements suggests that these are also being conducted.
Videos were available for all but one of the monitoring team’s requests and were labeled consistent with the provisions of 501.70, suggesting this is common practice. In a small number of cases (14%), the lighting, or where the camera was placed, did not allow the viewer to see the activity for some portions of the incident. The offender was always given direct orders and told what to expect if he did not follow them. Many of the incidents were undertaken with a minimal amount of force; the exceptions are described above. The monitoring team did not examine cell decontamination practices, but it appeared routine to offer and provide eye wash to flush offenders’ eyes, again with the few exceptions noted above. Incident reports are routinely prepared. The monitoring team did not examine the administration’s system for review of incident reports, though review signatures were noted.
Finally, IDOC reports that it has undertaken a very useful initiative training staff in deescalation techniques that have the potential to generate voluntary offender compliance and prevent the need for use of force. The monitoring team is informed that more than 1,500 staff have completed the training and that it has been integrated into training for all incoming Correctional Officer Trainees and Correctional Treatment Officer Trainees. The Department is in the process of creating and training De-escalation Response Teams. This is a most welcome development.
Overall, 12 institutions have a substantial track record of not conducting force or conducting only force that is necessary and not excessive, and they appear to be in compliance with the other Code and Administrative Directive provisions. The monitoring team finds the following institutions in substantial compliance as to Use of Force: Decatur, East Moline, Graham, Jacksonville, Kewanee, Robinson, Shawnee, Sheridan, Southwestern Illinois, Taylorville, and Vienna.
Professional Conduct
AD 03.02.108(I)(B), “Standards of Conduct” provides: The Department shall require employees to conduct themselves in a professional manner and, whether on duty or off duty, not engage in conduct that is unbecoming of a State employee or that may reflect unfavorably on or impair operations of the Department.
Findings: There have been several critical issues in regards to “Professional Conduct” during the reporting period. The first is a series of vandalisms that occurred to the cars of mental health staff while they were parked in the staff parking lot at Logan. Several cars were “keyed” between December 2016 and October 2017. A new Chief Administrative Officer, Warden Austin, came to the facility in August 2017. An investigation began during the summer of 2017. The Monitor has not been informed of the results of this investigation. The working hypothesis has been that the perpetrators of this vandalism are custody staff upset about the ever increasing mental health focus of the facility. I must emphasize that this is just a hypothesis at this time and has not
- 102 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 103 of 177
been proven. Regardless, this is a very significant incident which Warden Austin is taking very seriously. I look forward to being informed of the results of the investigation into these incidents.
The Monitor has recently been informed of an alleged incident of a mental health staff being overtly intimidated by custody staff at Pontiac. I must emphasize that this is an alleged incident at this point. The Monitor will personally investigate this allegation during the next reporting period.
The psychiatric literature regarding stress reactions among law enforcement officers clearly demonstrates that rates of excessive force increase when an officer suffers from increased levels of stress. After observing the mentally ill offenders and the custody staff at Pontiac for the past two years, it is abundantly evident that the staff is suffering from a chronic stress reaction from working with this challenging population of mentally ill offenders. The staff are in great need of therapy and support. The degree of stress that plague the staff is no excuse for physical abuse, however. A much greater degree of psychiatric services for the mentally ill offenders combined with psychological support for the custody staff would go a long way at reducing the incidents of staff abuse.
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
Summary: Very little has changed in this area since the November 2017 data-driven analysis of 10 facilities for the months of June and July 2017; the same problems that were highlighted then continue in March 2018. These problems include: the quality of mental health (MH) evaluations documented on the DOC 0443 form is generally poor, MHPs are not performing face-to-face assessments of SMI offenders after they are charged with disciplinary infractions, the specific recommendations made by MHPs regarding the length of an offender’s confinement in segregation appear to be chosen at random, ranging from 0 days to 6 months, with no clear rationale, at several facilities, every single Mental Health Review (0443) form contained identical language, and every single one determined that the inmate’s mental illness did not contribute to the offense behavior and some facilities are not following IDOC policies regarding discipline.
The review did find some positive aspects, including: segregation is not being used as a punishment (for SMI offenders) for 300- and 400-level infractions at any IDOC facility, the Adjustment Committee consistently receives and reviews input from Mental Health regarding SMI inmates and unlike the report from November 2017, mentally ill offenders are not being written up for refusing medications, hording pills or self-injurious behavior.
There has been improvement but much more is needed before a substantial compliance rating can be assigned to this section of the Settlement Agreement.
XXV(a): Specific requirement: IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in
- 103 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 104 of 177
20 Ill. Admin. Code section 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in AD 05.12.103.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
G. Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
H. Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides
- 104 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 105 of 177
the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
- 105 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 106 of 177
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: For the purposes of this report, Assistant Monitor, Reena Kapoor, M.D., conducted the following data-driven analysis: Dr. Kapoor reviewed the Adjustment Committee reports, Mental Health Disciplinary Review (DOC 0443), and Offender Disciplinary reports (DOC 0317), for approximately 20% of disciplinary incidents involving SMI offenders that were adjudicated during March 2018 at the following facilities:
1. Big Muddy River – two incidents involving two offenders 2. Centralia – four incidents involving four offenders 3. Danville – one incident 4. Graham—four incidents involving three offenders 5. East Moline – two incidents involving two offenders 6. Hill – two incidents involving two offenders 7. Illinois River – eight incidents involving six offenders 8. Lawrence – six incidents involving six offenders 9. Lincoln – one incident 10. Logan – eight incidents involving eight offenders 11. Menard – seven incidents involving seven offenders 12. Pinckneyville – six incidents involving five offenders 13. Pontiac – 27 incidents involving 27 offenders 14. Robinson – two incidents involving two offenders 15. Shawnee – four incidents involving four offenders 16. Sheridan – four incidents involving four offenders 17. Southwestern – two incidents involving two offenders 18. Stateville – five incidents involving five offenders 19. Vandalia – one incident 20. Vienna – four incidents involving four offenders 21. Western – two incidents involving two offenders
Her results follow:
Overall Findings
Very little has changed in this area since my November 2017 data-driven analysis of 10 facilities for the months of June and July 2017; the same problems that I highlighted then continue in March 2018. First, I will mention the good things:
1. Segregation is not being used as a punishment (for SMI offenders) for 300- and 400-level infractions at any IDOC facility. This is consistent with IDOC’s revised policies and the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Adjustment Committee consistently receives and reviews input from Mental Health regarding SMI inmates. This is also consistent with IDOC policy.
- 106 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 107 of 177
3. In contrast to my November 2017 findings, I did not see any cases in which inmates received Disciplinary Infractions for behaviors that would be better handled through clinical intervention, such as refusing medication, hiding pills, or self-harm.
Several problems remain:
1. As I noted before, the quality of mental health (MH) evaluations documented on the DOC 0443 form is generally poor. In the vast majority of evaluations that I reviewed, the MHP did not clearly state a rationale for his/her conclusions or recommendations. This is particularly problematic in cases where the MHP has drawn sweeping conclusions that are unfavorable to the offender, such as that the offender “is manipulating the system to get what he wants” or “has a manipulative communication style” (see below for details).
2. MHPs are not performing face-to-face assessments of SMI offenders after they are charged with disciplinary infractions. The 0443 form is completed based on a chart review and/or discussion amongst the mental health staff, with no mention of ever asking the inmate about his/her version of events. This lack of face-to-face assessments is most likely due to understaffing and/or the tremendous work load for which MHPs are responsible.
3. The specific recommendations made by MHPs regarding the length of an offender’s confinement in segregation appear to be chosen at random, ranging from 0 days to 6 months, with no clear rationale. As noted in my November 2017 report, additional training for the mental health staff across IDOC regarding how/why to recommend particular disciplinary sanctions to the Adjustment Committee may be helpful, as it appears that recommendations vary widely between facilities and individuals, with no clinical rationale for the differences.
4. At several facilities, every single Mental Health Review (0443) form contained identical language, and every single one determined that the inmate’s mental illness did not contribute to the offense behavior. This raises concerns about the adequacy and individualized nature of the MHPs’ 0443 assessments. In fact, in my review of 102 total disciplinary infractions for this report, only in one case did an MHP find that mental illness contributed to the offense.
5. Some facilities (Centralia, Danville, Sheridan) appear not to be following IDOC’s policy that requires the Adjustment Committee either to adopt the Mental Health recommendations regarding sanctions for a SMI offender or to document clearly why this recommendation was not followed.
Individual Facility Findings
1. Big Muddy River
- 107 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 108 of 177
Two incidents were reviewed. One involved consensual kissing with another offender, and the other involved an offender who threw a cup of water at a wall. Both cases were reviewed by an MHP, and the Adjustment Committee then followed the MHP’s recommendations. It was not clear whether the MHP actually assessed the offender after the disciplinary infraction; both 0443 reviews appear to have been completed based on chart review alone. In the latter case, I had some concern about the certainty with which the MHP reached a conclusion that the offender had a “manipulative communication style,” especially since this finding was seemingly unrelated to the offense conduct in question. While I appreciate the MHP’s effort to make an individualized assessment of the inmate, I would expect a thorough 0443 form to make a link between this description of the offender and the behavior resulting in the disciplinary infraction, or else to exclude such a pejorative description.
2. Centralia
Four incidents were reviewed. In all cases, an MHP reviewed the case and completed an 0443 form. In all cases, no rationale for the MHP’s conclusion was provided; the form simply stated the MHP’s conclusion that mental illness did not contribute to the offense behavior. It also did not appear that the MHP actually evaluated the inmate in reaching these conclusions.
In one of the four cases (inmate AB), the Adjustment Committee’s final sanction was much greater than that recommended by Mental Health (45 days vs. 15 days in segregation). No rationale was given for the discrepancy, which violates IDOC’s policy (05.12.133, Section H.2) for resolving differences between Mental Health and the Adjustment Committee. The policy states, in relevant part:
If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations (emphasis added).
If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).
In AB’s case, The Adjustment Committee report contains the CAO’s signature and notes that Mental Health recommended 15 days segregation, but it does not have any explanation for why the CAO thought it was appropriate to disregard this recommendation. A similar problem was noted in my November 2017 report about the disciplinary process at Centralia; it does not appear to have been corrected.
3. Danville
In the one incident provided for review, mental health gave a completely generic assessment of the offender, with no correlation between the clinical status and the
- 108 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 109 of 177
recommended sanction of 0-1 mo segregation and 0-2 month loss of privileges. In addition, the Adjustment Committee ultimately issued a higher sanction than mental health recommended (1 mo segregation, 2 mo C-grade, disciplinary transfer, and 1 mo loss of commissary) without providing any explanation for the discrepancy.
4. East Moline
Two incidents were reviewed. In both cases, the MHP opined that mental illness contributed to the offense and recommended a reduced sanction (verbal reprimand in one case, 5 days segregation and housing change in the other). The Adjustment Committee followed these recommendations in both cases.
5. Graham
Two of the four MH reviews are done in a detailed and individualized manner, including an interview of the offender after the alleged offense. The other two MH reviews contained boiler-plate language, and it did not appear than an interview was conducted. No documentation of the Adjustment Committee’s final decisions was provided, so I could not assess whether Graham was following IDOC’s policy to follow the MH recommendation unless a specific reason is documented as to why that was not done.
6. Hill
Two incidents were reviewed. I have some concern about the somewhat hostile and unsympathetic tone used by the Psych Administrator in her assessments. For example, one incident documents a history of irritability and poor frustration tolerance, but then concludes, “There does not appear to be any mitigating factors that contributed to the [offense] with the exception of his problems. If found guilty, segregation would be appropriate.” In the other incident, she wrote, “He is manipulating the system to get what he wants,” and recommended 45 days segregation for the offense of “stroking his penis while looking at MHP.” In both cases, the Adjustment Committee followed the MH recommendations and clearly documented how they arrived at their conclusions.
7. Illinois River
Eight incidents were reviewed. It appeared that the Adjustment Committee reviewed Mental Health’s recommendations in each case and followed these recommendations. The documentation from MHPs was poor; no rationale for the opinions was given on any of the 0443 forms.
8. Lawrence
Six incidents were reviewed. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee followed Mental Health’s recommendations. However, the mental health evaluations appear to have been done poorly. They were based solely on chart review, and every single 0443 form
- 109 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 110 of 177
contained the exact same language, raising significant questions about whether MHPs are performing individualized assessments.
9. Lincoln
One incident was reviewed; an SMI inmate got into a fight with a peer over a card game. The MHP recommended “no more than 3 months segregation,” and the Adjustment Committee decided upon 15 days. Again, it did not appear that the MHP interviewed the inmate or looked into the circumstances of the infraction before opining on the 0443 form.
10. Logan
Eight incidents were reviewed. All of the 0443 forms contained identical language about the MHP’s opinion; no individualized rationale for the opinion was documented. Also, the opinion was based entirely on chart review and consultation with the treating MHP, and it did not include an interview of the offender regarding the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary infraction. The Adjustment Committee followed the MHP’s recommendations in all eight cases.
11. Menard
Seven incidents were reviewed. In all cases, the MHP concluded that the offender’s mental illness was unrelated to the offense conduct, and all of the documentation on the 0443 forms was identical. It was clearly a form note with the names changed for each case. No interview of the offender was conducted by the MHP, and the opinion about the offender’s culpability was based on the last documented mental status in the progress notes. Given how poor the psychiatric care at Menard continues to be, this system for conducting MH/discipline assessments is inadequate. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee either followed the Mental Health recommendations or chose a lesser sanction.
12. Pinckneyville
Documentation related to 6 incidents was reviewed. In each case, the Adjustment Committee followed the MHP’s recommendation regarding segregation placement. As in other facilities, the MHP’s documentation of the rationale for his/her opinions is poor. The opinion was simply stated, without any justification or supporting facts, in all but one of the six cases.
13. Pontiac
27 incidents were reviewed. In all cases, the sanction imposed by the Adjustment Committee fell within the range recommended by Mental Health (e.g. 0-30 days). In all cases, the MHP opined that the offender’s mental illness did not contribute to the offense conduct. Only one of the 0443 forms documented a clear reason for this opinion; all of
- 110 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 111 of 177
the others contained the same formulaic language. It was not clear to me that the MHP had performed a meaningful review of each individual case and offender.
14. Robinson
Two incidents were reviewed. In both cases, the Adjustment Committee followed Mental Health’s recommendations. The MHPs completing the 0443 forms provided no rationale for their opinions regarding the appropriateness of segregation placement or its recommended duration.
15. Shawnee
Four incidents were reviewed. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee followed the recommendations from Mental Health regarding segregation placement. In contrast to my findings in November 2017, the MHP evaluations during this review were formulaic and did not appear to include an interview of the offender. All four 0443 forms contained identical language regarding the offender’s mental state and the appropriateness of segregation, raising significant questions about whether an individualized assessment was completed.
16. Sheridan
Four incidents were reviewed. In three of the four cases, the Adjustment Committee imposed significantly harsher sanctions than those recommended by Mental Health, and the documentation includes no rationale for this discrepancy. The Adjustment Committee paperwork is signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, but he/she did not give a reason why the Mental Health recommendations were disregarded. This appears to violate IDOC’s policy 05.12.133. In addition, the Mental Health evaluations at Sheridan were poor; they included no justification or supporting facts for the MHP’s conclusions.
17. Southwestern
Two incidents were reviewed. In one case, the MHP’s recommendation for no segregation time was followed by the Adjustment Committee. In the other case, the charge was thrown out (unrelated to the MHP’s evaluation). Again, it did not appear that the MHP had evaluated the inmate after the disciplinary infraction; the conclusions were based on chart review alone.
18. Stateveille
Five incidents were reviewed. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee issued a sanction that was equal to or less than the recommendation of Mental Health. Again, the Mental Health documentation was poor, with no explanation of the MHP’s conclusions or individualized assessment of the offender. In one case, the MHP seemed to recommend a
- 111 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 112 of 177
harsh sanction for no clear reason, stating that “0-6 months” of segregation was appropriate for a SMI offender who was caught with a tattoo needle.
19. Vandalia
One incident involving an offender who made threats toward a CO was reviewed. The MHP provided input that the mental illness did not contribute to the offense conduct. No justification for this conclusion was given. The Adjustment Committee issued a sanction that was less harsh than the recommendation from Mental Health (14 days vs. 30-45 days of segregation).
20. Vienna
Four incidents were reviewed. In all cases, the inmate’s illness was determined not to have contributed to the offense conduct. These conclusions were reached based on chart review and consultation with the treating MHP, with no face-to-face evaluation of the offender. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee followed Mental Health’s recommendations.
21. Western
Two incidents were reviewed. (The facility provided incident reports and emails related to several other incidents, but no corresponding Adjustment Committee reports or 0443 forms, so I could not draw any conclusions about these). In both cases, the MHP recommended that mental illness was “not a factor” in the offenses. The Adjustment Committee accepted this recommendation and issued a sanction that was within the range recommended by Mental Health.
I. Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
- 112 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 113 of 177
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: The requirements of this subsection were not being met during the reporting period.
(XXV)(b): Specific requirement: No later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
Findings: As previously reported, the Monitor has not been approached by IDOC to consult on this specific requirement. However, Dr. Kapoor reported above “In contrast to my November 2017 findings, I did not see any cases in which inmates received Disciplinary Infractions for behaviors that would be better handled through clinical intervention, such as refusing medication, hiding pills, or self-harm.”
(XXV)(c): Specific requirement: For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
Findings: IDOC is currently meeting these requirements. During the reporting period, however, plaintiffs’ counsel raised concerns that this requirement wasn’t being accomplished at Pontiac. In the Quarterly Report of April 25, 2018, IDOC reported “In response to concerns raised by the plaintiffs’ at Pontiac, the Department has confirmed it is complying with this portion of the Agreement.”
(XXV)(d): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
Findings: Over the duration of the Settlement Agreement, the Monitor has been presented with several plans regarding this Behavioral Treatment Program. To date, this program has not been implemented in any IDOC facility.
- 113 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 114 of 177
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
Summary: The Statewide CQI Manager, Dr. Sim, only began working fulltime in this position on January 16, 2018. He was able to develop and implement a monitoring instrument in September 2017. This instrument was found to not having a robust corrective action element. The instrument was modified and implemented January 2018. A tremendous amount of data has been collected. It is too early to determine if this new instrument will result in an improvement in the care of mentally ill offenders. Two significant problems persist, however. AD 04.04.104 remains in draft form with no implementation date set. Also, not all of the facilities have a designated mental health authority which is preventing IDOC from truly having a department-wide CQI program.
(XXVI)(a): Specific requirement: IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), section II (E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility throughout IDOC.
Findings: Overall, this requirement is not being met by the Department. Both the statewide CQI Manager and the regional administrators audit facilities; each regional administrator is expected to review 450 health care records per quarter. However, as to self-audits, IDOC’s Quarterly Report of April 25th states “Since September 2017 a standardized audit tool has been implemented at every facility where a mental health authority is employed,” but at the time of the Monitor’s midyear report, at least six facilities were without a mental health authority. At the submission of this report, at least seven facilities were without a mental health authority. This fact alone ensures that IDOC will receive a rating of noncompliance for this requirement.
This persistent staffing deficiency should not completely negate the progress that Dr. Sim has made regarding CQI. He did develop a monitoring instrument that was put into partial use starting September 2017. Due in part to the lack of a robust corrective action component to the September 2017 monitoring instrument, Dr. Sim introduced a modified instrument in January 2018. With this instrument, corrective action plans were generated based on the monthly audit data. Of note, these corrective action plans must be approved by the regional directors and the responsibility of implementing this plan falls on the mental health authorities.
Due to the implementation of this new instrument only occurring in January 2018, it is too early to adequately assess its effectiveness. Moving forward, the monitoring team will be evaluating both the effectiveness of the corrective action plans as well as the efficacy of the monitoring instrument itself. It is important to note, however, that the findings of the Statewide Mental Health Authority Audits for February 2018 are generally consistent with those of the monitoring team. That is, these February Audits found significant deficiencies in the areas of use
- 114 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 115 of 177
of the suicide potential form, mental health evaluations, treatment planning, mental health follow up, crisis contact and intervention, psychiatric services, restraints and discipline.
XXVI(b): Specific requirement: The statewide CQI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
Findings: The Monitor has several concerns about this particular requirement. As reported in XI(b) above, the current CQI manager has only been working fulltime in this position since January 16, 2018. Prior to that date, his position was 75% central regional director and 25% statewide CQI manager. Also, this requirement states “statewide CQI manager shall (emphasis added) have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.” Dr. Sim may have the responsibility as outlined in this subsection, but he doesn’t have the authority to implement those actions needed to fulfill his duties at statewide CQI manager. For example, the administrative directive 04.04.104, which outlines the CQI program, has remained in draft form throughout the duration of the Settlement Agreement. Dr. Sim does not have the authority to implement this AD. Also, the stated reason for not implementing this draft AD is that not all facilities have a designated mental health authority. Dr. Sim does not have the authority to fill these vacant positions. Until such time that these two very critical components of the statewide CQI program are met, the Department will continue to receive a rating of noncompliance for this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XXVII: MONITORING
Only three specific requirements of this section will be discussed in detail.
XXVII(d): Specific requirement: Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
Findings: The Monitor submitted a request for an increase in the hourly compensation for the members of the monitoring team in June 2017. No formal response has been received by the time of submission of the 2nd annual report.
XXVII(f)(iv): Specific requirement: The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation.
Findings: As of the submission of this report, IDOC is providing tele-psychiatric services in the absence of an approved protocol. The Monitor made a request to Dr. Hinton for this protocol on March, 2018. No response has been received to date. I request that the Department provide the Monitor with an evidence-based protocol detailing how tele-psychiatric services are being provided by June 15, 2018.
Administrative Directive 04.04.100, effective 6/1/17, 1(B), Policy Statement, states “The Department shall ensure offenders have access to adequate (emphasis added) mental health
- 115 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 116 of 177
services.” The psychiatric field has progressed to the point where the provision of mental health and psychiatric services for female patients must be accomplished in a “gender responsive and trauma-informed” manner. The Department has made some efforts in this regard but falls short of the current standard of practice. Attached as appendix 2 is a review of the current literature regarding gender specific and trauma-informed care to incarcerated women. The Monitor looks forward to working with the Department to ensure that female offenders receive “adequate mental health services.”
XXVII(f)(v): Specific requirement: The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced onsite tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel.
Findings: IDOC has generally been meeting this requirement.
XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Summary: The Department has been submitting quarterly reports for the duration of the Settlement Agreement. These reports contain the information required but are not always objective in their findings.
Specific requirement: Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
Findings: IDOC has been submitting quarterly reports to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor for the duration of the Settlement Agreement. These reports generally contain the information required by this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. These reports are not necessarily objective in their descriptions of the progress that IDOC is allegedly making towards implementing the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. They are clearly written from the defendants’ perspective and don’t always comport with the facts. With those caveats, IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
- 116 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 117 of 177

CONCLUSION
The Department continues to struggle to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The data from the previous two years of monitoring substantiates that the staffing levels of the Approved Remedial Plan are grossly inadequate to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Until the staffing issue is adequately addressed, the Department will continue to flounder in its efforts to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.

Respectfully submitted, Pablo Stewart, M.D.46 Pablo Stewart, MD

Dated: May 27, 2018

46 Indicates electronic signature

- 117 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 118 of 177

APPENDIX 1

Illinois Department of Corrections Psychiatry and MHP Backlog:
Staffing Considerations

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

• The Illinois Department of Corrections’ (IDOC) total population has decreased from 48,653 in 2014 to 41,011 in 2018. However, its mental health caseload has risen from 10,910 in 2014 to 12, 140 in 2018. Further IDOC’s SMI population has risen from 4,662 in 2014 to 5,035 in 2018.
• IDOC’s original staffing plan was based on a lower mentally ill and SMI population than IDOC currently maintains.
• Based on the data provided by IDOC and Wexford, not collected by the Monitoring team, it is evident there is a substantial backlog of cases for both facilities that are not “fully” staffed, and for those that are “fully” staffed.
• The data provided by IDOC and Wexford does not capture all of the areas where a backlog may exist.
• The original staffing plan is no longer appropriate to adequately meet the needs of IDOC’s mentally ill and SMI offender population.

- 118 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 119 of 177

The overarching goal of the following analyses is to identify backlog psychiatric and mental health professional (MHP) trends in the context of the Illinois Department of Correction (IDOC)’s current staffing situation. Specifically, the aim of these analyses is to: 1) Identify facilities with staffing vacancies that have a backlog of cases; and, 2) identify facilities that are fully staffed but still have a backlog of cases. Identifying and working to clear backlog cases is essential for maintaining proper correctional mental health care. Further, doing so in a timely manner is key for the effective evaluation, treatment, and follow up care of offenders with mental illness (Ford, Trestman, Wiesbrock, & Zhang, 2009; Forrester, MacLennan, Slade, Brown, Exworthy, 2014). Addressing backlog cases as soon as possible should be a top priority for a correctional institution, particularly those with a growing population of offenders with mental illness. For example, while IDOC’s total population has been decreasing from 2014 (n = 48,653) to 2018 (n = 41,011), its mental health caseload has risen from 10,910 in 2014 to 12, 140 in 2018. Further IDOC’s SMI population has risen from 4,662 in 2014 to 5,035 in 2018 (see Figure 1 in Appendix A).
For the purposes of the current analyses, a “backlog” case is a case that exceeds the recommended time for action as described by IDOC and the Settlement Agreement. All analyses are derived from the most up-to-date facility data and staffing information as of April 20,2018. Decatur, East Moline, Jacksonville, Joliet Treatment Center, Kewanee, and Taylorville are not included in the following analyses as these facilities do not have a Psychiatric or MHP backlog as of April 20, 2018.

II.

SECTION 1 – PSYCHIATRIC OVERVIEW

Table 1 shows the Psychiatric Backlog data for facilities as of April 20, 2018. As described above, Decatur, East Moline, Jacksonville, Joliet Treatment Center, Kewanee, and Taylorville are not included as these facilities do not have a Psychiatric backlog. Table 2 shows similar data, but with Face to Face/New and Telepsych/New collapsed into one ‘New’ column, and Face to Face/Follow Up and Telepsych/Follow Up collapsed into one ‘Follow Up’ column. Psychiatry has fairly few New backlogged cases from seven

- 119 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 120 of 177

facilities (n = 35), but with many Follow Up backlogged cases from 18 facilities (n = 1037).

Table 1. Overview of Weekly Psychiatry Backlog Data.

Dixon Graham IL River Lawrence Lincoln Logan Menard Pinckneyville Pontiac Robinson Shawnee Sheridan Southwestern Stateville Stateville RNC Vandalia Vienna Western Total

Face - Face

New

Follow Up

1

78

0

31

0

13

0

1

0

15

0

0

4

165

0

4

5

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

113

1

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

453

TelePsych

New

Follow Up

0

40

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

12

0

158

0

0

0

0

0

31

0

135

0

78

0

8

0

0

0

8

21

15

72

1

24

24

584

Total 119 31 13 6 15 12 327 4 16 31 135 78 8 113 23 29 87 25 1072

Table 2. Condensed Overview of Weekly Psychiatry Backlog Data.

Dixon Graham IL River Lawrence Lincoln Logan Menard Pinckneyville Pontiac Robinson

New 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0

Follow Up 118 31 13 6 15 12 323 4 11 31

- 120 -

Total 119 31 13
6 15 12 327 4 16 31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 121 of 177

Shawnee Sheridan Southwestern Stateville Stateville RNC Vandalia Vienna Western Total

0

135

135

0

78

78

0

8

8

0

113

113

1

22

23

8

21

29

15

72

87

1

24

25

35

1037

1072

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the backlogged cases by number of days backlogged as of April 20, 2018. This table is also condensed into only one New column and only one Follow Up column.

Table 3. Psychiatry Breakdown – Number of Days Backlogged.

New

Follow Up

Total 1-14 Days 15-30 Days 31-45 Days 46-60 Days >60 Days
Total 1-14 Days 15-30 Days 31-45 Days 46-60 Days >60 Days Facility
Total

Dixon

1 1 0 0 0 0 118 69 41 7 0 0 119

Graham

0 0 0 0 0 0 31 31 0 0 0 0 31

IL River

0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 13

Lawrence

0 0 0 000 6 4 0 1 0 1 6

Lincoln

0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 15

Logan

0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8 4 0 0 0 12

Menard

4 3 0 1 0 0 323 103 108 66 27 19 327

Pinckneyville 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 4

Pontiac

5 3 2 0 0 0 11 10 0 0 0 1 16

Robinson

0 0 0 0 0 0 31 22 9 0 0 0 31

Shawnee

0 0 0 0 0 0 135 110 24 1 0 0 135

Sheridan

0 0 0 0 0 0 78 77 0 0 1 0 78

Southwestern 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8

Stateville

0 0 0 0 0 0 113 76 37 0 0 0 113

Stateville RNC 1 1 0 0 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 23

Vandalia

8 8 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 29

- 121 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 122 of 177

Vienna Western Total

15 6 6 0 1 2 72 40 31 0 0 1 87 1 1 0 0 0 0 24 18 4 2 0 0 25 35 23 8 1 1 2 1037 650 259 77 28 22 1072

Figure 2 shows the progression of total backlog cases (New and Follow Up) over time, beginning on September 22, 2017, and ending on April 20, 2018. A large spike in total backlogged cases occurred between December 15, 2017, and January 12, 2018, but quickly fell. Other than this spike, the total number of backlogged cases has been decreasing over the last seven months.

Figure 2. Historical Weekly Psychiatry Backlog. - 122 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 123 of 177

III.

SECTION 2 – MHP OVERVIEW

Table 4 shows the MHP Backlog data for facilities as of April 20, 2018. As described

above, Decatur, East Moline, Jacksonville, Joliet Treatment Center, Kewanee, and

Taylorville are not included as these facilities do not have an MHP backlog. Twelve

facilities have a backlog of MH Evaluations (n = 406), thirteen facilities have a backlog

of MH Treatment Plans (n = 508), and nineteen facilities have a MH Follow Up backlog

(n = 1,573)

Table 4. Overview of MHP Weekly Backlog Data.

Big Muddy Centralia Danville Dixon Graham Hill IL River Lawrence Lincoln Logan Menard Pinckneyville Pontiac Robinson Shawnee Sheridan Stateville Vandalia Western Total

MH Evaluation 0 15 0 14 113 12 13 45 2 11 18 14 18 0 0 0 0 0 131
406

MH Treatment Plan 0 25 0 115 125 16 17 10 0 26 6 20 17 0 0 17 0 23 91
508

MH Follow Up 12 104 3 65 291 79 161 159 6 43 160 31 88 18 165 16 32 41 99
1573

Total 12 144 3 194 529 107 191 214 8 80 184 65 123 18 165 33 32 64 321
2487

- 123 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 124 of 177
Tables 5, 6, and 7 provide a breakdown of the backlogged cases by type and by number of days backlogged as of April 20, 2018. Table 5. MHP – MH Evaluations - Number of Days Backlogged.

1-14 Days 15-30 Days 31-45 Days
46-60 Day s > 60 Days Total Facility Total

Big Muddy

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

Centralia

2

9

4

0

0

15

144

Danville

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Dixon

11

3

0

0

0

14

194

Graham

25

21

3

5

59

113

529

Hill

7

0

3

5

5

12

107

IL River

9

3

1

0

0

13

191

Lawrence

8

32

5

0

0

45

214

Lincoln

1

1

0

0

2

2

8

Logan

10

1

0

0

0

11

80

Menard

8

4

3

0

3

18

184

Pinckneyville

7

1

0

1

5

14

65

Pontiac

16

2

0

0

0

18

123

Robinson

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

Shawnee

0

0

0

0

0

0

165

Sheridan

0

0

0

0

0

0

33

Stateville

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

Vandalia

0

0

0

0

0

0

64

Western

4

11

7

11

98

131

321

Total

108

88

26

22

172

406

2487

- 124 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 125 of 177

Table 6. MHP – MH Treatment Plans - Number of Days Backlogged.

1-14 Days 15-30 Days 31-45 Days 46-60 Days > 60 Days
Total Facility
Total

Big Muddy

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

Centralia

4

0

2

2

17

25

144

Danville

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Dixon

17

24

12

15

47

115

194

Graham

12

23

11

11

68

125

529

Hill

4

4

0

8

0

16

107

IL River

7

7

1

2

0

17

191

Lawrence

1

0

1

1

7

10

214

Lincoln

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

Logan

7

6

5

2

6

26

80

Menard

1

1

1

0

3

6

184

Pinckneyville

1

0

0

1

18

20

65

Pontiac

7

0

0

0

10

17

123

Robinson

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

Shawnee

0

0

0

0

0

0

165

Sheridan

6

4

0

0

7

17

33

Stateville

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

Vandalia

2

7

2

4

8

23

64

Western

10

0

2

0

79

91

321

Total

79

76

37

46

270

508

2487

- 125 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 126 of 177

Table 7. MHP – MH Follow Up - Number of Days Backlogged.

1-14 Days 15-30 Days 31-45 Days 46-60 Days > 60 Days
Total Facility
Total

Big Muddy

12

0

0

0

0

12

12

Centralia

46

38

12

8

0

104

144

Danville

3

0

0

0

0

3

3

Dixon

32

6

3

1

23

65

194

Graham

60

67

41

22

101

291

529

Hill

31

30

18

0

0

79

107

IL River

52

54

51

3

1

161

191

Lawrence

76

55

8

7

13

159

214

Lincoln

5

0

1

0

0

6

8

Logan

38

4

0

1

0

43

80

Menard

140

19

0

1

0

160

184

Pinckneyville 28

3

0

0

0

31

65

Pontiac

68

16

4

0

0

88

123

Robinson

17

1

0

0

0

18

18

Shawnee

90

60

15

0

0

165

165

Sheridan

9

3

3

0

0

16

33

Stateville

31

1

0

0

0

32

32

Vandalia

11

8

6

4

12

41

64

Western

21

26

16

18

18

99

321

Totals

770

391

178

65

168

1573

2487

- 126 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 127 of 177

Figure 3 shows the progression of total backlog cases (MH Evaluations, MH Treatment Plans, and MH Follow Ups) over time, beginning on October 6, 2017, and ending on April 20, 2018. Overall, the total number of backlogged cases has been decreasing over the last seven months.

Number of Caseload

Historical MHP Backlog

50004525

4500

4088

4000

3500

3000

2500

3685

3445

3270 2984

3381

3216

3060

3115

3041

3016

2921

2487

2000

1500

1000
500
0 10/6/201107/20/201711/3/201171/17/201712/1/201172/15/201172/29/20171/12/20181/26/20182/9/20182/23/20183/9/20183/23/20184/6/20148/20/2018
Dates

Figure 3. Historical MHP Backlog.

- 127 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 128 of 177

IV.

V.

SECTION 3. PSYCHIATRY STAFFING

Table 9 details the Budgeted FTE staffing, Filled FTE staffing, number of individuals making up the Filled FTE, and Budgeted Vacant FTE staffing. Facilities highlighted in green indicate that they are fully staffed or has less than or equal to 0.10 Total Budgeted Vacant FTEs. Facilities highlighted in yellow indicate that they have a Budgeted Vacant FTE between 0.11 and 4.99. Facilities highlighted in red indicate that they have a Budgeted Vacant FTE greater than or equal to 5.00.
Table 9. Overview of Psychiatry Staffing.

Psychiatry

RN - Psychiatric

Budgeted FTE
Filled FTE No. on Staff
Budgeted Vacant FTE
Budgeted FTE
Filled FTE No. on Staff
Budgeted Vacant FTE Total Facility
Vacancies

Big Muddy

1.50 1.40 2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.10

Centralia

1.00 1.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Danville

1.50 1.25 2 0.25 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.25

Dixon

10.00 4.80 6 5.20 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 5.20

Graham

2.00 1.27

4

0.73 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.25

Hill

2.00 2.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

IL River

1.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Lawrence

3.00 2.50 3 0.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.50

Lincoln

0.50 0.43 1 0.07 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.07

Logan

10.00 5.59 9 4.41 1.00 1.00 1 0.00 4.41

Menard

6.00 1.83 4 4.17 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.17

Pinckneyville 3.50 2.78 4 0.73 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.73

Pontiac

6.00 1.85 3 4.15 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4.15

Robinson

0.50 0.45 1 0.05 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.05

Shawnee

1.25 1.00 1 0.25 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.25

Sheridan

1.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Southwestern 0.25 0.20 1 0.05 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.05

Stateville RNC 5.00 3.5

6 1.50 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.50

Stateville

4.00 1.10

3

2.90 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 2.90

Vandalia

0.50 0.48 2 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.02

Vienna

0.50 0.40 1 0.10 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.10

Western

1.50 0.75 1 0.75 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.75

- 128 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 129 of 177
Figures 4 to 14 in Appendix B demonstrate the total number of backlogged cases in the context of staffing for facilities that are not meeting their full complement of Psychiatry staff (e.g., indicated by yellow or red highlighting in Table 9). Danville is not listed in these figures as it does not currently have any backlogged psychiatry cases.
Figures 15 to 21 in Appendix C demonstrate the total number of backlogged cases in the context of staffing for facilities that are meeting their full complement of Psychiatry staff, or are within 0.10 Budgeted Vacant FTE (e.g., indicated by green highlighting in Table 9). Big Muddy, Centralia, and Hill are not included in these figures as they do not currently have any backlogged psychiatry cases.

VI.

SECTION 4. MHP STAFFING

Table 10 details the Budgeted FTE staffing, Filled FTE staffing, number of individuals making up the Filled FTE, and Budgeted Vacant FTE staffing. Facilities highlighted in green indicate that they are fully staffed. Facilities highlighted in yellow indicate that they have a Budgeted Vacant FTE between 0.11 and 4.99. Facilities highlighted in red indicate that they have a Budgeted Vacant FTE greater than 5.00.

Table 10. Overview of MHP Staffing.

Psychologist

QMHP

BHT

Staff Assistant

Recreational RN-Mental

Therapist

Health

Budgeted FTE Filled FTE Budgeted Vacant FTE Budgeted FTE Filled FTE Budgeted Vacant FTE Budgeted FTE Filled FTE Budgeted Vacant FTE Budgeted FTE Filled FTE Budgeted Vacant FTE Budgeted FTE Filled FTE Budgeted Vacant FTE Budgeted FTE Filled FTE Budgeted Vacant FTE Total Facility Vacant FTE

Big Muddy Centralia Danville

0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 2.00

- 129 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 130 of 177

Dixona,b

8.65 3.68 4.97 18.0 14.0 4.00 18.0 17.0 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Graham

0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hill

0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IL River

0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lawrence

0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 7.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lincoln

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Logana

6.00 4.00 2.00 21.0 19.0 2.00 14.0 12.0 2.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 1.00

Menard

2.00 0.00 2.00 9.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pinckneyville 1.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pontiaca

5.00 3.00 2.00 13.00 11.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Robinson

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Shawnee

0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sheridan

0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southwestern 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stateville RNC Stateville

0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00

Vandalia

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vienna

0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western

0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.97 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

aPsychologist includes Post-Doc Psychologists, Pre-Doc Intern Psychologists, Staff Psychologists, and Additional Clinical Psychologist Coverage
bStaff Assistant includes Staff Assistant and Assistant Site Manager-Mental Health

Figures 22 to 37 in Appendix D demonstrate the total number of backlogged cases in the context of staffing for facilities that are not meeting their full complement of MHP staff (e.g., indicated by yellow or red highlighting in Table 10). Southwestern, Stateville RNC, and Vienna are not listed in these figures as they do not currently have any backlogged cases.
Figures 38 to 40 in Appendix E demonstrate the total number of backlogged cases in the context of staffing for facilities that are meeting their full complement of MHP staff (e.g., indicated by green highlighting in Table 10)
- 130 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 131 of 177

VII.

SECTION 5. LEVEL OF CONCERN

Table 11 represents the dispersion of all backlogged facilities into four groups (Appropriately Staffed – Backlog Present, Not Appropriately Staffed – Backlog Present, Not Appropriately Staffed – No Backlog Present, and Appropriately Staffed – No Backlog Present) and subsequently into four urgency categories (Level 4, Level 3, Level 2, and Level 1, respectively).
Facilities in Level 1 have their full complement of staff and do not presently have any cases backlogged. No further action is needed for these facilities.
Facilities in Level 2 do not have their full complement of staff, but do not have any cases backlogged. While this is not an immediate concern, facilities in this category should make efforts to fulfill their Budgeted FTE requirements in order to prevent backlog in the future.
Facilities in Level 3 do not have their full complement of staff, and they have backlogged cases. Increasing the staffing at these facilities to fulfill their Budgeted FTE requirements should help to ease some of the backlog. However, understaffing (in the context of the Budgeted FTE) may not be the only issue to address. For example, Graham has a large total backlog of MHP cases (n = 529), yet they are only vacant 1.00 BHT position. It is likely that more staff than was originally budgeted will be required to address this backlogged caseload.
Facilities in Level 4 have their full complement of staff, yet they still have backlogged cases. Despite their fulfillment of their Budgeted FTE staffing, the excess of backlogged Psychiatry and MHP cases at these facilities indicates that the originally budgeted amount may be inappropriate. For example, Centralia has zero Budgeted FTE vacancies, yet has over 100 total backlogged MHP cases. These facilities should consider an increase in staffing or a restructuring of responsibilities for the current staff.

- 131 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 132 of 177

Table 11. Level of Concern.

Level 4 Appropriately Staffedc – Backlog Present

Illinois River Lincoln Robinson Sheridan Southwestern Vandalia Vienna

Psychiatry

Centraliaf Sheridan Vandalia

MHP

Level 3 Not Appropriately Staffed – Backlog Present

Psychiatry

MHP

Dixond,f Graham Lawrence Logan Menardg

Big Muddy Danville Dixone,f Grahamh Hillf

Pinckneyville

Illinois Riverf

Pontiac

Lawrencef

Shawneef

Lincoln

Stateville RNC

Logane

Statevillef

Menardf

Western

Pinckneyville

Pontiacf

Robinson

Shawneef

Stateville

Westerng

Level 2

Not Appropriately Staffed – No Backlog Present

Psychiatry

MHP

Danville

Southwestern

Stateville NRC

Vienna

Level 1

Appropriately Staffed – No Backlog Present

Psychiatry

MHP

Big Muddy

Centralia

Hill

cFully staffed with ≤ .10 Budgeted Vacant FTE

dTotal facility budgeted vacant FTE ≥ 5.00

eTotal facility budgeted vacant FTE ≥ 9.00

fTotal facility number of backlogged cases ≥ 100

gTotal facility number of backlogged cases ≥ 300

hTotal facility number of backlogged cases ≥ 500

- 132 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 133 of 177 References
Ford, J.D., Trestman, R.L., Wiesbrock, V.H., Zhang, W. (2009). Validation of a brief screening instrument for identifying psychiatric disorders among newly incarcerated adults. Psychiatric Services, 60(6), 842-846.
Forrester, A., MacLennan, F., Slade, K., Brown, P., Exworthy, T. (2014). Improving access to psychological therapies in prison. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 24(3), 163-168.
- 133 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 134 of 177 APPENDICES
- 134 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 135 of 177

Appendix A
Population Distribution

Total DOC Population

41,011 42,820 44,724 47,261 48,654

Total SMI Caseload

5,035 4,900 4,441 4,522 4,662

Total MH Caseload

12,140 12,066 11,480 11,361 10,910

Type of Casload

Male Caseload

10,692 10,630 10,031 10,154 9,553

Male SMI Caseload

4,141 4,042 3,643 3,770 3,904

894 858
Female SMI 798
752 765

Female Caseload

1,448 1,436 1,438 1,207 1,358

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Total Number of Cases

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Figure 1. Population Distribution of Caseloads by Year.

- 135 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 136 of 177

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

Appendix B

Dixon
350

300

250

200

150

118 119

100

69

50

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

41

7

0

0

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 4. Dixon Total Psychiatry Backlog – High Level of FTE Vacancies.

Graham

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

31

31 31

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 5. Graham Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 136 -

Number of Cases

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 137 of 177

Lawrence
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

1

0

1

6

6

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 6. Lawrence Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Logan
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

4

0

0

0

12

12

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 7. Logan Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 137 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 138 of 177

Menard

350

323 327

300

250

200

150 103 108
100 66

50

3

0

1

0

0

4

0

27

19

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 8. Menard Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Pinckneyville
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

4

4

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 9. Pinckneyville Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 138 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 139 of 177

Pontiac
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

3

2

0

0

0

5

10

0

0

0

1

11

16

0

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 10. Pontiac Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Shawnee

350

300

250

200

150

135 135

110

100

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

24

1

0

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 11. Shawnee Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 139 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 140 of 177

Stateville NRC

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

22

22 23

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 12. Stateville RNC Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Stateville
350

300

250

200

150 113 113

100

76

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

37

0

0

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 13. Stateville Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 140 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 141 of 177

Western
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

18

24 25

1

0

0

0

0

1

4

2

0

0

0

Number of Cases

New Backlog Breakdown

Follow Up

Figure 14. Western Total Psychiatry Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

- 141 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 142 of 177

Appendix C

Illinois River
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

0

0

0

0

13

13

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 15. Illinois River Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

Lincoln
350

300

250

200

150

100

50 0

0

0

0

0

0

15

0

0

0

0

15

15

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 16. Lincoln Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 142 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 143 of 177

Robinson
350

300

250

200

150

100

50 0

0

0

0

0

22 0

9

0

0

0

31 31

0

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 17. Robinson Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Sheridan
350

300

250

200

150

100

77

78 78

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 18. Sheridan Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 143 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 144 of 177

Southwestern
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

8

8

0

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 19. Southwestern Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

Vandalia
350

300

250

200

150

100

50 8

0

0

0

0

8

21 0

0

0

21 29 0

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 20. Vandalia Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 144 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 145 of 177

Vienna
350

300

250

200

150

100

87 72

50

40 31

6

6

0

1

15 2

0

0

1

0

Number of Cases

New

Follow Up

Backlog Breakdown

Figure 21. Vienna Total Psychiatry Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

- 145 -

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 146 of 177
Appendix D
Big Muddy
600 500 400 300 200 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 0

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 22. Big Muddy Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Danville
600
500
400
300
200
100 0000000000003000033
0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 23. Danville Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies. -

- 146 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 147 of 177

Dixon
600

500

400

300

194 200

115

100 11 3 0 0 0 14 17 24 12 15 47 0

65 32 6 3 1 23

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 24. Dixon Total MHP Backlog – High Level of FTE Vacancies.

Graham

600

529

500

400 291
300

200 100 25 21

3

5

113

59

12 23

11

11

125

68

60

67

41

101 22

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 25. Graham Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 147 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 148 of 177

Hill
600

500

400

300

200

107

100

79

7 0 3 5 5 12 4 4 0 8 0 16 31 30 18 0 0

0

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 26. Hill Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

IL River
600

500

400

300

191

200

161

100

52 54 51

9 3 1 0 0 13 7 7 1 2 0 17

31

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 27. IL River Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 148 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 149 of 177

Lawrence
600

500

400

300

214

200

159

100

8 32 5

0

45 0

1

0

1

1

76 55

7 10

8

7 13

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 28. Lawrence Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Lincoln
600
500
400
300
200
100 1 100220000005010068
0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 29. Lincoln Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 149 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 150 of 177

Logan
600

500

400

300

200

100 10 1

0

0

0 11 7

6

5

2

6 26 38 4

0

1

80 43
0

0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 30. Logan Total MHP Backlog – High Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Menard
600

500

400

300

200

140

160 184

100
8 4 3 0 3 18 1 1 1 0 3 6 0

19 0 1 0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 31. Menard Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 150 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 151 of 177

Pinckneyville
600

500

400

300

200

100

65

7

1

0

1

5 14 1

0

0

1 18 20 28 3

0

0

31 0

0

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 32. Pinckneyville Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Pontiac
600

500

400

300

200

123

100

68

88

16 2 0 0 0 18 7 0 0 0 10 17 0

16 4 0 0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 33. Pontiac Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 151 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 152 of 177
Robinson
600 500 400 300 200 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 18 18 0

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 34. Robinson Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Shawnee
600

500

400

300

200

165 165

100

90 60

000000000000 0

15 0 0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 35. Shawnee Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 152 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 153 of 177

Stateville
600

500

400

300

200

100

31

32 32

000000000000

1 000

0

Number of Cases

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 36. Stateville Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases

Western
600

500

400 321
300

200

131

98 100

79 91

99

4 11 7 11 0

10 0 2 0

21 26 16 18 18

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 37. Western Total MHP Backlog – Moderate Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 153 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 154 of 177

Number of Cases

Appendix E
Centralia
600

500

400

300

200

144

104

100 2 9 4 0 0 15 4 0 2 2 17 25 46 38 12 8 0

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 38. Centralia Total MHP Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

Number of Cases 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total 1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days > 60 days
Total Facility Total

Sheridan
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 7 17 9 3 3 0 0 16 33
0

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 39. Sheridan Total MHP Backlog – Low/No Level of FTE Vacancies.

- 154 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 155 of 177

Number of Cases

Vandalia
600

500

400

300

200

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

7

2

4

8 23 11 8

6

41 64 4 12

0

1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
1-14 days 15-30 days 31-45 days 46-60 days
> 60 days Total
Facility Total

MH Evals

MH Tx Plans Backlog Breakdown

MH Follow Ups

Figure 40. Vandalia Total MHP Backlog – Low Level/No of FTE Vacancies.

- 155 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 156 of 177
APPENDIX 2
Implementing Gender-Responsive and Trauma-Informed Practices:
Explanation and Justification
Executive Summary
• Women are generally a low-risk, high need offending population with individual and case characteristics that are much different than the average male offending population.
• Approximately 73 percent of incarcerated women exhibit mental health problems, with many of these women struggling with substance abuse issues as well. The preferred treatment method involves a holistic, integrated approach that targets criminogenic risk/needs, mental health, and substance abuse issues simultaneously.
• A vast majority of incarcerated women report experiencing trauma prior to entering prison. Trauma and one’s response to trauma plays a heavy role in incarcerated women’s lives and should play a central role in informing institutional practices and policies.
• Gender-responsive practices involve acknowledging the differing social and political structures between men and women, high rates of violence and other trauma experienced by women, differing pathways to crime, and the unique interaction of trauma, mental health, substance use and abuse, and criminal activity in the female offending population. Further, gender-responsive principles form assessment, classification, treatment, and custodial polices through this gender-informed lens in order to provide optimal care.
• Many traditional assessment and classification instruments are inappropriate to use with female offenders as they were developed for men and validated with male samples. These tools tend to over-classify women. A gender-responsive and trauma-informed assessment that has been validated with female populations is optimal.
• Adequate mental health treatment must be responsive to women’s unique needs, pathways to crime, trauma, and family responsibilities. Equal treatment services for men and women offenders does not necessarily result in equal treatment outcomes. Strength-based approaches are essential for delivering gender-responsive treatment for women offenders.
• Women tend to present a lower institutional security risk than male offenders and are at high risk of being re-traumatized during security-related practices (e.g., searching, secluding, restraining, and monitoring). Thus, these traditional practices may be inappropriate for vulnerable women incarcerated populations.
• Implementing a quality assurance tool would provide a guideline for assessing and maintaining the institution’s therapeutic fidelity to gender-responsive practices.
- 156 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 157 of 177
• Legal considerations incorporating the Settlement Agreement, Administrative Directive, 730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5, and the literature described below is presented.
Implementing Gender-Responsive and Trauma-Informed Practices: Explanation and Justification
Women offenders are a growing population in the United States criminal justice system. While they make up a small portion of the incarcerated population relative to male offenders, the female offending population is growing at twice the rate of male offenders (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Between 1995 and 2004, the United States saw a 34 percent increase in the female incarceration rate (47 per 100,000 to 63 per 100,000; Harrison & Beck, 2005). The male incarceration rate also rose, but at a rate of only 17 percent (789 per 100,000 to 923 per 100,000; Harrison & Beck, 2005). While the female offending population is growing, their commission of violent crimes is not (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). Instead, women are more likely to commit drug and property crimes (Javdani, Sadeh, & Verona, 2012; Van Voorhis & Salsibury, 2014). Thus, generally, women are a low-risk, high-need offending population with individual and case characteristics that are much different than the average male offending population (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014).
Mental Health Needs of Women Prevalence of Needs
Female offenders often present mental health needs that differ from male offenders. Female offenders tend to have higher levels of anxiety, depression, and borderline personality disorder than their male counterparts (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Howells, Heseltine, Sarre, Davey, & Day, 2004; Veysey, 2003). According to the United States Department of Justice, approximately 73 percent of incarcerated women exhibit mental health problems, while
- 157 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 158 of 177
55 percent of incarcerated men exhibit these symptoms (James & Glaze, 2006). Women often have multiple, co-occurring mental health needs and substance abuse needs (Bloom & Covingtion, 2003; Bloom et al., 2003; Howells et al., 2004). James and Glaze (2006) report that 75 percent of women incarcerated in state prisons with a mental health disorder also struggle with substance abuse issues. To further complicate the situation, it is often difficult to parse apart these needs and determine which psychiatric issue or substance abuse issue existed first (Bloom & Covington, 2009). Thus, researchers recommend that a holistic, integrated approach to treatment that is delivered concurrently is the most effective (e.g., treating substance abuse and mental health issues simultaneously rather than sequentially) (Bloom & Covington, 2003; Bloom & Covington, 2009; Bloom et al., 2003; Howells et al., 2004). Bloom and Covington (2009) also stress that these needs must be addressed through a trauma-informed lens. Trauma
Messina and Grella (2006) summarized the existing research on traumatic histories of female offenders and concluded that between 77 percent and 90 percent of incarcerated women have experienced some form of abuse in their life. The premier resource of mental health providers, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, defines trauma as:
“Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:
• Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s) • Witnessing in person, the event(s) as it occurs to others • Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close
friend
- 158 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 159 of 177
• Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s)47” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 271).
Female offenders tend to report experiencing trauma at a higher rate than women in the community and incarcerated men (James & Glaze, 2006; McClellend, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; Messina, Burdon, Hagopian, Prendergast, 2006; Ryder, Langley, & Brownstein, 2009). Most notably, this trauma includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse (Messina et al., 2006). One study of randomly-sampled women in a Georgia prison found that nearly all participants had experienced at least one traumatic event in their lifetime, and that 81 percent of participants had experienced five or more events (Cook, Smith, Tusher, & Raiford, 2005). Trauma may include physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. This high exposure to various forms of trauma substantially increases their risk for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, depression, and substance abuse (Horwitz, Widom, & White, 2001). Messina and Grella (2006) notes in their study of incarcerated women that a strong link exists between childhood or adult trauma and behavioral problems (including criminal activity), substance dependence, and mental health problems.
A history of trauma is an important factor to consider in the context of female offending and may inform unique pathways to crime for women. English, Widom, and Brandford (2001) compared women with a history of abuse and neglect to a control group who did not report these experiences to examine the effect of trauma on criminal behavior. These researchers found that women who had experienced trauma were four times more likely to be arrested in their youth, twice as likely to be arrested in adulthood, and seven times as likely to be arrested in adulthood for a violent crime (English et al., 2001). This indicates that trauma plays a heavy role in the
47 This last criterion is related to the work of first responders. - 159 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 160 of 177
lives of female offenders and offers an explanation for the need for trauma-informed policies and practices when handling and caring for women offenders.
Basic Principles of Offender Classification: Risk, Need, and Responsivity Risk
An offender’s risk to recidivate is paramount to the assessment, classification, and treatment process. One’s risk level should match the level of services provided to them (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). For example, a high risk offender should be provided with a higher level of services. A high level or services for a low risk offender would be inappropriate. An offender may possess static (e.g., age, criminal history, childhood upbringing) or dynamic risk factors (the “Big Eight”; Andrews & Bonta, 2003, 2010; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996). Though static predictors are very important in determining risk, they cannot change and thus should not be the target of recidivism-reducing interventions (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). A large body of research identifies eight criminogenic risk/need factors (the “Big Eight”) that influence criminal behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Andrews and Bonta (2010) list the “Big Eight” as: 1) antisocial behavior; 2) antisocial personality; 3) antisocial attitudes; 4) antisocial associates; 5) dysfunctional family and/or marital circumstances; 6) problematic school and/or work circumstances; 7) lack of positive leisure activities; 8) substance abuse. These factors are changeable attributes and are suitable targets for intervention. Need
An offender’s needs refer to criminogenic needs should be addressed during interventions to reduce their likelihood of recidivism. These include characteristics of the offender, their personal history, and their social situation that are directly related to their risk of recidivism (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). An individual may have non-criminogenic needs such as physical
- 160 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 161 of 177
health problems or psychological distress. However, criminogenic needs such as antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates, low self-control, substance abuse issues, lack of education or vocational skills, lack of family supports or dysfunctional familial relationships, and poor use of leisure time should be the primary focus of interventions intended to mitigate criminal reoffending (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Responsivity
The responsivity principle asserts that intervention results are optimal when the intervention service is delivered in a way that best suits the ability and learning style of the offender (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Essentially, this principle focuses on how the intervention should be delivered in order to achieve an optimal treatment response (e.g., reduction in recidivism). This principle is made up of broad and specific responsivity. An intervention incorporating broad responsivity principles involves a structured intervention curriculum (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapies), warm and empathetic delivery, and a firm but fair approach (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Specific responsivity is achieved when considerations are made for the gender, ethnicity, literacy, and intelligence of the offenders intended to receive the intervention (Blanchette & Brown, 2006).
Gender-Responsive and Trauma-Informed Principles and Practices Due to the growing body of evidence detailing the differences between men and women in the correctional system, and most notably the inappropriateness of classifying, securing, and treating women the same as male offenders, many state and federal agencies are moving toward gender-responsive practices and programming (Bloom et al., 2005; Harris & Lurigio, 2009; Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). Bloom and Covington (2009) and Salisbury and Van Voorhis (2009) state that gender-responsivity involves acknowledging the differing social and political
- 161 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 162 of 177
structures between men and women, high rates of violence and other trauma experienced by women, differing pathways to crime between men and women, and the unique interaction of trauma, mental health, substance use and abuse, and criminal activity in the female offending population. Advocates for gender-responsivity emphasize using a ‘gendered’ lens when developing correctional polices and taking extra care to account for trauma and other social issues faced by female offenders (Bloom et al., 2005; Harris & Lurigio, 2009; Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). It should be noted that gender-responsive assessment, classification, and treatment goes beyond simply having a female caseload managed by a female staff member (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). Strategies Toward Gender-Responsivity
Bloom and colleagues (2003, 2005) developed a gender-responsive strategy for women offenders during a three-year study commissioned by the United States National Institute of Corrections. First, the institution holding the responsibility of incarcerating female offenders must acknowledge that men and women offenders are different in terms of presence and magnitude of specific risks and needs, pathways to offending, responses to security, and risk to reoffend. Second, behavioral change is most likely to be achieved when the change can be facilitated in a safe and respectful environment preventing them from being re-victimized or retraumatized. Third, policies and programs that incorporate family, children, and spouses/significant others are most likely to be effective in promoting prosocial change. Fourth, a holistic approach should be incorporated to address mental health issues, trauma, and substance abuse in an integrated, simultaneous fashion. The fifth principle advocates for offering education and vocational training to female offenders to remove barriers that may prevent them from being crime-free. Sixth, efforts should be made to collaborate with community and institutional
- 162 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 163 of 177
resources to foster a strong support system upon release (e.g., reentry services, community mental health care centers, family service agencies, emergency shelters, self-help groups, etc.).
Offender Assessment and Classification The assessment and classification of offenders is an important tool used by institutions for the primary purpose of risk management, but also serves to identify treatment needs, inform security designations, release decision-making, and advise other correctional decisions (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Austin (1986) discussed the necessity of these tools by stating “a properly functioning classification system is the “brain” of prison management as it governs inmate movement, housing and program participation, which in turn heavily influence fiscal decisions on staffing levels and future budget needs” (p. 304). But, Do Current Assessment Tools Apply to Women? A vast majority of offender assessment and classification instruments are “genderneutral” (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). These measures were developed using male offender samples, then were later applied to women. “Gender-neutral” measures are intended to be impartial to gender; however, the normative standard for these measures is male (Brennan, 1998). Many researchers have concluded that this is inappropriate for female offenders because traditional risk-based classification tools over-classify women (e.g., categorize women at higher levels of risk than they actually are; Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Bloom, 2000). Improper classification leads to the over-supervision and improper custody placement of women and delivering services that are not actually meeting their needs (Handyman, 2001). Olson, Alderdan, and Lurigio (2003) examined various traditional predictor variables of committing future offenses. The researchers’ compared the predictive accuracy of these predictors of the male sample and female sample. Their findings indicate that fewer predictor
- 163 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 164 of 177
variables accurately predicted re-arrest for the female-only sample than the male-only sample. Further, the magnitude and effect direction of several of the predictor variables was different for male and female samples (Olson et al., 2003). Brown and Motiuk (2005) also note that it is not the current criminogenic risk or need principles in general that contribute to the inappropriate classification of women offenders, but which risk and need variables are emphasized in traditional assessment measures. For example, family contact, relationships, current or prior mental health issues, economic marginality, self-injury, and child abuse or other victimization are much more salient variables for women’s security classification and risk prediction than men (Blanchette, 2005; Gido, 2009; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). Toward Effective Gender-Responsive Assessment
An effective assessment for female offenders should be centered around empiricallysupported criminogenic risk factors, but also incorporate the context of female-specific risks, needs, and identify histories of trauma. Traumatic experiences may complicate adjustment to the prison environment, complicate engagement in therapeutic efforts, and more accurately inform staff and service providers of their unique needs (Harris & Lurigio, 2009). The assessment must also incorporate strength-based areas including abilities, skills, and protective factors. Importantly, assessments should be built with a female-only population in mind (incorporating appropriate risks/needs and strengths) and validated with female-only samples (Harris & Lurigio, 2009).
To obtain an accurate assessment and minimize any potential harm or re-traumatization, staff responsible for conducting the assessment must undergo gender-responsive and traumainformed training (Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2012). Training should include educating staff members on the differences between male and female offenders, motivational
- 164 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 165 of 177
interviewing, gender-specific case management, building rapport and trust with the women, and approaching all assessment, treatment, and custodial duties with sensitivity (Wright et al., 2012).
Women’s Risk Need Assessment. One example of a gender-responsive risk/needs assessment tool for women offenders is the Women’s Risk Need Assessment instrument. This tool was developed by researchers at the University of Cincinnati and the National Institute of Corrections in light of the strong evidence supporting the need for an effective assessment measure that incorporates the unique criminogenic needs and life experiences of female offenders, as well as empirically-supported gender-neutral criminogenic risk factors (Van Voorhis, Salisbury, Wright, & Bauman, 2008; Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2010). Topics such as abuse, victimization, mental health issues, dysfunctional interpersonal relationships, child care issues, self-esteem, and self-efficacy are included to provide a more holistic look at the individual’s life and presenting needs and strengths. The Women’s Risk Need Assessment has been validated in several jurisdictions across the United States and with several types of women offenders (e.g., inmates, probationers, and parolees (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014; Van Voorhis et al., 2008; Van Voorhis et al., 2010).
Service Planning Instrument for Women. The Service Planning Instrument (SPIn) is an assessment and case management tool originally designed for male offenders. A genderresponsive version of this assessment, the Service Planning Instrument for Women (SPIn-W) was developed in order to be more sensitive to women’s risks and needs (Van Voorhis & Salibury, 2014). This assessment tool contains 11 domains to measure women’s risk, criminogenic needs, and strengths. The SPIn and SPIn-W have exhibited moderate to high levels of predictive validity (Jones & Robinson, 2017). Further, Jones and Robinson (2017) notes that the inclusion of
- 165 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 166 of 177
women’s strengths in the SPIn-W improves the assessment’s predictive validity above risk/needs-only assessments (Jones & Robinson, 2017).
Gender-Responsive and Trauma-Informed Mental Health Treatment Bloom, Owen, and Covington (2003) assert that the recognition and incorporation of traumatic experiences into women’s treatment plans is one of the most significant developments in female mental health care in the past several decades. It is of the utmost importance for practitioners to be sensitive to these experiences and incorporate trauma treatment into other interventions (e.g., mental health or addiction; Bloom & Covington, 2009). Bloom and Covington (2009), Elliot, Bjelajac, Fallot, Markoff, and Reed (2005), and Harris and Fallot (2001) note that it is necessary for service providers to be trauma-informed and to deliver trauma-informed services for the intervention to be effective. In fact, Elliot and colleagues (2005) assert that gender-responsive and trauma-informed services are so critical to the effective care and rehabilitation of offenders that organizations that do not adhere to these principles should be considered “trauma-denied”. Tenants of Best Practices Harris and Fallot (2001) advise that trauma-informed services must: take the traumatic experiences into account, avoid triggering or re-traumatizing the individual, alter the service provider and organization’s behavior to support the individual’s coping capacity, support successful trauma-management so the individual can benefit from all rehabilitative services. Similarly, Bloom and Covington (2009) offer the following steps for delivering trauma-informed treatment: educate women on various types of trauma, how to identify these experiences, how to identify symptoms of PTSD, validate women’s reactions and express to them that they are
- 166 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 167 of 177
normal reactions considering their situation, and recommend coping techniques (e.g., breathing and relaxation exercises; Bloom & Covington, 2009).
Strength-based approaches are also crucial to implementing an effective treatment program. These approaches shift the focus from managing risk and avoiding harm to enhancing the abilities of the offender (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Sorbello and colleagues (2002) also emphasizes the need for identifying and addressing internal and external obstacles that women face that may better inform their pathway to crime. Obstacles may include skill deficits, maladaptive attitudes, and inadequate social supports. These needs must be addressed through rehabilitative efforts by identifying ways the offender may lead stable and rewarding lives, while considering their individual abilities, temperament, skills, commitment to change, and support networks (Sorbello et al., 2002). Bloom and Covington (2009) note that an emphasis should be placed on supporting the women through identifying and addressing their symptoms and other problems, not on confrontation.
Bloom and Covington (2009) advocate for women-facilitated therapy groups. These researches summarize that a large body of literature indicates that group therapy (e.g., mental health groups) comprised of women is best delivered when led by a woman due to responsivity principles. Women may be uncomfortable discussing their mental health issues, addiction issues, sexual histories, prior abuse and other trauma, childcare concerns, and other personal issues with men present (even as a trained facilitator; Bloom & Covington, 2009). Facilitating a safe environment is essential for effective, trauma-informed treatment that adheres to genderresponsive principles (Bloom 2003, 2005; Center for Mental Health Services, 2005). Psychotropic Medication Management
- 167 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 168 of 177
The landmark case of Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), established several elements of minimal mental health care including proper screening and evaluation, treatment that is more substantive than seclusion or supervision, treatment delivered by mental health professionals, accurate record-keeping, suicide prevention programs, and guidelines for the use of psychotropic medications. Institutional staff tasked with administering psychotropic medication must take extra care in safeguarding against inappropriate and excessive use (Harris & Lurigio, 2009). Women offenders are especially vulnerable to overmedication as a form of behavioral control (Harris & Lurigio, 2009). American Psychiatric Association standards for adequate care maintain that all correctional institutions must have a full range of psychotropic medication on site that is on par with community mental health standards of care (Harris & Lurigio, 2009). Further, institutions serving women must allocate sufficient resources to serve these offenders with mental illness (e.g., lower psychiatrist-to-offender ratio than found in male institutions; Harris & Lurigio, 2009).
Security Concerns Traditional searching, secluding, restraining, monitoring, and other security-related practices that are typically implemented identically for male and female incarcerated populations may be inappropriate for women (Bloom et al., 2003; Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). Not only do women tend to present lower levels of violence and thus pose a lower institutional security risk, but these practices may also cause harm by traumatizing or re-traumatizing women in custody (Bloom & Covington, 2009; Farr, 2000; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). The Center for Mental Health Services (2005) recommends training security staff in trauma-informed practices and reducing the amount of seclusion and restraint used with female offenders.
- 168 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 169 of 177
Offenders and staff report an increased sense of safety when this reduction is implemented (Center for Mental Health Services, 2005).
The American Psychological Association also notes that staff must be cautious in using seclusion and restraint with women due to the significant effect of trauma in women offender’s lives and potential for re-traumatization (Weinstein, 2000). Further, Daniel (2006) and Harris and Lurigio (2009) caution that isolation may also put female offenders at an elevated risk of self-harm or suicide. Dirks (2004) notes that the mere presence of male correctional officers’ in women’s facilities may re-traumatize female offenders and perpetuate the existing power imbalances. This may be particularly relevant for especially vulnerable incarcerated women, such as those with a serious mental illness or who pose a high risk for suicide. Promoting a safe and secure environment is paramount to avoiding re-traumatization and managing female offenders with gender-responsive principles (Bloom & Covington, 2009).
Some practices, such as strip searches, may also re-traumatize female offenders particularly if a woman has a history of sexual abuse (Easteal, 2001). While abolishing strip searches entirely would be unreasonable as they are a primary strategy in fighting against transporting contraband, these practices should be mitigated and only used when completely necessary. An investigation by Davies and Cook (1998) on the use and findings of these searches revealed that one Australian prison conducted 506 strip searches in one month with none of these searches turning up any contraband. Several months later, this prison conducted 595 strip searches and discovered two cigarettes during the month (Davies & Cook, 1998). This finding provides evidence for potential over-use of this strategy and an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
Quality Assurance in Gender-Responsive Principles
- 169 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 170 of 177
The Gender-Informed Practices Assessment (GIPA) is a tool for assessing an institution or program’s therapeutic fidelity to gender-responsive principles developed by the National Institute of Corrections and the Center for Effective Public Policy (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). This instrument contains 12 domains consistent with evidence-based gender-responsive principles. The GIPA is intended to assist institutions in developing and maintaining practices that are grounded in empirically-driven gender-responsive elements (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). The assessment covers the following domains: leadership and philosophy, external support, facility, management and operations, staffing and training, facility culture, offender management, assessment and classification, case and transitional planning, research-based program areas, services, quality assurance and evaluation.
References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd edn). Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing Company. Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New
Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. Blanchette, K. (2005). Field-test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female
offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Bloom, B. (2000). Beyond recidivism: Perspectives on evaluation of programs for female offenders in community corrections. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections (pp. 107-138). Arlington, VA: American Correctional Association. Bloom, B., & Covington, S.S. (2009). Addressing the mental health needs of women offenders. In R.L Gido & L. Dalley (Eds.), Women’s mental health issues across the criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
- 170 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 171 of 177
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S.S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies for women offenders: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders (NIC Accession Number 018017).
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S.S. (2005). A summary of research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. The gender responsive strategies project: Approach and findings (Accession Number 020418).
Brennan, T. (1998). Institutional classification of females: Problems and some proposals for reform. In R.T. Zaplin (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions (pp.179-204). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
Center for Mental Health Services. (2005). Roadmap to seclusion and restraint free mental health services (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 05-4055). Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
Cook, S., Smith, S., Tusher, C., & Raiford, J. (2005). Self-reports of traumatic events in a random sample of incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(1/2), 107-126).
Covingtion, S. (2003). Beyond trauma: A healing journey for women. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Daniel, A.E. (2006). Preventing suicide in prison: A collaborative responsibility of administrative, custodial, and clinical staff. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 165-175.
Davies, S., & Cook, S. (1998). Women, imprisonment and post release mortality. Just Policy, 14, 15-21.
Dirks, D. (2004). Sexual revictimization and retraumatization of women in prison. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32, 102-115.
Easteal, P. (2001). Women in Australia prisons: The cycle of abuse and dysfunctional environments. The Prison Journal, 18, 81-112.
Elliot, D.E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R.D., Markoff, L.S., & Reed, B.G. (2005). Trauma-informed or trauma denied: Principles and implementation of trauma-informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 461-477.
English, D., Widom, C., & Brandford, C. (2001). Childhood victimization and delinquency, adult criminality, and violent criminal behavior: A replication and extension. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice.
Farr, K.A. (2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 3-17.
- 171 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 172 of 177
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-607.
Gido, R.L. (2009). The mental health needs of female offenders across the criminal justice system. In R.L Gido & L. Dalley (Eds.), Women’s mental health issues across the criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hardyman, P.L (2001). Validation and refinement of objective prison classification systems for women: The experience of four states and common themes. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections, National Institute of Corrections.
Hardyman, P., & Van Voorhis, P.V. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. National Institute for Corrections (NIC Accession Number 018931).
Harris M., & Fallot, R.D. (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, A., & Lurigio, A.J. (2009). Prison-based programming for women with serious mental illness. In R.L Gido & L. Dalley (Eds.), Women’s mental health issues across the criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Harrison, P.M. & Beck, A.J. (2005). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2004 (NCJ 208801).
Horwitz, A., Widom, C., & White, H. (2001). The impact of childhood abuse and neglect on adult mental health: A prospective study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 4(2), 184-210.
Howells, K., Heseltine, K., Sarre, R., Davey, L., Day, A. (2004). Correctional offender rehabilitation programs: The national picture of Australia. Forensic Research Group, Centre for Applied Psychological Research: University of South Australia.
James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates (NCJ 213600). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Government Printing Office.
Javdani, S., Sadeh, N., & Verona, E. (2011). Gendered social forces: A review of the impact of institutionalized factors on women and girls’ criminal justice trajectories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 161-211.
Jones, N.J., & Robinson, D. (2017). Service Planning Instrument (SPIn). In J.P. Singh, D.G. Kroner, J.S. Wormith, S.L. Desmarais, & Z. Hamilton (Eds.). Handbook of recidivism risk/needs assessment tools. Online: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Lewis, C. (2006). Treating incarcerated women: Gender matters. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29, 773-789.
- 172 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 173 of 177
McClellan, D., Farabee, D., & Crouch, B. (1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 455476.
Messina, N., Burdon, W., Hagopian, G., & Pendergast, M. (2006). Predictors of prison therapeutic communities treatment outcomes: A comparison of men and women participants. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 31, 7-28.
Messina, N., & Grella, C. (2006). Childhood trauma and women’s health outcomes: A California prison population. The American Journal of Public Health, 96(10), 1842-1848.
Olson, D.E., Alderden, M., & Lurigio, A.J. (2003). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, but what role does gender play in probation recidivism? Justice Research and Policy, 5(2), 33-54.
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980).
Ryder, J.A., Langley, S., & Brownstein, H. (2009). “I’ve been around and around and around”: Measuring traumatic events in the lives of incarcerated girls. In R.L Gido & L. Dalley (Eds.), Women’s mental health issues across the criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Salisbury, E.J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541-566.
Sorbello, L., Eccleston, L., Ward, T., & Jones, R. (2002). Treatment needs of female offenders: A review. Australian Psychologist, 37, 196-205.
Van Voorhis, P.V., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, D.C: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Van Voorhis, P.V., & Salisbury, E.J. (2014). Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation (8th ed.). Waltham, MA: Elsevier Inc.
Van Voorhis, P.V., Wright, E., Salisbury, E.J., Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of gender responsive assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261-288.
Van Voorhis, P.V., Salisbury, E.J., Wright, E., Bauman, A. (2008). Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender-responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Veysey, B.M. (July, 2003). Adolescent girls with mental health disorders involved in the juvenile justice system (Research and Program Brief). Washington, DC: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.
- 173 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 174 of 177
Weinstein, H.C. (2000). Psychiatric services in jails and prisons: A task force report of the American Psychiatric Association (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Wright, E.M., Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E.J., & Bauman, A. (2012). Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1612-1632.
APPENDIX Legal Considerations 730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5 Women’s Division. Gender-Responsive Practices 730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5 (a) states that “gender-responsive” is defined as taking into account gender specific differences identified in women-centered research including “socialization, psychological development, strengths, risk factors, pathways through systems, responses to treatment intervention and other unique gender specific needs facing justice-involved women.” Further, “Gender-responsive policies, practices, programs, and services shall be implemented in a manner that is considered relational, culturally competent, family-centered, holistic, strength-based, and trauma-informed.” Trauma-Informed Practices
- 174 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 175 of 177
730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5 (a) also defines “trauma-informed practices” as those “incorporating gender violence research and the impact of all forms of trauma in designing and implementing policies, practices, processes, programs, and services that involve understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of all types of trauma with emphasis on physical, psychological, and emotional safety.”
Authority of the Women’s Division In accordance with 730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5 (b)(2), (3) and (4), the Women’s Division is
tasked with implementing evidence-based, gender-responsive, trauma-informed practices for the operations and programs under the jurisdiction of the Women’s Division. This includes training, orientation, and curriculum.
730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5 (b)(5) and (6) grants the Women’s Division authority to implement validated gender-responsive assessment/classification tools and a case management system that properly covers risk, needs, and assets.
Settlement Agreement Offender’s Orientation
According to Settlement Agreement § VI(a), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s orientation process upon initial reception to IDOC facilities. Thus, special efforts should be made to emphasize genderresponsive and trauma-informed services and treatment available for female offenders. The orientation should be tailored to their needs.
Screening and Evaluation
- 175 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 176 of 177
Settlement Agreement § IV(g) and (h) states that all offenders admitted to an IDOC facility must see a Mental Health Professional within 48 hours and complete a Mental Health Screening, DOC 0372 and an interview to identify mental health needs, suicidal ideation/intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, or current or past use of psychotropic medications, or any conditions requiring immediate intervention. Further, If the Mental Health Professional feels it is clinically necessary, the offender must undergo a second interview and the completion of the Mental Health Evaluation, DOC 0374 with a Mental Health Offender. There is no indication that a separate process is available for female offenders. Per the literature, a gender-responsive assessment that is sensitive to the unique needs of women is crucial. Thus, “adequate mental health services” (Administrative Directive 04.04.100 § I(B)) must include gender-specific intake and evaluation tool. Treatment Plan
According to Settlement Agreement § VII(a) and (b), offenders in the on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. This shall include treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and the staff conducting the treatment activities. These components must be recorded in Mental Health Treatment Plan, IDOC Form 0284 or its equivalent. There is no specific indication that treatment must differ between male and female offenders, but the literature suggests that gender-responsive and trauma-informed treatment that incorporates a strengthbased approach is the most effective. Thus, “adequate mental health services” (Administrative Directive 04.04.100 § I(B)) must include these practices. Housing Placement of SMI Offenders
- 176 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2122 Page 177 of 177

Settlement Agreement § XIV(a) states that “In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing

assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs

of the offender.” In order to provide “adequate mental health services” (Administrative Directive

04.04.100 § I(B)), special care should be taken to mitigate inappropriate and unnecessary usage

of searching, secluding, restraining, and monitoring female SMI offenders as described in the

literature. Further, a large body of research concludes that women tend to present a lower

institutional security risk than men.

Staff Training

AD 04.04.100

According to AD 04.04.100 § II(G)(1), “Training on identification of mental health

issues and the procedures for referring offenders to the facility’s Office of Mental Health

Management shall be included in pre-service training for all new facility employees and shall be

reviewed annually during cycle training. Training curricula shall be developed in consultation

with the Chief of Mental Health and approved by the Office of Staff Development and Training.”

Through authority of 730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5(b)(4), the Women’s Division should be included in the

last sentence. Also, 730 ILCS 5/3-2-5.5(b)(4) grants authority to mandate that gender-responsive

and trauma-informed training be required for all new facility employees.

- 177 -

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 1 of 50

E-FILED
Tuesday, 30 October, 2018 03:31:07 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiff, v.
ROGER E. WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-1298

)

)

)

)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No.

2112) and Motion for Order on Payment of Deferred Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 2233). For the

reasons stated herein, the Motion for Permanent Injunction is GRANTED insofar as the Court

finds permanent injunctive relief is necessary to address the constitutional deficiencies in the

Defendants’ care and treatment of mentally ill inmates. As previously scheduled, Defendants are

given 14 days to submit their proposed action(s) to address the constitutional deficiencies outlined

herein. (Minute Entry dated 9/28/2018). Plaintiffs have seven days thereafter to file their response

to the Defendants’ proposal. Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order on Payment of

Deferred Attorneys’ Fees is DENIED without prejudice.

OVERVIEW OF THE ACTION

This case is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (ECF No. 711-1 at 1). Plaintiffs

challenge the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to mentally ill prisoners in the

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 2 of 50
physical custody and control of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC” or “Department”). Id.
On August 14, 2015, this Court certified a class in this case for purposes of litigation, and pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition. (ECF No. 252 at 7). As of June 21, 2018, there were approximately 40,237 inmates in the custody of the IDOC, of whom more than 12,228 are believed to be mentally ill. (ECF No. 2286 at 2; see also ECF No. 1758 at 50, testimony of Defendant Dr. Melvin Hinton (“Dr. Hinton”)). Approximately 5,112 of these inmates are considered “seriously mentally ill (“SMI”).” (Id.; ECF No. 1758 at 51, testimony of Dr. Hinton; see also ECF No. 1966-1 at 2, Plaintiffs place the number at 4,843). As of June 30, 2018, 9,576 of the inmates were on the IDOC psychiatric caseload. (ECF No. 2286 at 2). As of July 2018, 913 inmates on the IDOC mental health caseload were housed in segregation. Id. Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Keith Walker, Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Fredricka Lyles, Clara Plair, Desiree Hollis, and Crystal Stoneburner serve as the class representatives. The Defendants are John Baldwin, the Acting Director of the IDOC, and Dr. Hinton, the Department’s Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction Recovery Services. On December 17, 2015, the Parties announced they had entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving the action set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this matter. (See Minute Entry dated 12/17/2015; ECF No. 711-1; and
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 3 of 50
ECF No. 260). Notice of the Settlement was given to the class members and a fairness hearing was held on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 289; Minute Entry dated 5/13/2016). During the hearing, the Court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, over the voluminous objections that were filed by various inmates1. Id. The executed Settlement Agreement can be found in this docket, and is referred to herein as the “Settlement Agreement.” (ECF No. 711-1). The instant Motion is brought alleging violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Constitution. The procedural history is sufficiently captured in this Court’s Order dated May 25, 2018, and will not be recited, provided however, the Court will detail the additional history occurring after the entry of its Preliminary Injunction Order. (ECF No. 2070 at 2-11).
On June 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Permanent Injunction requesting that the Court hold a hearing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and upon making the necessary merits determination, enter an order converting the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order to a permanent injunction. (ECF No. 2112).
On June 8, 2018, Dr. Pablo Stewart’s Second Annual Report was docketed. (ECF No. 2122). In his Report, Dr. Stewart provides that “the Department is noncompliant with 18 of 25 [Settlement Agreement terms] and substantially compliant in only 3 [terms] (orientations, housing assignments and training) [and] [a]s is explained more fully in the body of the report, these noncompliance ratings are primarily due to inadequate staffing.” (ECF No. 2122 at 9). It should also be noted that Dr. Stewart presented the Court with a Monitor Chart Review Report during the permanent injunction hearing. (Pl. Ex. 53). In the report, Dr. Stewart provided his assessment of the IDOC’s compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order. His assessment included a review of mental health charts at several institutions. The general methodology used was to
1 All objections have been filed in this docket.
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 4 of 50
assign a rating of “1, 2, or 3,” with 1 being non-compliance, 2 being partial compliance, and 3 indicating compliance. During his testimony, however, certain information regarding the methodology was revealed that gave this Court pause in considering the data. Most notably, it was revealed that one of the assistant monitors collecting the data used a different methodology in her rating. Given that, the Court cannot give significant weight to the Monitor’s findings in that regard.
On July 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Order requesting that the Court enter an order enforcing their right to the fees previously awarded, but deferred, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 2233). On August 3, 2018, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion for Order. (ECF No. 2276). The Defendants argued, among other things, the Court had not made, by entry of the Preliminary Injunction Order, a finding of an actual violation of the Plaintiffs’ federal rights. (ECF No. 2276 at 2).
Between August 27, 2018, and September 7, 2018, testimony and evidence were taken and arguments were made in support of the Parties’ respective positions on the Motion for Permanent Injunction. The Parties were given the opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs in support of their positions. (ECF Nos. 2405, 2406, and 2407). The Parties were also given the opportunity to provide written submissions addressing the current status of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF Nos. 2424 and 2427). This Order follows.
SUMMARY OF DECISION Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates suffering from serious mental illnesses are entitled to adequate medical care. To establish a constitutional violation, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, specifically in this case their mental health needs. “[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 5 of 50
constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citations omitted). Having fully considered the evidence and testimony presented during the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings, the Court finds that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs in medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. In this case, the overwhelming evidence establishes that at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiffs’ medical needs. Most notably, the evidence showed that there were systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing that effectively denied the Plaintiffs access to adequate medical care.
At the permanent injunction hearing, Defendants’ evidence emphasized the changes to the delivery of mental health services that had been implemented by the IDOC after this Court’s Order dated May 25, 2018. The Defendants have implemented policies and procedures that have created improvements in the overall delivery of mental health services. However, the record still shows there are systemic and gross deficiencies in the staffing of mental health providers that have a serious detrimental effect on the overall delivery of medical services to the Plaintiffs. Moreover, while there has been a decrease in the overall backlog of mental health contacts, the Defendants have relied heavily on the use of overtime to achieve these results. The testimony of the Defendants’ own witnesses reveals this practice is unsustainable and there is no Plan B.
This litigation has unfolded for over a decade. In that time, some changes have been made to increase the quality of care for mentally ill inmates, but it is not enough. Despite the recent serious efforts by the Defendants, the Court finds that a permanent injunction is necessary to force
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 6 of 50
the Defendants to adequately staff their institutions with the necessary mental health providers and other personnel to provide the constitutionally required care.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On May 23, 2016, the last signature was acquired on the Settlement Agreement purportedly resolving the decade long dispute between the Parties. (ECF No. 711-1 at 33). The Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive document with the purpose of reaching an agreement that settled the litigation in a manner that is “fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the interests of all parties.” (ECF No. 711-1 at 2). The Settlement Agreement allows for the Plaintiffs to seek relief from this Court if there is a dispute as to whether or not the Defendants are in substantial compliance with the terms contained therein. (ECF No. 711-1 at 29). The Settlement Agreement specifically provides: f) If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to achieve compliance. g) to permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court, the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court’s assistance as to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding that the relief sought is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so. (ECF No. 711-1 at 30) (emphasis added). The Court has previously found that a preliminary injunctive hearing was an appropriate mechanism under the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (“PLRA”). Defendants objected to that procedure arguing Plaintiffs would never have the obligation of actually proving there had been a violation of federal law. (ECF No. 1709 at 2). The Court disagreed and noted that the Plaintiffs would ultimately need to seek
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 7 of 50
permanent relief at some point. That, of course, is what the Plaintiffs have done with the filing of
their Motion for Permanent Injunction.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs specifically note they have not moved for enforcement of the
Preliminary Injunction Order under Section XXIX(i) of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No.
2424 at 2). Plaintiffs instead argue they are seeking relief under Section XXIX(d), (f), and (g).
The Parties appear to generally agree an action under Section XXIX(d), (f), and (g) would not
abrogate the Settlement Agreement. As for an action pursuant to Section XXIX(i), the answer
appears more questionable. Section XXIX(i) provides:
If Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with an order entered under the preceding paragraphs, they may, after reasonable notice and meeting with Defendants, move for further relief from the Court to obtain compliance with the Court’s prior order. The Court may apply equitable principles and may use any appropriate equitable or remedial power available to it. This may include returning the case to the active docket and setting a trial date. The information gathered by the Monitor during the life of this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor’s reports, including all reports and material supplied by Defendants, may be used in Plaintiffs’ case at such a trial, along with the testimony of the Monitor, which may address ultimate issues in this case.
(ECF No. 711-1 at 30). Plaintiffs’ current position is inconsistent with their previous position
wherein they specifically relied on Section XXIX(i) to support their position that the Monitor’s
Second Annual Report was admissible. (ECF No. 2264 at 2, “Section XXIX(i) of the Settlement
Agreement explicitly provides for the consideration of the Monitor’s report and testimony as
evidence during a trial in which Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with a court
order enforcing the Settlement Agreement.”) (Emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiffs have
asserted the position in their post-hearing brief that Defendants failed to adhere to the terms of this
Court’s May 25, 2018, Order, arguably invoking Section XXIX(i). (See e.g. ECF No. 2406 at 24).
Defendants, for their part, argue that “[o]nce the final judgment order is entered, that order
will supersede the Settlement Agreement and will provide [P]laintiffs the relief necessary to
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 8 of 50
protect their rights under federal law.” (ECF No. 2427 at 7). Defendants argue Plaintiffs have chosen to “reactivate” this case. Of course, the reality is, this case was limited to examining a limited area of the Settlement Agreement.
First and foremost, the Court finds that this Order is entered pursuant to Section XXIX(g) of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. This is the Order contemplated by the Parties under that provision. Nonetheless, whether the Plaintiffs’ permanent injunction request is brought under XXIX(g) or XXIX(i), the Court finds the Settlement Agreement remains intact. The language of the Settlement Agreement does not address the status after either such hearing. Moreover, it has been clear to both Parties that this hearing was limited to addressing five areas. This was not a “full” trial on the merits on all of the claims; nor was it a situation where the Parties tore up the Settlement Agreement to have this Court decide the outcome on all matters.
Additionally, to be clear, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is no dispute as to the Court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Parties have specifically provided for a dispute resolution process under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In order to find liability, the Court must find both a violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement AND a violation of federal law. (ECF No. 711-1 at 29-30).
In that regard, as part of their preliminary injunction request, the Plaintiffs identified five areas where they challenged the adequacy of the mental health treatment and conditions for prisoners required under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the U.S. Constitution. The five areas included: Mental Health Evaluations (ECF No. 711-1 at 8-9, Section V), Treatment Planning (ECF No. 711-1 at 9-10, Section VII), Medication Management (ECF No. 711-1 at 1516, Section XII), Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation (ECF No. 711-1 at
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 9 of 50
16-21, XV), and Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch (see e.g. ECF No. 711-1 at 3). Plaintiffs seek their permanent injunction based on violations of these same areas. (ECF No. 2286 at 2).
In this Court’s previous Order, it found that the Plaintiffs had established all of the necessary requirements for a preliminary injunction to be issued. (ECF No. 2070). The record at that time contained ample evidence to meet the preliminary injunction standard that inmates with mental illness were receiving constitutionally inadequate treatment in the areas of Mental Health Evaluations, Treatment Planning, Medication Management, Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation, and Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch. The Court specifically concluded that the testimony of almost all of the medical doctors at the preliminary injunction hearing established that, in one form or another, the system in place to treat mentally ill inmates at the IDOC was in a state of emergency. (ECF No. 2070 at 6). The Parties have agreed that all of the evidence presented in the preliminary injunction hearing is incorporated into the trial record for determination in this matter. (ECF No. 2286 at 2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2).
Now Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order converting the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order to a permanent injunction. (ECF No. 2112). In determining whether a permanent injunction should issue, the analysis generally requires a court to consider: (1) whether the plaintiff has suffered or will suffer irreparable injury, (2) whether there are inadequate remedies available at law to compensate for the injury, (3) the balance of hardships, and (4) the public interest. Sierra Club v. Franklin Cty. Power of Illinois, LLC, 546 F.3d 918, 935 (7th Cir. 2008) citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006); e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 604 (7th Cir. 2007). This Court must also consider the parameters of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement as noted above. In sum, in order for the Plaintiffs to establish that they suffered (or will suffer) irreparable injury, the Court finds that it must determine whether, by a preponderance
9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 10 of 50
of the evidence, the Plaintiffs have proven that the violations of the Settlement Agreement have occurred, and that these violations of the Settlement Agreement establish a constitutional (or other federal right) violation.
DISCUSSION All parties and the Monitor recognize the immensity of the challenges facing the IDOC in providing constitutionally adequate mental health care. (Pl. Ex. 9, IDOC’s Proposed Remedial Plan dated April 17, 2014). As noted above, the Plaintiffs argue the Defendants are not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement in the areas of Mental Health Evaluations, Treatment Planning, Medication Management, Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation, and Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch. After the preliminary injunction hearing, the Defendants generally acknowledged they had not fully complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 1965 at 5). At that point, the Defendants instead argued the evidence at the hearing was insufficient for this Court to make a finding that there has been a systemic lack of substantial compliance. (ECF No. 1965 at 5, Defendants argued “although the Court finds the Department has not fully complied with all aspects of the Settlement Agreement, a finding of a systemic lack of substantial compliance is not supported by the record.”). During the permanent injunction hearing, the Defendants primarily focused on what had changed between the preliminary injunction hearing and the permanent injunction hearing. It should be noted that after the permanent injunction hearing, Defendants again acknowledge they are not in full compliance with all of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. However, they argued that “the IDOC now has the leadership, staffing, facilities, and procedures and policies in place to ensure that mentally ill prisoners are reasonably protected against significant harm of decompensation, and are receiving the ‘minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities’ that are
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 11 of 50
required to meet ‘contemporary standards of decency’ required to provide constitutionally adequate care. (ECF No. 2405 at 3).
In support of their case, Defendants offered the testimony of: (1) Baldwin (ECF No. 2370); (2) Jack Yen, M.D., Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2370); (3) Inna Mirsky, Ph.D. (ECF No. 2370); (4) Dr. Hinton (ECF Nos. 2371 and 2372); (5) William Puga, M.D. IDOC Chief of Psychiatry (ECF No. 2372); (6) Amy Mercer, Illinois Regional Mental Health Quality Assurance Coordinator for Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2373); (7) Elaine Gedman; Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer at Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2373); (8) William Elliott, Ph.D., Regional Mental Health Director for Illinois at Wexford Health Sources (ECF Nos. 2373 and 2374); (9) Holly Andrilla, Defendants’ Expert Witness (ECF No. 2375; see also Df. Ex. 62, CV of Andrilla); (10) Jeffrey Sim, Statewide Mental Health Quality Improvement Manager, IDOC (ECF No. 2375); (11) Melissa Stromberger, Ph.D., Psychologist Administrator for Hill Correctional Center (ECF No. 2376); (12) Kelly Ann Renzi, Ph.D., Psychologist Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 2376); (13) Al Doyle, M.D., Staff Psychiatrist at Dixon Correctional Center (ECF No. 2377); and (14) Cheri Laurent, Vice President of Special Projects for Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2377).
In support of their position, Plaintiffs called: (1) Pablo Stewart, M.D., Court Monitor (ECF No. 2374); (2) Joe Champ, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 2376); (3) Ralph Kings, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 236); and (4) Anthony Gay, former inmate within the IDOC (ECF No. 2376). In addition to the testimony taken during the permanent injunction hearing, the Court has also considered the testimony taking during the preliminary injunction hearing, including the testimony of: (1) Dr. Stewart (ECF Nos. 1757, 1758, 1903 and 1905); (2) Michael Dempsey, M.D., former staff psychiatrist for Wexford Health Sources from
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 12 of 50
January of 2013 until September 2015, located at Pontiac Correctional Center, former Acting Chief of Health Services, Illinois Department of Corrections, and former Chief of Psychiatry, Illinois Department of Corrections (ECF No. 1757; see also Pl. Ex. 28, CV of Dr. Dempsey); (3) Samuel Span, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 1758); Dr. Hinton (ECF Nos. 1758 and 1906); Corrie Singleton, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 1758); Gedman (ECF No. 1903); Gladyse Taylor, Assistant Director, IDOC (ECF No. 1904), Marcus Hardy, Executive Assistant to the Director of the IDOC (ECF No. 1904); Sandra Funk, Chief of Operations, IDOC (ECF No. 1904), Sim (ECF No. 1904), Mercer (nee Cantorna) (ECF No. 1904); and Dr. Puga (ECF No. 1905).
The Court will address the areas of Mental Health Evaluations, Treatment Planning, Medication Management, Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation, and Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch in turn. However, the Court initially notes that, having fully considered all of the testimony and evidence, it still concludes that the IDOC has failed to maintain adequate staffing levels to provide adequate mental health treatment in compliance with the Constitution. The Court further finds that the deficiencies in several of the areas identified have greatly improved in certain locations within the IDOC. Indeed, Defendants also provide that, particularly since the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the IDOC has continued to build and enhance an entirely new mental health care system. (ECF No. 2405 at 4). In that regard, the Defendants noted, and the Court acknowledges, the IDOC has invested more than $45 million to build new facilities and rehabilitate existing facilities to provide mental health services to the inmates. (ECF No. 1904 at 16). In addition, the IDOC notes that it has obtained funds to build a new $150 million inpatient facility at Joliet. (ECF No. 2405 at 13; ECF No. 1904 at 16, 77). These facilities will ultimately improve the care of mentally ill inmates.
12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 13 of 50
The IDOC’s inability to properly staff the institutions with psychiatrists has been a persistent problem. (ECF No. 1716, Pl. Ex. 23, providing summary staffing levels for Nov. 2015, Sept. 2016, and June 2017). At the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that the IDOC had only 29 psychiatrists available, with a system-wide need of 65 psychiatrists. (ECF No. 1758 at 48). That number has increased, and Dr. Hinton testified that Wexford is now delivering between 50 to 55 psychiatrists for their use in the correctional centers. (ECF No. 2372 at 10). Dr. Hinton maintained that Wexford has made substantial improvements in the delivery of full-time equivalents since the preliminary injunction hearing. (ECF No. 2372 at 10). Dr. Hinton also noted that the IDOC has authorized the use of unlimited overtime, use of psychologists on weekends, second shifts, telepsychiatry services at Dixon Correctional Center, and partnering with Southern Illinois University to provide additional psychiatric services at Pontiac Correctional Center and Logan Correctional Center. (ECF No. 2372 at 11, 35, 36, and 42-48). This Court agrees some improvements have been made. Nonetheless, there is still a serious deficiency in the delivery of mental health treatment, and the improvements are driven by an unsustainable use of overtime. Again, the delivery of mental health services will be discussed in the five areas below.
To be clear, the Court finds that the record presented establishes by a preponderance of the evidence, there was insufficient staffing at the IDOC at the time of the preliminary injunction. The Defendants have not generally disputed the Court’s findings on this issue. The evidence was detailed in this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order but reiterated here for the sake of completeness.
First, when asked directly about the ability to provide psychiatric care with such a deficiency in staffing, Dr. Hinton’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing was clear – the IDOC cannot deliver the required level of care. Dr. Hinton testified as follows:
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 14 of 50
Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists? A. Correct. (ECF No. 1758 at 50). Dr. Hinton was also asked about the dangers the lack of appropriate staffing can have on an individual who is taking psychotropic medicine. His testimony went as follows: Q. And you’ve heard all the ills that can come if somebody is on psychotropic medicine and it’s not being monitored, right? A. Correct. Q. And you know that’s dangerous, don’t you? A. Correct. Q. And you know that the 6,000 people are being endangered every day they’re not seen correctly; isn’t that right? A. Certainly is a concern, yes. Q. It’s more than a concern. It’s your responsibility that they get that care; isn’t that right? A. Correct. Q. And you know they’re not getting it? A. Correct. (ECF No. 1758 at 52-53). Dr. Hinton’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing regarding inmates who are in segregation was extremely troublesome. Dr. Hinton explained: Q. [ ]. Why do you have so many mentally ill people in segregation and so few regular population people in segregation? A. I think, in general, the percentage of folks who are mentally ill tend to have more behavioral issues, in part because of their mental illness.
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 15 of 50
Q. So, you've got so many of them in segregation because they do -- they don't follow the rules well, right? A. In part. Q. And has anyone, to your knowledge, wondered whether or not putting mentally ill people in segregation is good for them? A. Yes. Q. Who's done that? A. I have. Q. And what's your view? A. My view is there's nothing -- there's nothing that is a good thing about being in segregation. We need to make sure that they have proper access to treatment. Q. Now, I believe your testimony the last time I took it on that subject was it won't hurt them if we treat them with the treatment they need, right? A. Access to treatment, correct. Q. But how do you know they're getting the treatment they need if they're in segregation? A. That's why we have to make sure that there are no barriers to the access to treatment. Q. But you don't have enough people? A. Correct. Q. So, you know they're not getting the right treatment? A. We know that there's significant staffing shortages. Q. They're not getting the right kind of psychiatric care, right? A. We don't have -- correct, we don't have the right staffing requirements. Q. They're not getting enough groups because you don't have enough people to run the groups? A. Correct.
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 16 of 50
Q. And you know from your own personal judgment that if you're not doing that for people in segregation, they're going to get worse; isn't that right?
A. Across the board.
(ECF No. 1758 at 81-82) (emphasis added).
Second, Dr. Michael Dempsey, M.D., staff psychiatrist for Wexford Health Sources from
January 2013, until September 2015, who was physically located at Pontiac Correctional Center,
also testified about the lack of psychiatric staffing at the IDOC in the following manner:
Yeah, we don’t have enough psychiatrists to treat the patients. We just don’t. If I remember correctly, IDOC had projected that they needed 66-1/2 full-timeequivalent psychiatrists to provide care for the population within the IDOC. I’m not sure if we’ve reached 25 full-time-equivalents at this point since I haven’t been working there for the last six months. I know it’s not 66.
(ECF No. 1757 at 197). Dr. Dempsey further explained the problems associated with the lack of
staffing are as follows:
I believe that we didn’t have enough psychiatrists with the kind of expertise that is necessary to understand the correctional system.
Corrections is a unique environment. It takes into account the fact that a person with a serious mental illness who is not in a natural environment is somehow expected, without the kind of supports they need, to function adequately, to understand the rules, the regulations.
And when you have patients who are seriously mentally ill, who may be psychotic, who have impaired reality testing, and you put them in an environment where they’re segregated, where they’re not treated to any appropriate degree or subtherapeutically, and their options are limited, and they have to make important decisions, I find it becomes an emergent situation.
(ECF No. 1757 at 199).
Finally, when discussing the psychiatric and mental health backlog (more fully discussed
below), Dr. Stewart explained during the preliminary injunction hearing:
Well, you know -- again, that backlog can't be taken in isolation. You gotta look at the overall system. So, here we're talking about, you know, increased use of crisis
16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 17 of 50
cells, increased use of restraints, increased use of force, people suffering because of untreated mental illness. All of that has to -- is linked in some way with the fact that patients aren't being seen frequently enough or seen at all.
(ECF No. 1757 at 260)(Emphasis added). In his Mid-Year Report, Dr. Stewart further explained:
IDOC leadership has been well aware of the problems related to the insufficient amount of psychiatric services and yet has been unable to adequately solve this issue. At the time of the submission of this midyear report, however, the lack and quality of psychiatric services continues to negatively impact all aspects of the Settlement and contributes to IDOC being non-compliant in the vast majority of areas of the Settlement. Of note, these deficiencies regarding psychiatric services were reported in the First Annual Report. The Monitor personally met with Director Baldwin on 6/26/17 to discuss this problem. To date, IDOC is yet to effectively address this emergency.
(ECF No. 1646 at 9).
The record leaves no question there was constitutionally deficient care being provided by
the Defendants at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing. The Court also finds for reasons
stated herein, that despite the good efforts of the Defendants, constitutionally deficient care is still
being provided. The Court’s finding is based generally on the fact that there is insufficient mental
health staffing at the IDOC. Moreover, to the extent there have been improvements in the delivery
of mental health services, the record is clear those measures are unsustainable.
As noted above, Dr. Hinton testified at the preliminary injunction hearing as follows:
Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists?
A. Correct.
(ECF No. 1758 at 50). Dr. Hinton testified at the permanent injunction hearing that the IDOC is
now providing adequate care to mentally ill inmates. (ECF No. 2372 at 31). The Court does not
doubt the sincerity of Dr. Hinton’s current assessment. However, his current position is in stark
contrast with the evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing only three months
earlier, and therefore is viewed with considerable caution. (See ECF No. 2070, ad passim; see
17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 18 of 50
also ECF No. 2070 at 16-18, Order capturing portions of Dr. Hinton’s testimony; supra, p. 13-17). Importantly, it appears Dr. Hinton’s assessment is based largely on the fact that the IDOC has the “proper procedures in place to provide adequate treatment,” and not based on the actual care being given to inmates. (ECF No. 2375 at 5, Dr. Hinton, testifying in a deposition dated August 17, 2018, avoided addressing whether inmates were being given adequate care, instead testifying “[i]t is my testimony that we have the proper procedures in place to provide adequate treatment to all of our population.”)(Emphasis added). Additionally, it should be noted that Defendants maintain they now have the leadership, staffing, and procedures in place to provide the necessary constitutional care. (ECF No. 2405 at 16). Dr. Hinton also explained that he did not have anything to do with the certification from the IDOC that they were in compliance with the Court’s May 25, 2018, Order. (ECF No. 2372 at 18). Dr. Hinton specifically explained he was not at every prison for the “day-to-day activit[ies].” Id. It is clear the IDOC is concerned with the staffing levels of mental health providers. Baldwin testified that the IDOC continues to ask Wexford for additional mental health staff. (See also ECF No. 2370 at 95, Baldwin acknowledges that he understood that the staff Wexford is supposed to provide is the amount necessary to provide the required service). Both Baldwin and Dr. Hinton testified about expanding the relationship with Southern Illinois University and the University of Illinois to provide additional mentally health hours but at present this is de minimis. Baldwin testified about the IDOC continuing to engage in recruitment fairs.
Like Dr. Hinton, Baldwin also maintains the opinion that the IDOC has enough staff on board to provide adequate medical treatment to the mental ill inmates. (ECF NO. 2453 at 70). However, Baldwin also lacks an adequate basis for his position as it is based on the fact that the IDOC has made progress in its hiring, yet he acknowledges that he does not know to what level the hiring has been made. Id. Additionally, Baldwin testified that he “believe[s] [ ] right now [the
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 19 of 50
IDOC] ha[s] an adequate number of psychiatrist[s], and as we get our whole structure in place, [they will] need to increase staff [ ].” Id. The fact that the IDOC does not have all the necessary structures in place further demonstrates the problems with the current care for mentally ill inmates. Moreover, the current status of the structures suggests more staff is necessary to compensate for the current deficiencies. (See also ECF No. 2354 at 50, Baldwin acknowledging that buildings by themselves do not treat the inmates).
Moreover, it is generally undisputed that adequate staffing is necessary to deliver adequate care. In his Second Annual Report of Monitor, Dr. Stewart made it clear that non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement is a direct result of inadequate staffing. (ECF No. 2122 at 9). Even given his change in position, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that it takes the right number of people to provide the required care. (EFC No. 2372 at 31). When pressed regarding the situation at Dixon, Dr. Hinton’s position was most telling:
Q. So, psychiatrists, 1255, psychologist, 692, QMHPs, 1272, BHTs, 607. That comes to roughly 3700 [hours]. You got more people vacant – oh, no. You managed to cut the vacancies from 3700 to 3000 hours. Is that adequate? A. It’s an improvement. Q. Is it adequate? A. Well, I think – I can’t answer that yes or no, so – (ECF No. 2372 at 49). In July 2018, Defendants submitted their staffing plan. (Pl. Ex. 48A; Df. Ex. 55B). Notably, Defendants’ staffing plan provides for the equivalent of 65.75 psychiatrists. (Pl. Ex. 48A; Df. Ex. 55B). The actual number of on-staff psychiatrists sits somewhere between 50-55. See supra, p. 13. It should also be noted that the staffing shortage is not limited to psychiatrists.
19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 20 of 50
Defendants’ staffing of Mental Health Directors, Psychologists, Behavioral Health Technicians, and other Mental Health Employees is also deficient. (Pl. Ex. 48A; see also Df. Ex. 6 and Df. Ex. 38; after the Settlement Agreement was signed in May 2016, the IDOC increased its mental health staffing from 80 FTEs to 453.6 FTEs. In January 2018, the overall headcount was 364.).
Again, the testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing clearly established that the mentally ill inmates were receiving inadequate care. As noted above, Dr. Hinton, Dr. Dempsey, and Dr. Stewart each testified about the deficiencies in mental health staff and the impact on the inmates. Dr. Hinton acknowledged at the preliminary injunction hearing that given the deficiencies in staffing, inmates in segregation were getting worse “across the board.” Dr. Stewart called the situation an “emergency.” Even with the additional mental health staff hired after the preliminary injunction hearing, the numbers associated with mental health providers are deficient to provide the constitutionally required care. In fact, the June 2018 monthly facility performance report showed Wexford had failed to supply more than 10,000 hours of required clinical staff for that month. (Pl. Ex. 51; ECF No. 2376 at 290, Renzi’s testimony).
The Court has given little weight to the testimony of Holly Andrilla, Defendants’ expert, who opined that, statistically, given the public in general, the IDOC has more than enough psychiatrists to treat its mentally ill population. (ECF No. 2375 at 59, Andrilla concluded, among other things, “[e]very facility except Vienna, the ratio of psychiatrists per seriously mentally ill people exceeds the ratio of the general population [ ].”). Andrilla is a research scientist with the WWAMI Rural Helath Research Center and the Center for Health Workforce Studies in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine. (Df. Ex. 62). The Court takes no issue with the expert’s credentials or even her general methodology. However, the Court finds the expert’s analysis is inapplicable because her analysis compares the
20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 21 of 50
non-prison population with the prison population. (See ECF No. 2375 at 82-83, Andrilla explained the source of her data). The doctors and medical providers in this case, on both sides, have meticulously detailed the difficulties in treating the prison population with the current staff. The use of overtime is pervasive, and to put it in terms of the witnesses, “unsustainable.” (See infra, pp. 23-24). It is impossible to believe there is adequate staff, even with overtime and other efforts, given the significant number of inmates who are not being timely treated based on the Defendants’ own backlog assessment. Andrilla’s assessment is simply contrary to the testimony and established facts in this case.
To fully appreciate the impact of the staffing deficiencies, one need not look much further than the IDOC’s backlog. The term “backlog report” was used throughout the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings. The backlog report contains data supplied by the correctional center. Mercer, Illinois Regional Mental Health Quality Assurance Coordinator for Wexford Health Sources, explained her role as quality assurance coordinator is to monitor, report, and translate data related to the IDOC’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 2373 at 6). Mercer noted that, in the past, each facility would use a different mechanism to capture the mental health treatment data. (ECF No. 2373 at 14). Mercer implemented the use of a database template at every facility so that each facility’s database would look the same and the facilities would collect the same data. (ECF No. 2373 at 15). Additionally, she focused on getting the facilities to collect and record the appropriate data in the database. (ECF No. 2372 at 6). Mercer explained that some of the data is automatically updated based on data that is manually inputted. (ECF No. 2373 at 10, “[W]hen certain information is entered into the database, for example, the date that an individual is identified as needing mental health services, the date that a person was last seen, what - -the number of days that the provider has indicated that they want to see that
21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 22 of 50
person again, the database automatically generates due dates and follow-ups due dates and, et cetera.”). Mercer noted, however, that the failure to manually input certain information can cause inflated numbers in the database. (ECF No. 2373 at 8). Ultimately, the backlog report (psychiatry) represents the backlog in “New/Face to Face,” “Follow Up/Face to Face,” “New Telepsych,” and “Follow up/Telepsych.” (See Df. Ex. 1F). The backlog is measured in increments of “1-14 day backlogged,” 15-30 day backlogged,” “31-45 day backlogged,” “46-60 day backlogged,” and “Greater than 60 day backlogged.” Id.
The numbers on the August 17, 2018, backlog report show an improvement from the numbers presented during the preliminary injunction hearing. (Df. Ex. 1F). Defendants provide that the psychiatric backlog has been reduced to a total of 908. (Df. Ex. 1D and 35B). Defendants further provide that the backlog for new psychiatric appointments has been reduced to nearly zero. (Df. Ex. 1F). Nonetheless, while the backlog number may have been reduced, it is still significant in terms of the timing of the reductions, the current level of backlog, quality, and the methods undertaken to reduce the backlog. The evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing showed, as of October 2017, there were a total of 4,010 backlogged contacts. (ECF No. 1757 at 213). And as the Court noted in its previous Order, a significant reduction in the backlog only came about at the same time or after the filing of the Plaintiffs’ initial Motion. (See id., see also ECF No. 1559, filed on 10/10/2017). Additionally, Baldwin acknowledged that the backlog had been reduced, at least in part, by overtime, a method he and others acknowledge is not a long-term solution. (ECF No. 2370 at 129, “Not a log-term permanent [solution]. I see it as a short-term [solution].”).
Confirming the inability to continue the current efforts and the inadequacies of staffing, Renzi, Psychologist Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center, testified as follows:
22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 23 of 50
Q. I notice in the charts and in your testimony that in terms of trying to deal with the backlogs and provide adequate care, you’re trying to have people come from other institutions and work there and also offer additional overtime, correct? A. Yes. Q. That doesn’t sound like a very good plan. I mean, is that sustainable in the long term? A. In the long term, it would be difficult to sustain that. Q. Yes. A. However, the mentality – the idea that providing them some service is better than providing them no service. Q. Yes. So – but would it be fair to say that you acknowledge that you do need more staff at Pontiac. A. I would acknowledge that, yes. (ECF No. 2376 at 356). Dr. Stromberger, Psychologist Administrator at Hill Correctional Center, also affirmed this with her testimony as follows: Q. Well, how does it all get done if you only have half the staff you’re supposed to have? A. We work very hard. Q. You work overtime, right? A. At times. Q. And is there burnout because of the excess amount of work? A. Yeah. Q. And do you lose good people because they’re working too hard? A. Yeah. Q. And isn’t that a problem? A. I would say.
23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 24 of 50
-Q. Well, do you have an understanding of whether there were deficiencies – continued deficiencies in staffing of mental health people? A. Continued deficiencies in terms of staffing. Yes, there’s been deficiencies for quite some time for staffing. (ECF No. 2376 at 1433-34). In the Court’s view there is presently no “Plan B.” At Dixon Correctional center, part of the plan to reduce the backlog was to have psychologists work on the weekends, non-traditional hours, and second shift. (ECF No. 2372 at 43). The Court agrees with Baldwin that the use of overtime is not sustainable. As Dr. Stewart testified, the overtime was putting a strain on employees. (ECF No. 2374 at 264, “Centralia has a minimal backlog, but the staff out there is at wit’s end. They don’t have enough people.”). Dr. Stromberger testified that working excessive overtime causes problems with retention because of burnout. (ECF No. 2376 at 68). The Court has also considered the fact that in many cases the task associated with the backlog had been outstanding in the “1-14 day backlogged” benchmark. (Df. Ex. 1F). Nonetheless, even with the overtime, the backlog is still significant in certain facilities, including Pontiac, Dixon, and Menard. (Df. Ex. 1F). It should be noted that the deficiencies in staffing are not only related to psychiatrists. The deficiencies lie in all areas of mental health staff. (Pl. Ex. 48A; Df. Ex. 55B). This is a real problem, and one that must be addressed now. Both Parties utilize the processes implemented by Dr. Sim in support of their positions. Defendants note that his work has resulted in a useful tool to allow the Defendants to focus on problem areas. Plaintiffs assert the reports show serious deficiencies in the actual delivery of services – and further demonstrate the difficulty with staffing. This Court finds both are correct. Dr. Sim has been tasked with developing and implementing a mental health quality assurance process. Dr. Sim’s process includes an audit tool and a mechanism to allow the
24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 25 of 50
correctional centers to make corrective action. Dr. Sim described two different audit processes: (1) internal audits, conducted by the psychologist administrator or a social worker at the facility; and (2) external audits, conducted quarterly by regional administrators. Dr. Sim explained that his audit identifies 315 “problem statements.” Problem statements are “verbiage” that came from the settlement agreement, standard operating procedures, or the administrative directives. (ECF No. 2375 at 125). These problem statements are then placed into four broad categories. (ECF No. 2375 at 126-128). The review uses these statements when conducting their audit as follows:
[ ] when the mental health authorities, the psych administrator or social worker for when they conduct their audit, when they open up the documentation, the medical charts, if they see that certain things are not being [done] – that is on this list, that means it’s considered non-compliant. (ECF No. 2375 at 126). The internal audit in turn uses these compliance categories and the problem statements to assess the Department’s compliance in the following ten areas: (1) Intake; (2) Crisis Writ and Transfer; (3) Mental Health Follow-Up; (4) Mental Health Treatment Plan; (5) Crisis Management, Intervention and Documentation; (6) Psychiatric Services; (7) Mental Health Disciplinary Review/Restricted Housing; (8) Use of Restraints; (9) Mental Health Evaluations; and (10) Supervision for Non-Clinical Licensed Mental Health Staff. (ECF No. 2375 at 130; Df. Ex. 3D). The audits used to be conducted every month. (ECF No. 2375 at 132). Starting in July 2018, the audits were conducted every other month. Id. Dr. Sim explained this change was to allow mental health staff more time to provide services to inmates. In addition, Sim explained this would allow the auditors the ability to review the data and develop effective corrective action plans. (ECF No. 2375 at 133). The correctional centers can use the results as a tool to take corrective action. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing.
25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 26 of 50
However, in July 2018, several of the institutions were performing below the 85% threshold set by the IDOC. (ECF No. 2375 at 180). In some cases, significantly lower. That, in and of itself, does not raise undue concern. But, an examination of the results further reveals the difficulty the IDOC is having with staffing. The following discussion highlights this Court’s concerns:
Q. For the corrective action plans for Pontiac marked July 18th, these would be the corrective action plans to follow the audit that we just looked at, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And we see the 20 -- for the first sheet is about mental health treatment plans, and it has that compliance score of 20 percent at the top, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the first deficiency is, Mental health treatment plan was not filed in the medical record, correct? A. Correct. Q. And that's a clerical? It's listed as a clerical error on Missing Information? A. Yes. Q. That's the category? A. Yes. Q. But we don't know from this whether the treatment plan just wasn't done or it wasn't filed? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. But regardless, the action plan is for staff to use overtime to do treatment plans, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the deficiency number two also relating to treatment plans is that there wasn't -- there was no monthly treatment plan updated for mental health patient in restrictive housing for more than one month. Do you see that?
26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 27 of 50
A. Deficiency number two. Q. Deficiency number two, correct? A. Yes. Q. So, that would have been one of the top three most common deficiencies for Pontiac in this audit? A. Yes. Q. And the corrective action plan here is for MHPs to use monthly one-to-one sessions for treatment planning for seg offenders. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. So, that means that they're going to take time from the prisoner's individual counseling session to meet the treatment planning requirement, correct? A. That's what it shows. (ECF No. 2375 at 162-64). This colloquy between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Dr. Sim demonstrates the ongoing shift by the Defendants of their limited staff resources from one area of concern to another and the need to cover essential items by use of overtime. This is simply unsustainable. The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an unreasonable period of time, and their failure to address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate indifference. Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977)) (“When systematic deficiencies in staffing, facilities or procedures make unnecessary suffering inevitable, a court will not hesitate to use its injunctive powers.”). There have undoubtedly been efforts on the part of the Defendants to address the staffing needs regarding mental health; however, these efforts have been generally ineffective – and have gone on far too long without any significant attempt to adapt or modify based on the knowledge gained from their recruitment efforts. While some efforts have been successful, including the recent
27

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 28 of 50
expansion of the use of tele-psychiatry, the Defendants have failed to achieve a minimum level of medical service to avoid the label of cruel and unusual punishment. Id. Medication Management
Dr. Stewart explained that psychiatric conditions are brain illnesses. (ECF No. 1757 at 241). Dr. Stewart testified that psychotropic medications can have harsh side effects and require constant monitoring. (ECF No. 1757 at 242, Dr. Stewart specifically explained “[s]ome of [the medication] have some pretty harsh side effect profiles that require constant monitoring [and some that] you need to follow-up with laboratory work; you need to follow-up with [ ]blood pressure monitoring in certain cases [and] follow-up on the abnormal involuntary movement scale.”). Additionally, the failure to properly monitor an inmate’s medication may result in poor medication compliance, including the possibility that the inmate will cease taking medication. (ECF No. 1758 at 40, Dr. Stewart testified “where you have poor medication compliance because people are experiencing side effects, and they don't get those addressed, so the medications are just stopped.”). Dr. Stewart ultimately concluded at the preliminary injunction hearing that “[i]t's rare when someone is being seen every 30 days [and he has] [f]ound examples of people being seen -- of medications being routinely written for anywhere from two to six months.” (ECF No. 1757 at 243). The reason Dr. Stewart was given by prescribers, the nursing staff, and the clinical administrators for medication being prescribed for longer periods of time was because “[the IDOC doesn’t] have enough people to see people every 30 days so [they] write the meds longer so the meds won't expire, and hopefully [they’ll] see them within a couple months or three months.” (ECF No. 1757 at 243-44). Dr. Stewart also testified that class members were exhibiting severe side-effects that were not charted in their records. (ECF No. 1757 at 251).
These conclusions went generally uncontested at the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings. In fact, Dr. Hinton acknowledged at the preliminary injunction hearing that
28

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 29 of 50
understaffing is a significant problem regarding medication management, noting that thousands of
inmates who receive medication in the general population are placed in a dangerous situation by
not being seen by psychiatrists. (ECF No. at 319-20).
The danger was recognized by the Parties and several provisions were inserted into the
Settlement Agreement to insure proper medication management.
Sections XII(b) of the Settlement Agreement provides:
Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
(ECF No. 711-1 at 15). The referenced Administrative Directive provides:
Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, with extensions on follow-up care for those who psychiatrist have found and documented that the offender has reached stability (outpatient level of care: Not to exceed 90 days; RTU level of care: not to exceed 60 days).
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement requires:
The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive, dyskinesia, high blood pressure, and liver function decline [and]
Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluations [ ].
(ECF No. 711-1 at 15).
In addition to the staffing issues discussed above, the evidence at the permanent injunction
hearing revealed the continuation of significant issues with the IDOC’s medication management.
First, the mental health staff at the correctional centers recognize there is an issue with follow-up
29

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 30 of 50
because the nursing staff who administer the medications do not notify them when inmates are non-compliant. Dr. Renzi testified that a lot of the inmates will accept the medication from the nurse, and then put the medication in their mouth as to appear as though they are taking it. (ECF No. 2376 at 278). However, the inmates may “cheek” the medication or swallow it, and later regurgitate it. Id. Dr. Renzi acknowledged that Pontiac continues to have difficulty in assuring that offenders are actually taking their medication, but there have been educational efforts to train staff. (ECF No. 2376 at 277-79). Dr. Stromberger testified that nursing staff are not fully aware of referral protocol when class members refuse medications. (ECF No. 2376 at 48). Dr. Stromberger, however, did note that there had been some educational follow-up on that issue.
This testimony is consistent with Dr. Stewart’s testimony during the preliminary injunction hearing. Dr. Stewart testified that one major problem is that inmates are given their medications but not monitored closely to ensure they have ingested the pills, especially in segregation. (ECF No. 1757 at 123). Dr. Stewart testified one of the inmates he visited had numerous pills on his person that he had not taken. (ECF No. 1757 at 254). It should be noted that Dr. Puga is certainly aware of these issues and has been working on measures to assist in medication compliance. (ECF No. 2372 at 136-37). Nonetheless, these issues again highlight the general staffing issues and the need for additional measures to be considered. Mental Health Treatment in Segregation
Segregation refers to an inmate’s confinement in his or her cell for a period of 22 to 23 hours a day. (ECF No. 1757 at 103). In the IDOC, over 80% of the inmates in the IDOC who are in segregation are mentally ill. (Pl. Ex. 22, 897 out of 1105 inmates in segregation are mentally ill). Dr. Hinton opined that the “percentage of [inmates] who are mentally ill tend to have more behavioral issues, in part because of their mental illness.” (ECF No. 1758 at 81). Dr. Hinton further opined that “there’s nothing that is a good thing about being in segregation.” Id.
30

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 31 of 50
Supporting such an opinion, Dr. Stewart testified “[a] person with a pre-existing mental illness placed in segregation will have an exacerbation of their pre-existing mental illness.” (ECF No. 1757 at 109). Segregation can also cause a degradation of coping mechanisms and lead to increases in self-harm and other acting-out behaviors. (ECF No. 1757 at 109-111). Dr. Renzi also agreed that segregation can have a negative effect on mental illness. (ECF No. at 2376 at 295). Inmates Champs, King, Span, and Singleton all testified about their negative experience in segregation. (ECF No. 2376 at 91-112, 113-148; ECF No. 1758 at 271-287, 394-412). Given this, it is clear mental health issues must be addressed for mentally ill inmates in segregation.
Under Sections XV(a)(iii), the Parties agreed that: Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP. (ECF No. 711-1 at 17). The Settlement Agreement places certain timeframes on MHP’s review of, and updates to, the treatment plans for mentally ill offenders placed in segregation. Id. Dr. Stewart explained the purpose of this requirement is simple – when you place an inmate “into a segregation system, you need to review and update the treatment plan given the vastly different environment the person is in.” 2 (ECF No. 1905 at 82).
2 It should be noted that Dr. Stewart also explained that inmates in segregation are: [ ] some of the sickest individuals psychiatrically that I've seen in my career, and I've only worked with seriously mentally ill. And these people are just suffering immensely. And so -- you know, and they get nothing. Couple little things thrown at them. But they really don't get any sort of regular treatment. And so this is a real serious issue, you know. I don't want to put a number on it. It's, it's -- it's as serious as I've seen.
(ECF No. 1905 at 182-83).
31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 32 of 50
During the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Stewart testified that the IDOC’s medication management for those in segregation is worse than for Class Members elsewhere in the system. (ECF No. 1757 at 123). Dr. Stewart specifically noted that there is a significant problem in the failure to ensure that those in segregation who are prescribed psychotropic medication actually take the medication. (ECF No. 1757 at 123). Additionally, there was testimony and evidence during the preliminary injunction hearing regarding Defendants’ non-compliance with the out-ofcell time required for mentally ill inmates placed in segregation. (ECF No. 1757 at 136; see also ECF No. 711-1 at 20, Section XV(c) of the Settlement requires “mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time.”)
Dr. Stewart explained at the preliminary injunction hearing that the consequences of this failure are:
[ ] psychiatric decompensation. And then we run into that whole line, you know, acting out, writing up, more segregation time and/or going to crisis, coming out. It's -- the fact that (vi)(A), which is continuation of the initial treatment plan with enhanced therapy, if necessary, to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation, that's not being done. People are getting worse in segregation. (ECF No. 1905 at 174). In addition to the above, during the permanent injunction hearing, there was additional evidence presented regarding inmates’ out-of-cell time. In the record it is generally accepted that out-of-cell time for mentally ill inmates in segregation is necessary to avoid a rapid decline in mental health. Plaintiffs argue that the lack of adequate structured out-of-cell time is a continuation of the Defendants’ failure to meet their obligation under Section XV(c) of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants are not adequately addressing an inmate’s refusal to participate in out-of-cell time.
32

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 33 of 50
As it relates to Menard, Pontiac, and Dixon, the “received” and “received minus refusal” structured out-of-cell time by inmates during June 24, 2018, through June 30, 2018, was summarized in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 45B, 45C, and 45D. Plaintiffs presented information regarding these institutions because they have large segregation populations. (See ECF No. 2374 at 124, Dr. Stewart testified that “I know Pontiac has a very large segregation population, but Menard also has a large segregation population.”). The evidence showed inmates were receiving an average of 6.05 hours at Menard, 6.97 hours at Pontiac, and 9.3 hours at Dixon. (Pl. Ex. 45B, 45C, and 45D). However, it was noted that “received” hours included those that were taken and offered but refused. Id. The actual average out-of-cell time was 4.24 hours at Menard, 2.996 hours at Pontiac, and 3.13 hours at Dixon. Id. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the majority of structured out-of-cell time was by way of movies. (Pl. Ex. 45A; see also ECF No. 2374 at 1263).
The most significant issue raised by these numbers is the importance of staffing. Dr. Doyle and Dr. Mirsky both testified that refusing group or other mental health services can be a potential indicator of decompensation. (ECF No. 2377 at 48; ECF No. 2370 at 276). Nonetheless, the record indicates a lack of concern or follow-up for those individuals refusing to participate in these activities.
3 Dr. Stewart testified about the use of movies as a structured treatment activity: It certainly would -- it could contribute to lessening the decompensation, but I don't -- it's not a -necessarily a therapeutic activity, so I would question its validity for that purpose. I think it's a good thing to get people out of their cells and doing anything. I want to be real clear about that.
(ECF No. 2374 at 126).
33

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 34 of 50
Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch Like segregation, inmates who are on crisis watch are in isolation and additional care is
necessary to avoid exacerbating their mental health issues. Crisis refers to an acute exacerbation of mental illness, such as worsening psychosis or mania, or acting out behaviorally, or when someone is acutely suicidal or potentially violent. (ECF No. 1757 at 51-53). The purpose of crisis cells or watches in correctional mental health systems is to, first, protect the individual from selfharm or harming others, and second, to provide appropriate mental health assessment and intervention, such as re-evaluating medication, re-evaluating the psychosocial treatment, and addressing whatever issues precipitated the crisis (ECF No. 1757 at 219; see also at 38, Dr. Stewart explained that the crisis level of care is needed to assist “people that are presenting with acute problems that need aggressive intervention to deal with a particular acute issue.”). During the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Stewart testified that it is “imperative that their treatment is reviewed, not just by one individual but for the entire treatment team that's involved with the case [ ] [a]nd that's not happening.” (ECF No. 1757 at 52).
The Settlement Agreement provides certain requirements as it relates to crisis treatment. First, the Settlement Agreement provides:
Beds that are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilized the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2). (ECF No. 711-1 at 3). Dr. Stewart testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that, based on his review, the only treatment that regularly occurs on crisis watches is the daily contact by the MHP, which are
34

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 35 of 50
confidential sessions at some facilities but take place most often at the cell front. (ECF No. 1905
at 131). Dr. Stewart explained that:
But again, as I said, the only thing that occurs is being placed in the cell, having certain property removed, and then getting these daily visits. And so there's no specialized treatment that occurs for people in crisis.
(ECF No. 1903 at 198-99) (emphasis added).
The Settlement Agreement also provides:
For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor. This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for Crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from Crisis Watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
(ECF No. 711-1 at 10).
Dr. Stewart concluded that, at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants
are only conducting the first suicide evaluation, but are not continuing to assess monthly for six
months. (ECF No. 1757 at 232). Dr. Stewart also opined that the Defendants’ failure to conduct
necessary evaluations and assessments of those who are discharged from crisis watches results in
unnecessary harm and suffering, especially as those failures combine with inadequate treatment
planning and psychopharmacology. (ECF No. 1757 at 231). There was no evidence to the contrary
presented by the Defendants about the conditions at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing.
Additionally, evidence regarding crisis watch was presented during the permanent injunction
hearing. Most notably, Plaintiffs presented evidence of inmates who were kept on crisis watch
longer than 10 days. In June 2018, there were 620 inmates placed on crisis watch, in July 2018,
there were 486. (Pl. Ex. 53; Pl. Ex. 43). Of those inmates, 85 were kept on crisis watch longer
35

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 36 of 50
than 10 days in June, and 121 inmates met that criteria in July. (ECF No. 2374 at 111-12; Pl. Ex. 43; ECF No. 2376 at 314, Dr. Renzi’s Testimony). The IDOC’s Mental Health Procedures Manual provides that “patients who remain on crisis treatment level of care after ten consecutive days will be considered for a higher level of care.” (Df. Ex. 49, p. 31). The record reveals little compliance with this requirement.
Moreover, Dr. Mirsky confirmed Dr. Stewart’s finding that inmates on crisis watch are getting between 15-20 minutes of time with qualified mental health profesisonals and little other time. Notably, Dr. Doyle explained:
“[If the IDOC had additional staff] it would mean that we could spend more time. Some people, it takes them a few minutes just to get comfortable sitting with you as a psychiatrist. So we could establish better rapport. Looking at the reverse as to what the damage is, I’m hoping that we’re not doing any damage, but I couldn’t say for sure if there isn’t some.” (ECF No. 2377 at 81). Mental Health Evaluations As previously noted, there is no dispute the Defendants have failed to comply with Section V(f) of the Settlement Agreement. Section V(f) provides: Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral (see IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 § II(G)(2)(b) and 04.04.101 §II(F)(2)(c)). (ECF No. 711-1 at 8). There was much evidence regarding the significant backlog in psychiatric contacts with inmates. Contacts are activities that psychiatrists and mental health professionals are supposed to accomplish, including evaluations, treatment plans, and follow-up. (ECF No. 1757 at 212-13). The Defendants argue that the backlog has substantially declined, noting that there is now a backlog of 313 initial evaluations. (ECF No. 1894, Df. Ex. 1a; but see also ECF No. 1757 at
36

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 37 of 50
213, where it was noted there was a backlog of 445 evaluations, 780 treatment planning contacts, and 2,785 follow-up visits; compare with Df. Ex. 1). The Defendants further note that a significant amount of these are only delayed 1-14 days. Finally, the Defendants suggest that the record does not identify the number of mentally ill prisoners at the various facilities, and thus, the Court is unable determine how the number of late evaluations at those four facilities compares to the number of mentally ill prisoners at those facilities. (ECF No. 1965 at 14). The Defendants’ argument that the Court is unable to determine the extent of the problem based solely on the size of the backlog without additional information regarding the population is unpersuasive. Dr. Hinton testified as to the unacceptable nature of the backlog existing at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing. (ECF No. 1758 at 52, et seq.).
As discussed before, while the backlog number may have been reduced, it is still significant in terms of timing of the reductions, the current level of backlog, quality, and the methods undertaken to reduce the backlog. Supra, p. 22-24. The current system’s reliance on overtime is not viable. Id. Mental Health Treatment Plans
The treatment plan document plays a very important role in the delivery of mental health care – it guides the treatment of an inmate. (ECF No. 1906 at 106, 113, Dr. Hinton’s Testimony; see also 280, Dr. Mirsky acknowledging treatment plans are the most fundamental document in the whole mental health system). The plan is created for each inmate who is diagnosed with a mental illness or receiving mental health care services. (ECF No. 1906 at 112). The treatment plan should capture how treatment is ultimately delivered and the goals of treatment. (ECF No. 1906 at 38). The IDOC utilizes the treatment plan to make sure that the inmate consents to the treatment. Id.
The Settlement Agreement provides: 37

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 38 of 50
As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team. (ECF No. 711-1 at 9). Plaintiffs have generally argued that the treatment plans are being done in a perfunctory manner that do not facilitate the delivery of mental health services. (ECF No. 1559 at 14; see also ECF No. 2406 at 78, “The treatment plans in IDOC are not helpful and do not facilitate the provision of mental health care; the forms are completed more as an administrative requirement and not true treatment planning.”). This Court’s May 25, 2018, Order required that “[a]ll class members shall have a treatment plan that is individualized and particularized based on the patient’s specific need, including long and short term objectives, updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest extent possible.” (ECF No. 2070 at 41). The evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing makes it clear that the lack of adequate staffing significantly impacts treatment planning. Defendants argue the full record shows the IDOC has made substantial improvements with respect to treatment planning. This includes the use of a revised treatment plan document reviewed and approved by Dr. Stewart. (Df. Ex. 13). The problem arises, however, in the actual completion of the treatment plans. The mental health providers are so overworked that the treatment plans often become perfunctory. Plaintiffs presented the Court with treatment plans from inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. (ECF No. 2374 at 180). These treatment plans contained identical, or nearly identical, language describing the therapeutic focus, problems, and activity. (See Pl. Ex. 55C, 55G, 55I, and 55M). Dr. Stewart opined:
38

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 39 of 50
What I – what I glean from this, in all seriousness, is this is a reflection of how overworked the mental health professionals are, where they are basically cutting and pasting these things because it’s just one more requirement they have because they’re stretched way too thin. That’s how I read this. These treatment plans are identical. They’re basically all worthless. They may apply to one of these people, and there may be some overlap, but come on, the same wording on four different patients? So, that’s why I see this as the mental health professionals – and this confirms, you know, my walking around Pontiac. These people are just really – they’re hurting out there, the mental health professionals, because they have so much work, and there’s not enough. (2374 at 188). Deliberate Indifference The above demonstrates the Defendants have breached the Settlement Agreement in the five areas advanced by the Plaintiffs. In order to warrant action by this Court, the Court must also find there is a violation of federal law. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, and in this case, their mental health needs. “[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 (citations omitted). An inadequate medical care claim requires a plaintiff to fulfill two elements: (1) the plaintiff “suffered an objectively serious harm that presented a substantial risk to his safety,” and (2) “the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk.” Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 831 (7th Cir. 2010). The objective element requires that the plaintiff’s medical need to be “sufficiently serious.” Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). The subjective element requires that the “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be
39

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 40 of 50
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
To meet the objective prong, the medical need must be one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Gutierrez, 111 F.3d at 1373. A medical condition “need not be life-threatening to be serious; rather, it could be a condition that would result in further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated.” Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit has agreed with other courts in concluding that the “[t]reatment of the mental disorders of mentally disturbed inmates is a “serious medical need.” Wellman, 715 F.2d at 272 (citing Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980)); Inmates v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977).
The subjective component requires a plaintiff to “provide evidence that an official actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm.” Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. In order to establish deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff does not need to show that the official intended harm or believed that harm would occur.” Id., (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). However, medical malpractice, negligence, or even gross negligence do not equate to deliberate indifference. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006). See also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th Cir. 2013).
The Seventh Circuit has recognized claims of systemic deficiencies in a prison’s health care facility as a second category of deliberate indifference claims. Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche, 881 F.2d 427, 430–31 (7th Cir. 1989). In case of alleged systemic deficiencies, deliberate indifference can be demonstrated by “proving there are such systemic and gross deficiencies in
40

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 41 of 50
staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that the inmate population is effectively denied access to adequate medical care.” Wellman, 715 F.2d. at 272 citing Ramos, 639 F.2d at 575; Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 828 F.3d 541, 554 (7th Cir. 2016), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2016) (Claims of “systemic deficiencies at the prison's health care facility rendered the medical treatment constitutionally inadequate for all inmates, [ ]” plaintiffs must demonstrate that “there are such systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that the inmate population is effectively denied access to adequate medical care.”)). The Seventh Circuit has concluded “that a clear consensus had been reached indicating that a prison official's failure to remedy systemic deficiencies in medical services akin to those alleged in the present case constituted deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs.” Cleveland-Perdue, 881 F.2d at 431. See Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974), (affirming a district court decision finding that systemic deficiencies in the Alabama prisons including inadequate staffing, treatment by unqualified personnel, incomplete medical records, and lack of written procedures establishing the duties and responsibilities of the medical personnel.).
There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs suffer from a serious medical condition. (See supra, p. 2, definition of class). The Court has also found above that the Defendants have failed to provide medical treatment as required by the Settlement Agreement in the five areas advanced by the Plaintiffs. The Court also finds that the failure to provide treatment in the above areas puts the Plaintiffs at a significant risk for further injury and severe unnecessary pain and suffering. At the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, this fact was firmly established. Dr. Hinton, Dr. Dempsey, and Dr. Stewart all testified that the conditions in the IDOC, particularly the deficiencies in staffing, created a substantial risk of harm for mentally ill inmates. Supra, p. 13-17. These doctors used terms such as “dangerous,” “emergent,” and “emergency,” to describe the situation.
41

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 42 of 50
Given this evidence, and considering the standard outlined in Wellman, this Court finds the Defendants’ inadequate staffing levels creates a systemic problem that has effectively denied the mentally ill inmates access to adequate and constitutionally required care.
It should be noted that Defendants maintain the position that the law requires this Court to limit its decision to the care currently being provided by the Defendants. (ECF No. 2368 at 1). The Defendants further maintain any issues concerning the care the Department provided in the past are moot and irrelevant to a claim seeking forward-looking injunctive relief. Id. In support of their positions, Defendants note that the Supreme Court has explained that “deliberate indifference, should be determined in light of the prison authorities' current attitudes and conduct [ ].” (ECF No. 2368 at 3); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). Defendants further note that a plaintiff pursuing a permanent injunction must demonstrate a continuing need for the injunction “during the remainder of the litigation and into the future,” and even if prison officials “had a subjectively culpable state of mind when the lawsuit was filed,” they “could prevent issuance of an injunction by proving, during the litigation, that they were no longer unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm and that they would not revert to their obduracy upon cessation of the litigation.” Id.; Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 846 and n. 9 (1970).
In Helling, the Plaintiff complained that he was exposed to unreasonably high levels of environmental tobacco smoke due to his cellmate’s smoking habits. Id. The Supreme Court found Plaintiff stated a claim, but cautioned that he may have difficulty in proving the objective and subjective factors of a deliberate indifference claim because he had since been moved to a new prison, no longer had a cellmate who smoked, and the state had enacted new policies in effect regarding smoking. Id. Here, much of this case surrounds the Defendants’ most recent actions – or actions since the preliminary injunction was issued – to correct significant deficiencies in the
42

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 43 of 50
delivery of mental health treatment. The Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent require this Court to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the condition as described at the preliminary injunction hearing, the chances of these conditions reoccurring, as well as the current attitude of the Defendants, in considering whether or not a permanent injunction should issue. Additionally, the Court has relied on the fact that the Defendants’ actions frequently occur in response to the Court’s intervention. See Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1311 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (The Court in granting a permanent injunction cited the defendants’ history of refusing “to address the serious issues underlying the preliminary injunction until forced to do so under pressure of this litigation.”).
Defendants also argue that the problem is no longer systemic but only one that affects a few of the institutions. The Defendants specifically note the weekly backlog report shows that as of August 17, 2018, twelve facilities had no backlog with respect to treatment plans, six facilities had only ten or fewer total backlogs in treatment plans, while another seven institutions had fewer than 40 backlogged treatment plans. (Df. Ex. 1D and DX 1I). There is no doubt the Defendants have been able to reduce the backlogs generally and even substantially at certain institutions. However, the backlog remains a real issue within the IDOC given the significant problems with documentation as well as the widespread use of overtime to handle most of the staffing needs to address the backlog. Moreover, the ability to minimize the backlog at certain locations comes at the cost of providing care in other areas. The Defendants have failed to put forth any long-term sustainable solution to address their staffing needs.
The record also establishes the Defendants knew of, and disregarded, a substantial risk of harm to the Plaintiffs. While the record shows the Defendants have recently made efforts to address many of the problems associated with the delivery of adequate mental health care,
43

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 44 of 50
particularly recently, the Court remains concerned with the overall lack of a sense of urgency. As previously noted in this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, the issues associated with the staffing deficiencies began as far back as 2014 when the Defendants created their own 2014 remedial plan, and at this time, the Defendants have yet to fulfill any of their own staffing requirements. A significant problem with the Defendants’ approach is the reliance on Wexford to provide the necessary staffing to fulfill their constitutional obligation. This record demonstrates Wexford has been unable to handle this job, a job the Defendants are unable to delegate to evade their constitutional duties. (See Pl. Ex. 7, p. 2, Wexford long recognized the need to amplify its recruitment efforts). High level officials in the Governor’s office have written Wexford “encouraging” them to fill the required positions, yet the staff necessary to provide constitutional care has yet to be hired; nor have the Defendants generally sought to take a different approach. (ECF No. 2354 at 72; Pl. Ex. 59, p. 3; see also ECF No. 2354 at 76, Baldwin testified that they depend on their partners for filling the vacancies.). The Court recognizes that the changes needed in the IDOC have been monumental. The Parties also recognized this and entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement providing deadlines and budget contingencies. However, the Defendants have failed to meet many of the terms. It is clear mentally ill inmates continue to suffer as they wait for the IDOC to do what it said it was going to do. (See supra, fn. 2). The Court cannot allow this to continue. The Court further finds that there is no adequate remedy at law. The Defendants must provide adequate and constitutionally required care for mentally ill inmates.
Defendants argue the balancing of harms weighs in their favor as Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof to show the class members are currently facing a sufficiently identified harm in the absence of granting additional prospective relief. The Court disagrees with Defendants’
44

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 45 of 50
assessment for the reasons stated herein. The Defendants also argue that compliance with a Court imposed order taxes an already over-worked mental health staff. This argument further demonstrates the need for additional staff.
Given this all of this, the Court finds that a permanent injunction must issue in order to ensure the constitutionally required care will be given to the mentally ill inmates in the custody of the Defendants. Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiffs also argue that class members in segregation have established a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under Title II of the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.10. In order to succeed on a claim under the ADA, a Plaintiff must establish “that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise subjected to discrimination by such an entity, and that the denial or discrimination was by reason of his disability.” See Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs argue they have established their claims in two ways.
First, Plaintiffs argue the Defendants have failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to class members in segregation. Plaintiffs provide the law requires the correctional centers, as a public entity, to make reasonable accommodations in order to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. §12131 (“State prisons fall squarely within the statutory definition of ‘public entity,’ which includes ‘any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or
45

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 46 of 50
States or local government.’”)). Plaintiffs further provide that the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA requires that a public entity:
Make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). Plaintiffs argue they have requested the accommodations that class members in segregation be given out-of-cell time and the minimal standards of treatment. (ECF No. 2407 at 21). Plaintiffs further argue that without these accommodations, they have, and will continue to suffer. Id. Second, Plaintiffs argue they have established a disparate impact claim under the ADA. In order to establish a disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must prove the defendant “adopt[ed] a policy or practice that is ‘facially neutral in [its] treatment of different groups but that in fact fall[s] more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by [a nondiscriminatory] necessity.’” Swan v. Bd. of Educ., No. 13 C 3623, 2013 WL 3872799, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2013) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 52 (2003)). Plaintiffs conclude that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates the facially neutral treatment of prisoners in segregation actually causes greater harm to people with mental illness. It would not be unfair to characterize Plaintiffs’ evidence and argument at the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings as focused on their deliberate indifference claim. (ECF No. 2431, closing arguments, ad passim). In their present Motion, Plaintiffs specifically note that “[t]his hearing will test whether Defendants have instituted the reforms necessary for long-term solutions to the Eighth Amendment violations at issue in this Court’s preliminary injunction order.” (ECF No. 2112 at 2). The framework used by the Plaintiffs at the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings infrequently, at best, used the term ADA or Americans with
46

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 47 of 50
Disability Act. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that in their initial Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs did not raise a disparate impact claim under the ADA. (ECF No. 1559 at 31-32). The Court recognizes the Parties’ joint pre-trial brief notes the Plaintiffs sought to include the contested issue of law of whether Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by excluding Class Members from participation in or denying the benefits of services, programs, or activities of the IDOC on the basis of disability. (ECF No. 2286 at 3). Nonetheless, Defendants steadfastly maintained the ADA is not at issue in the permanent injunction hearing. Id.
Having fully considered the Parties’ positions, the Court agrees that the ADA claim is not part of this proceeding. That does not mean there has not been a violation of the ADA, but rather, given the Parties’ own agreed limitations contained in the Settlement Agreement, it would be unfair to allow the Plaintiffs to expand this proceeding to include such a claim. Plaintiffs did not adequately present their claim, in terms of their motion, or evidence, or arguments during the trial proceeding in a way that would have given the Defendants a reason or full opportunity to address this claim in their defense during the trial proceedings. As such, the Court makes no finding with respect to Plaintiffs’ ADA claim. Motion for Order on Payment of Deferred Attorneys’ Fees
Plaintiffs have moved for an order requiring the IDOC pay the “deferred, agreed-to fees” in light of the Court’s order dated May 25, 2018. (ECF No. 2233). The fees identified by the Plaintiffs are part of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. Section XXXIII of the Settlement Agreement provides:
The parties agree that an award of fees is appropriate in this matter. The Court shall determine the amount of the fees and costs due to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Fees are to be determined as if the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. One half of this sum shall be payable one hundred twenty (120) days after the Court determines that amount.
47

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 48 of 50
The remaining half of the fees will become immediately due if the Court enters an order pursuant to Section XXIX(g). In no event will the award be more than six million dollars.
(ECF No. 711-1 at 32).
Notably, the Parties agreed that the fees referenced in this provision be set at
$3,800,000.00, and requested that the Court enter an order finding this amount was reasonable and
appropriate. (ECF No. 1091). The Parties agreement on the attorneys’ fees specifically provides:
In consideration for the full and complete settlement of the claim for attorney fees and costs, the parties agree that the sum of $3,800,000.00 (Three million, eight hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall be considered to be a reasonable amount due pursuant to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the parties will so represent that to the Court pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties further agree that the sum of $1,900,000.00 (One million, nine hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall be paid to Equip for Equality [ ] to be distributed to Plaintiffs’ counsel under Section XXXIII of Document 711-1. In the event the Court enters an order under Section XXIX(g) of the Document, another payment of $1,900,000.00 (One million, nine hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall become due and owing under the terms of Section XXXIII of Document 711-1. The parties understand that the entire amount payable under this Agreement is subject to state law governing the State Comptroller’s obligation to withhold funds that Plaintiffs’ counsel may owe to other person or to state agencies. The validity of these claims may be contested through applicable state procedure.
(ECF No. 1091 at 2-3).
After providing notice to the class members, the Court accepted the Parties’ agreement on
fees and entered an Order finding that, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, one-half of the fees
($1,900,000.00) would be due within 120 days as required under the agreement, and the remaining
one-half would be due if the Court entered an Order pursuant to Section XXIX(g). (ECF No.
1211).
Defendants make two arguments opposing the entry of the requested order. (ECF No.
2276). First, Defendants argue that this Court’s Order dated May 25, 2018, was not the requisite
order under XXIX(g) that would trigger the fee requirement.
48

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 49 of 50
Section XXIX(g) provides: To permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court, the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court’s assistance as to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so. (ECF No. 711-1 at 30). The Defendants correctly note that this Court’s Order was issued under the preliminary injunction standard, a likelihood of success. This obviously raises the issue of whether the Court’s Order dated May 25, 2018, was a final order under the Section XXIX of the Settlement Agreement. Having fully considered the matter, the Court finds that it is not. This becomes clear when considering the Court explicitly noted in its previous Order that the “Plaintiffs w[ould] have to seek permanent relief at some point in this proceeding[,]” should they want to prove an actual violation of federal law. (ECF No. 2070 at 13). This Order is issued pursuant to Section XXIX(g) of the Settlement Agreement, and therefore the deferred fees are now due. Defendants are directed to immediately inform the Plaintiffs whether the payment will be made as required. Should the Defendants elect not to do so, Plaintiffs may file a Motion seeking relief from the Court. However, at this time, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 2112) is GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the Plaintiffs in medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. The Court further finds the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that a permanent injunction is appropriate and necessary. The Court specifically finds that the
49

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2460 Page 50 of 50
Plaintiffs have suffered or will suffer irreparable injury if a permanent injunction is not issued. There are significant deficiencies in the delivery of mental health services within the IDOC. The evidence establishes that there are systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing that effectively denied the Plaintiffs access to adequate medical care. The Plaintiffs are at a significant risk of harm. The Court further finds that there are no adequate remedies available at law to compensate for these injuries. Plaintiffs are mentally ill inmates incarcerated within the IDOC, and Defendants are required to provide adequate care. The balance of hardships weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs. While appropriately staffing the IDOC with mental health providers is a significant task, it is one that can, and must, be done. The public interest also weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendants are hereby given 14 days to submit their proposed action to address the constitutional deficiencies outlined herein. (Minute Entry dated 9/28/2018). Plaintiffs have seven days thereafter to file their response to the Defendants’ proposal. Id.
Motion for Order on Payment of Deferred Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 2233) is DENIED without prejudice.
So ordered, this 30th day of October 2018.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm
U.S. District Court Judge
50

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 1 of 18

E-FILED
Thursday, 20 December, 2018 12:41:31 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiff, v.
ROGER E. WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-1298

)

)

)

)

ORDER

On October 30, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’1 Motion for Permanent injunction and

entered an Order finding Defendants John Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of

Corrections (“IDOC”), and Dr. Melvin Hinton, Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction

Recovery Services of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Baldwin and Dr. Hinton are referred

to herein as “Defendants”), have been deliberately indifferent to the mental health needs of

mentally ill inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections in violation of the

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 2460). The Court deferred

entering specific injunctive relief, instead allowing Defendants an opportunity to submit a proposal

to address their constitutional deficiencies. Id. On November 13, 2018, Defendants submitted

their proposed remedy order. (ECF No. 2473). On November 20, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted their

memorandum in support of their proposed remedy order. (ECF No. 2481). On December 4, 2018,

1 Plaintiffs have been defined as “[p]ersons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition.” (ECF No. 252 at 7).
1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 2 of 18
Defendants submitted their Reply. (ECF No. 2496, Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Injunctive Relief).
In addition, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Order Payment of Deferred Attorneys’ Fees or for Contempt. (ECF No. 2487). Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order Payment of Deferred Fees. (ECF No. 2501).
On December 13, 2018, the above motions and proposed orders came before the Court for oral argument. This Order follows.
DISCUSSION Defendants correctly provide that the Court issued its Order as contemplated under §XXIX(g) of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. (See ECF No. 2460 at 8; ECF No. 711-1, Settlement Agreement). Section XXIX(g) of the Settlement Agreement provides: If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to achieve compliance. (ECF No. 711-1 at 30). This Court also recognizes the restraints for injunctive relief specifically enumerated in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). In that regard, the PLRA provides: The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). This Court is also fully aware that “judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982). Defendants suggest the Seventh Circuit requires the Court “to order IDOC officials to do so in general terms and to verify that the plan they submit
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 3 of 18
satisfies the relevant constitutional standards.” See Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir. 2012). In Westefer, the Seventh Circuit reviewed a district court’s injunctive order addressing the Illinois Department of Correction’s procedures when assigning inmates to the supermax prison. The district court incorporated the supermax-transfer regime used in Ohio. In vacating the district court’s Order, the Seventh Circuit explained:
The district court's injunction goes well beyond this, locking in highly specific formal requirements controlling the timing and content of the notice and hearing that each transferred inmate must receive, and even going so far as to impose a right to appeal. An injunction of this scope and specificity is inconsistent with the “informal, nonadversary” model set forth in Wilkinson, Hewitt, and Greenholtz, and cannot be reconciled with the PLRA's requirement that injunctions in prison-conditions cases must be narrowly drawn and use the least intrusive means of correcting the violation of the federal right. Id. at 684. Defendants’ reliance on Westefer is misplaced for two reasons. First, the record here demonstrates a long history of the Defendants’ non-compliance with various terms they had agreed upon. Second, given this history of non-compliance, Defendants’ proposal is wholly deficient in addressing their constitutional violations. The Settlement Agreement was the result of significant negotiations between the Parties over a period of years. Indeed, in October of 2010, the Parties announced in open court that they were working toward a class settlement. The Parties worked with a panel of experts to assist in their settlement efforts. (ECF No. 117, Joint Status Report dated May 7, 2012). A comprehensive settlement conference was held between April 16, 2013, and April 18, 2013. An Agreed Order that provided additional working structure resulted from the settlement efforts. (See ECF No. 132). After additional unsuccessful settlement efforts by the Parties, on March 20, 2015, the matter was set for trial. (Minute Entry dated 3/20/2015; see also Minute Entry dated 9/17/2015). On December 17, 2015, the Parties again announced to the Court that a settlement agreement had been reached. (Minute Entry dated 12/17/2015). On May 23, 2016, the last signature was acquired on
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 4 of 18
the Settlement Agreement resolving the decade-long dispute between the Parties. (ECF No. 7111 at 33).
Since the agreement was finalized, Defendants have failed to comply with many of its material terms. (See e.g. ECF No. 1373, First Annual Report dated May 22, 2017; ECF No. 1646, Mid-Year Report dated November 22, 2017; ECF No. 2122, Second Annual Report dated June 8, 2018). While the Monitor has memorialized Defendants’ non-compliance, the Defendants themselves have recognized their deficiencies. During the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Hinton testified that a significant number of mentally ill inmates were in dangerous situations because there was inadequate staffing at the Illinois Department of Corrections. (ECF No. 1758 at 53). The danger associated with the inadequate staffing applied to every aspect of mental health treatment examined during the preliminary and permanent injunction hearing. (See e.g. ECF No. 1758 at 319-20, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that it is dangerous to not monitor an individual on psychotropic medication.). In its Orders, this Court specifically found that the Defendants’ efforts to comply with the Settlement Agreement (or its own general directives) only came at the time of, or after, the filing of the Plaintiffs’ initial Motion. (See id., see also ECF No. 1559, filed on 10/10/2017). Simply put, the Defendants’ actions have been largely reactionary.
Additionally, based on this Court’s review, Defendants’ proposal falls far short of addressing their constitutional violations. The record is clear that the Defendants know what needs to be done. When presented with yet another opportunity to establish a reasonable proposal to address their constitutional deficiencies, they instead provided a document containing simple generalities. (See ECF No. 2473-1). The Defendants’ most egregious attempt to cure their constitutional deficiencies is set forth in their proposal regarding mental heath staffing. Defendants propose adopting the vague requirement that they have “a staffing plan and achieve a
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 5 of 18
level of staffing that provides sufficient number of mental health staff of varying types to provide class members with adequate and timely evaluations, treatment and follow-up consistent with contemporary standards of care.” (ECF No. 2473-1 at 4). Yet, Defendants know they are understaffed, and they also know the staffing levels which are necessary to provide adequate care. In fact, Defendants are fully aware of all these deficiencies, as they have both acknowledged the staffing problems at the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Moreover, the record contains ample evidence to demonstrate the Illinois Department of Corrections is understaffed. (ECF No. 2460 at 13-28). The following exchange at the preliminary injunction hearing puts it in simplest terms:
Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists? A. [Dr. Hinton] Correct. (ECF No. 1758 at 50). For his part, Baldwin testified that the IDOC continues to ask Wexford for additional staff. (ECF No. 2354 at 9). Despite the Defendants’ recognition of their staffing shortage, not enough is being done. As fully detailed in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Defendants’ failure to adequately staff their facilities has led to a number of areas where they have failed to meet the constitutional requirements with respect to the mental health needs of the inmates. When there is a “concrete showing of a valid claim and constitutionally mandated directives for relief,” a court should and must act. Rogers, 676 F.2d at 1214; see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687, n. 9 (1978). “A federal court is required to tailor ‘the scope of the remedy’ to fit ‘the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.’” Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420 (1977). Here, it is clear constitutional violations have already occurred (see ECF No. 2460, ad passim), and given the general history of Defendants’ non-
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 6 of 18
compliance with the Settlement Agreement, their own directives, and the law, their constitutional violations will continue unless this Court acts.
As such, the Court FINDS for the reasons stated herein and its Order dated October 30, 2018, that the following relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right:
1. Staffing requirements at the Illinois Department of Corrections a. Within 90 days of this order, Defendants must employ additional staff sufficient to meet the staffing requirements of their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan; b. Within 120 days of this order, Defendants shall evaluate whether their staffing plan is sufficient to provide mental health treatment consistent with constitutional law in the areas of treatment planning, medication management, mental health care on crisis watches, mental health care in segregation, and mental health evaluations;
c. Within 180 days of this order, Defendants shall report their findings and submit a proposed amended staffing plan to the Court, the monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel; and
d. After the report, the Court will consider if any modification to the Defendants’ staffing is necessary.
In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Court specifically notes that the record is clear additional staffing is needed to provide the constitutionally required mental health services at the Illinois Department of Corrections. Almost universally, every witness who appeared during the hearings, at some point during their testimony, stated that there was insufficient staff to provide the needed mental health care for inmates. (See e.g. ECF No. 1757 at 139, Dr. Stewart testified about the reason for lack of group activities; ECF No. 1757 at 197, Dr. Michael Dempsey testified that there were not enough psychiatrists to treat patients; ECF No. 1758 at 82, Dr. Hinton explained the IDOC did not have the right staffing requirements; ECF No. 2354 at 71-76, Baldwin acknowledged that the IDOC needed to work on
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 7 of 18
staffing; ECF No. 2376 at 356, Kelly Ann Renzi, Ph.D., Psychologist Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center; ECF No. Dr. Melissa Stromberger, Psychologist Administrator at Hill Correctional Center; but see ECF No. 2373 at 822, Dr. William Elliott, Wexford Health Sources’ Regional Mental Health Director for Illinois, who testified that Wexford had the right staffing requirements).
The Court recognizes the amount of staff necessary may not ever be identified with exact precision. Nonetheless, the Court finds that immediate action must be taken by the Defendants to address the dangerous situation that exists in the correctional facilities. As such, in order to mitigate the current dangerous situation that exists, the Court directs the Defendants to meet the staffing requirements of their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan within 90 days of this Order. The Court finds the 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan is the best starting point to address the staffing deficiencies within the IDOC. Notably, the Illinois Department of Corrections found the staffing contained therein was sufficient to satisfy its constitutional violations. (ECF No. 1716, Exhibit and Witness List, Ex. 9, IDOC Proposed Remedial Plan dated April 17, 2014, “Pursuant to its September 20, 2013 Facility and Staffing Plan, the Illinois Department of Corrections (“Department” or “IDOC”) is pleased to present this proposal for staffing levels and bed and treatment space allocations that satisfy its constitutional duty to provide mental health care to seriously mentally ill (“SMI”) offenders.”).
The Court recognizes this may not be enough. (See ECF No. 2122 at 10, Second Annual Report of Monitor, Pablo Stewart, MD, “It has become painfully clear to the monitoring team over the first two years of the Settlement Agreement that the staffing levels of the Approved Remedial Plan are totally inadequate to meet the mental health and psychiatric needs of the mentally ill offender population of the Department.” See also ECF No. 1373 at 35, First Annual Report of the
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 8 of 18
Monitor Pablo Stewart, MD, “Understaffing is very evident at all but one IDOC facility monitored
and this was identified as a key reason a number of other Settlement provisions have not been met.
Turnover is reported as high.”). As such, the Court also directs Defendants to evaluate whether
their current staffing plan meets their constitutional obligation. This action, in conjunction with
the requirement to immediately increase staff, will allow the Defendants the opportunity to assess
their staffing needs while immediately addressing the glaring staffing deficiencies that currently
place the class members in danger.
The Court finds that this directive, based on the evidence, is narrowly drawn, extends no
further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
2. Class members who are placed on mental health crisis watch:
a. Crisis watches should only be used for patients exhibiting behavior dangerous to self or others as a result of mental illness and may only be ordered upon a finding by an appropriately trained and licensed mental health professional that no other less restrictive treatment is appropriate. When used, crisis watches are to be employed for the shortest duration possible;
b. IDOC shall provide appropriate mental health treatment to stabilize the symptoms and protect against decompensation;
c. Reevaluations of treatment and medication will occur as needed and mental health treatment shall be determined and any necessary interventions to stabilize individuals shall occur;
d. Daily assessment in a confidential setting of the patient's progress to determine if the patient is moving towards stability, whether other or additional treatments are indicated, or if transfer to a higher level of care is required;
e. Prior to discharge from crisis watch, a multidisciplinary team (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan;
f. Prior to discharge from crisis watch, an appropriate mental health professional (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan which will apply after discharge from crisis watch. The updated treatment plan will address causes which led to the deterioration and the plan for risk management to prevent relapse;
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 9 of 18
g. For anyone who does not stabilize sufficiently to be discharged from crisis watch, the treatment team must establish a plan to provide a higher level of care, which may include transfer to a higher level of care facility, or explain in writing why establishing such a plan is not appropriate; and
h. Out of cell time for confidential counseling and groups, psychiatric care, therapeutic activities, and recreational or leisure activities.
In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, given the Defendants’ general failure to address their deficiencies in the care of mentally ill inmates on crisis watch, it is necessary to require the above action. The record demonstrates that crisis watch is often being used in a manner that is detrimental to the inmates. Inmates are initially screened for suicidal tendencies, but are not always re-accessed thereafter. (ECF No. 1757 at 232; ECF No. 1903 at 198-99, Dr. Stewart testifying that “there's no specialized treatment that occurs for people in crisis.”). As such, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that “the primary focus [of crisis watch] is ensuring [inmates’] safety, ensuring that [inmates] are okay and getting [them] off of a state of crisis [ ].” (ECF No. 2371 at 34). Dr. Hinton’s own testimony highlights the requirement that crisis watch should be used for the shortest duration possible.
Dr. Stewart also opined that the Defendants’ failure to conduct necessary evaluations and assessments of inmates who are discharged from crisis watch results in unnecessary harm and suffering, especially as those failures combine with inadequate treatment planning and psychopharmacology. (ECF No. 1757 at 231). The Court finds that the directives related to inmates on crisis watch are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The Court has fashioned these requirements being mindful to allow as much operational discretion and flexibility to prison administrators as possible given the record in this case.
9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 10 of 18
3. Class members who are placed in segregation2
a. Promptly after placement into segregation, a mental health professional shall assess the class member to establish a baseline against which any future decompensation can be measured. Such review shall be documented in the patient’s mental health records in a manner that facilitates access and review by subsequent treatment staff;
b. A mental health professional shall review and recommend any clinically necessary modifications to the prisoner’s individual treatment plan;
c. Rounds shall be conducted by appropriate mental health staff, which may include behavioral health technicians;
d. Class members who are in a Control Unit for periods of sixteen days or more shall receive care that includes, at a minimum:
i. Continuation of their mental health treatment plan with such treatment as necessary to protect from any decompensation;
ii. Rounds in every section of each Control Unit at least every seven days by appropriate mental health staff;
iii. Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);
iv. Meeting with MHP or multidisciplinary team meetings to the extent necessary;
v. MHP or mental health treatment team recommendations to post-segregation housing; and
vi. Structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect against decompensation. Structured out of cell time includes therapeutic, educational and recreational activities that involve active engagement by their participants for the duration of the activity.
2 Dr. Stewart has explained that inmates in segregation are:
[S]ome of the sickest individuals psychiatrically that I've seen in my career, and I've only worked with seriously mentally ill. And these people are just suffering immensely. And so -- you know, and they get nothing. Couple little things thrown at them. But they really don't get any sort of regular treatment.
And so this is a real serious issue, you know. I don't want to put a number on it. It's, it's -- it's as serious as I've seen. (ECF No. 1905 at 182-83).
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 11 of 18
e. Class members in any Control Unit for periods longer than sixty days shall be provided with structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect against decompensation unless clinically contraindicated. If an inmate refuses out of cell time, a MHP shall follow-up with the inmate to determine whether or not there is a risk of further decompensation;
f. Mental health staff shall assess class members in Control Units to determine if a higher level of care is necessary and if so, to make proper recommendations to facility authority; and
g. Continued treatment by mental health professional and/or psychiatric provider to the extent clinically indicated.
In addition to the reasons outlined in the Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, Defendants
themselves have recognized that some of the aforementioned directives are necessary. (See ECF
NO. 2473-1 at 3-4). In addition, three critical points were made during the hearings. First, Dr.
Hinton testified that the requirements related to inmates who are in segregation are not being met.
Dr. Hinton also testified that, in his view, “there’s nothing that is a good thing about being in
segregation.” (ECF No. 1758 at 82). Second, Dr. Stewart testified that the IDOC’s medication
management for those in segregation is worse than for Class Members elsewhere in the system.
Dr. Stewart specifically noted there is a significant problem in ensuring those in segregation who
are prescribed psychotropic medication actually take the medication. (ECF No. 1757 at 123). And
third, Dr. Stewart explained the consequences of failing to allow mentally ill inmates out of cell
time as follows:
[ ] psychiatric decompensation. And then we run into that whole line, you know, acting out, writing up, more segregation time and/or going to crisis, coming out. It's -- the fact that (vi)(A), which is continuation of the initial treatment plan with enhanced therapy, if necessary, to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation, that's not being done. People are getting worse in segregation.
(ECF No. 1905 at 174). Given the testimony at the hearing, the Court finds that its directives
related to inmates in segregation are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 12 of 18
the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation
of the Federal right. The Court has fashioned the requirements being mindful to allow the most
operational discretion and flexibility to prison administrators as possible given the record in this
case.
4. Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication
a. Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards;
b. IDOC shall accomplish the following in psychiatric services:
i. Administer medications to all class members in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to, and taken by, the offenders as prescribed;
ii. The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects;
iii. Take necessary steps to ascertain side effects;
iv. The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
v. The class members for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanations from appropriate medical staff about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what in general are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication; and
vi. That class members, including offenders in a Control Unit who experience medication noncompliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender's medication noncompliance said noncompliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatric provider.
In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Court
notes that the danger of prescribed psychotropic medications was detailed during the hearings.
Some of the medication used to treat psychiatric conditions have harsh side effects. (ECF No.
1757 at 241). Because of these side effects, monitoring is required. Id. One of the biggest
12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 13 of 18
revelations in the hearings was Dr. Stewart’s testimony that “[i]t's rare when someone [on psychiatric medication] is being seen every 30 days [I’ve] [f]ound examples of people being seen -- of medications being routinely written for anywhere from two to six months.” (ECF No. 1757 at 243). This is a significant problem and one that must be addressed immediately. Given the testimony at the hearing, the Court finds that the directives related to inmates on psychiatric medication are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
5. Treatment plans a. All class members shall have a treatment plan that is individualized and particularized based on the patient's specific needs, including long and short term objectives, updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest extent possible. b. Mental health evaluations shall be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that individuals in need of treatment, or re-evaluation of existing treatment, are evaluated without undue delay. c. Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically necessary to assess the progress of the documented treatment goal and update the plan accordingly.
In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Court emphasizes that it found the Defendants failed, in a systemic way, to properly create, update, and monitor the treatment plans. (ECF No. 2460 at 37-38; ECF No. 1905 at 80, Dr. Stewart found that in a majority of medical files he reviewed, the treatment plan used boilerplate language and did “not address the treatment needs of a particular mentally ill offender.”). Again, this problem has been caused, in large part, by the Defendants’ failure to address its staffing needs. The record is clear that treatment plans and evaluations are critical to the mental health care of inmates. As such, the Court finds that the directives related to treatment plans and evaluations are narrowly drawn,
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 14 of 18
extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
6. Compliance Requirements a. A quarterly report created by IDOC shall certify each facility's compliance with the above requirements. b. On a regular basis (no less than every 90 days), Defendants shall provide the results of their own quality assurance audit. These results shall include an accompanying certification of Defendants’ CQI Manager of whether compliance has been reached with Defendants’ quality assurance audit requirements.
c. The appointed independent monitor, Dr. Pablo Stewart, will monitor the Defendants’ compliance with this Order consistent with the monitor’s existing duties and functions.
d. Nothing in this Order relieves the Defendants of their obligations under the Settlement Agreement.
7. Timing The terms of this permanent injunction shall remain in place for a period of two years from
the date of this Order. See supra p. 16; see also e.g. 711-1 at 30. FINAL COMMENTS ON REMEDY
During the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants did not generally dispute their deficiencies in mental health care to inmates. (See ECF Nos. 2070, Order dated 5/25/2018, see also ECF Nos. 1757, 1758, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, transcripts of preliminary injunction hearing). During the permanent injunction proceeding, Defendants’ evidence was focused on changes that had occurred between the issuance of this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order and the permanent injunction hearing. (See ECF No. 2460, Order dated 10/30/2018; ECF Nos. 2370, 2371, 2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, and 2378, transcripts of the permanent injunction hearing). However, Defendants also assert they are doing the best they can considering the market for mental health professionals. These positions are contradictory and problematic. The former
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 15 of 18
highlights the fact that Defendants fail to act urgently without the Court’s intervention. As noted in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Defendants have made some strides since the preliminary injunction hearing. In fact, during the permanent injunction hearing, Baldwin boasted about new avenues for staffing, including working with universities. Yet, exploring these opportunities has only recently occurred. The latter is a problem because the Defendants have far too often relied on their outside vendor for their staffing needs. Baldwin made this point clear during the hearing when he testified:
Q. And so in January you knew that you were not providing the level of care desperately needed and to which these people are entitled? A. We knew we had a problem, and we were working on a broad front to help address it. And we still are and will continue. Q. But you can't tell me how it came to be that you had such a terrible problem in January of 2018 when you had made promises in May of '16 that, if they had been kept, wouldn't let you be in that situation, right? A. Yes. We need to do -- we depended on our partner for filling vacancies. Q. You depended on your partner -- Wexford -- to deliver care that you had promised? Is that what you're saying? A. That's part of it. We also trained staff. We also hired our own behavioral health people in good numbers. And we have made, in my opinion, a reasonable effort to comply in most areas of the treatment for the mentally ill under our care. (ECF No. 2354 at 76-77)(emphasis added). In the end, it was the Defendants’ decision to rely on Wexford to solve their problem. As this Court noted previously, the Defendants cannot shirk their constitutional obligations by delegating them to another. (ECF No. 2460 at 44). And now the Court must impose the directives above to avoid the continuance of the constitutional violations. Parenthetically, several times in their briefs and associated oral arguments, Defendants have noted that this Court has left the Settlement Agreement in place. While it is true the Court
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 16 of 18
has found the Settlement Agreement remains, the reason for such is simple - the Parties agreed to do so. (See e.g. 711-1 at 30, “If the Court determines that Defendants are not in substantial compliance, with any provision of this Settlement Agreement at any time during the three (3) year period of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to such provision shall continue for the remainder of the three (3) year period or for a period to be ordered by the Court of not more than two (2) years from the date of the Court’s finding that Defendants are not in substantial compliance.”). The Parties agreed to litigate certain portions of their dispute if compliance with the agreement did not occur – and only those portions were litigated. With respect to those areas, the Court has found Defendants were not in substantial compliance. The requirements imposed herein are those the Court finds are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
ATTORNEY FEES The Parties disagree on the payment of deferred attorneys’ fees provided for in the Settlement Agreement. Section XXXIII of the Settlement Agreement provides: The parties agree that an award of fees is appropriate in this matter. The Court shall determine the amount of the fees and costs due to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Fees are to be determined as if the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. One half of this sum shall be payable one hundred twenty (120) days after the Court determines that amount. The remaining half of the fees will become immediately due if the Court enters an order pursuant to Section XXIX(g). In no event will the award be more than six million dollars. (ECF No. 711-1 at 32). The Parties ultimately reached a resolution on the initial award of fees and the deferred amount left open under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties’ agreement on the attorneys’ fees specifically provides: In consideration for the full and complete settlement of the claim for attorney fees and costs, the parties agree that the sum of $3,800,000.00 (Three million, eight
16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 17 of 18
hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall be considered to be a reasonable amount due pursuant to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the parties will so represent that to the Court pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties further agree that the sum of $1,900,000.00 (One million, nine hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall be paid to Equip for Equality [ ] to be distributed to Plaintiffs’ counsel under Section XXXIII of Document 711-1. In the event the Court enters an order under Section XXIX(g) of the Document, another payment of $1,900,000.00 (One million, nine hundred thousand, and 00/100 dollars) shall become due and owing under the terms of Section XXXIII of Document 711-1. The parties understand that the entire amount payable under this Agreement is subject to state law governing the State Comptroller’s obligation to withhold funds that Plaintiffs’ counsel may owe to other persons or to state agencies. The validity of these claims may be contested through applicable state procedure. (ECF No. 1091 at 2-3). The Court approved the Parties’ agreement on attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 1211). Defendants first argue this “contractual obligation” by the State can only be enforced in the Court of Claims and this Court’s authority is limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The difficulty with Defendants’ position is the award of attorneys’ fees in this case is entangled not only in the Settlement Agreement but also in this Court’s Order dated February 10, 2017. At the time the Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement, there was no dispute Plaintiffs were a prevailing party for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (ECF No. 1091 at 2). Moreover, the Parties recognized this Court ultimately had to approve any award of attorneys’ fees. Id. And the Parties left it for this Court to decide. The Parties also left it for the Court to decide whether the Defendants were in substantial compliance. The Court has found the Defendants are in violation of the Settlement Agreement that triggers the payment of the deferred attorneys’ fees. The payment is not only required under the Settlement Agreement, but is also required by this Court’s Order dated February 10, 2017. Defendants’ attempt to relitigate this issue in another forum is simply unconscionable, thwarts
17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2516 Page 18 of 18 judicial economy, undermines the purpose of attorneys’ fees, and is violative of this Court’s Order. This is an award of attorneys’ fees by this Court, plain and simple.
Defendants’ second argument is that an award of the deferred fees is “premature” and should only be made “after the Court enters an appealable order with the required finding with respect to relief.” (ECF No. 2501 at 1). This argument, of course, is moot given the entry of this Order. Finally, the Court finds no reason to defer the entry of the fees as requested by the Defendants. All conditions have been met for the award of fees. The remaining half of the fees ($1,900,000) are immediately due. Defendants shall make payment within 30 days of this Order.
Entered this 20th day of December 2018.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm
U.S. District Court Judge
18

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 1 of 16

E-FILED
Tuesday, 26 February, 2019 11:53:03 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiff, v.
ROGER E. WALKER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-1298

)

)

)

)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or

Modification of Injunction Orders (ECF No. 2540) and Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction

Pending Appeal (ECF No. 2543) and Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No.

2532). The Defendants are John Baldwin, the Acting Director of the IDOC and Dr. Hinton, the

Department’s Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction Recovery Services. The Plaintiffs

are:

Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addition, developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition.

(ECF No. 252 at 7).

BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2018, this Court entered an Order finding that the Defendants have been

deliberately indifferent to the mental health medical needs of the Plaintiffs. This Court specifically

found that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the Plaintiffs in

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 2 of 16
medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Most notably, this Court found the evidence showed that there were systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing that effectively denied the Plaintiffs access to adequate medical care.
On December 20, 2018, this Court entered a comprehensive Order (ECF No. 2516) addressing the requirements imposed on the Defendants to correct the violation of the Federal right. In addition to imposing certain measures to address the areas of medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans, the Court directed the Defendants to meet the staffing requirements of their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan within 90 days of the Order.
On January 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking $918,180.70 in fees and $42,631.27 in expenses. (ECF No. 2532). Parenthetically, this Court awarded Plaintiffs $1,900,000.00 in attorneys’ fees under the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. Defendants filed their Response to the Petition arguing that the Court should award no more than $434,480.19 in fees and $22,450.00 in expenses. (ECF No. 2565). Defendants argue, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ fee and expense request should be limited to recovering only those fees and expenses that were directly related to proving the Eighth Amendment violation.
On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of the Injunction Orders pursuant to Rules 52(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 2540). In their Motion, Defendants ask that the Court amend its findings and make certain additional findings arguing that there is unrefuted evidence of the current care of inmates
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 3 of 16
that the Court did not address in its Orders. Defendants also suggest the Court did not adequately address the legal standard that applies to determine whether officials’ efforts to cure systemic deficiencies fall so short as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Reconsider arguing, among other things, that none of the Defendants’ arguments are properly raised in the Motion. (ECF No. 2567).
On January 18, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal arguing that the Court should stay its Order requiring the Defendants to pay the $1,900,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, and further stay the requirement that they staff the prison in accordance to their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan. (ECF No. 2543). The Plaintiffs also oppose this Motion. (ECF No. 2566).
The above matters have been extensively briefed and oral argument was heard on February 19, 2019. This Order follows.
DISCUSSION Motion to Reconsider
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: (e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. “A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: ‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.’” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)). Motions to reconsider are not to be used as a tool to “rehash” the arguments previously presented to the court. Tredway v. Parke, 79 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing In re Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz, 794 F.Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. June 15, 1992)).
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 4 of 16
Defendants first argue that the Orders failed to discuss or apply controlling Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent, specifically directing the Court to the case of Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991), Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), and Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2016). The Defendants also argue that the recent Seventh Circuit case of Sinn v. Lemmon, 911 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2018), impacts the outcome of this case.
Defendants specifically argue that these cases do not allow for a finding of deliberate indifference where officials’ conduct is not “wanton” or subjectively reckless, and where they are making “reasonable” efforts to correct harmful conditions, even if the conditions of harm are not averted. The Defendants further provide:
Instead of applying these controlling precedents, the Court misapplied the Seventh Circuit’s decisions in Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1983), and Cleveland-Purdue v. Brutsche, 881 F.2d 427 (7th Cir. 1989), to rule that deliberate indifference can be demonstrated by proof of systemic deficiencies in care, without assessing whether defendants’ efforts to correct those issues are so deficient that their response is wanton or subjectively reckless. (Dkt. 2460 at 40–41.) Both Wellman and Cleveland-Purdue pre-date Wilson and Farmer, and therefore neither case addressed whether prison officials had the required wanton or subjectively reckless mental state needed for deliberate indifference, and neither case addressed the reasonableness of any efforts to correct the alleged defects. (ECF No. 2540 at 3). This Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, extensively details the Defendants’ failure to provide adequate mental health care to 12,000 plus mentally ill inmates in their custody, including approximately 5,112 inmates who are considered “seriously mentally ill.” (ECF No. 2460 at 2; see also ECF No. 1758 at 51, Testimony of Dr. Hinton). In the Order, the Court credited Defendants’ good efforts in certain areas related to mental illness treatment. However, Defendants’ efforts to mask the root problem of inadequate staffing by highlighting other areas in which they have improved was not at the hearing, or now, persuasive to this Court. Indeed, these efforts failed to address the core problem associated with Defendants’ deficiencies, that being
4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 5 of 16
staffing. The testimony and evidence could not be any clearer – the issues associated with the constitutional deficiency in treatment cannot be resolved without the Defendants addressing the staffing problem. The Defendants know this, and at no time have they taken reasonable efforts to address this area. In terms of knowledge, as noted several times by this Court, Dr. Hinton testified at the preliminary injunction hearing as follows:
Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists? A. Correct. (ECF No. 1758 at 50). Not only Dr. Hinton held this opinion. As this Court noted in its Order dated December 20, 2018, almost every witness who appeared during the preliminary or permanent injunction hearings, at some point during their testimony, stated that there was insufficient staff to provide the needed mental health care for inmates. (See e.g. ECF No. 1757 at 139, Dr. Stewart testified about the reason for lack of group activities; ECF No. 1757 at 197, Dr. Michael Dempsey testified that there were not enough psychiatrists to treat patients; ECF No. 1758 at 82, Dr. Hinton explained the IDOC did not have the right staffing requirements; ECF No. 2354 at 71-76, Baldwin acknowledged that the IDOC needed to work on staffing; ECF No. 2376 at 356, Kelly Ann Renzi, Ph.D., Psychologist Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center; ECF No. Dr. Melissa Stromberger, Psychologist Administrator at Hill Correctional Center; but see ECF No. 2373 at 822, Dr. William Elliott, Wexford Health Sources’ Regional Mental Health Director for Illinois, who testified that Wexford had the right staffing requirements). The harm associated with inadequate staffing is undisputedly significant. Again, this Court need not look any further than the testimony of Dr. Hinton at the preliminary injunction hearing. Dr. Hinton discussed the dangers the lack of appropriate staffing can have on an individual who is taking psychotropic medicine (ECF No. 1758 at 52-53) and the problems in segregation related to
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 6 of 16
staffing shortages (ECF No. 1758 at 81-82). Dr. Michael Dempsey, M.D. and Dr. Pablo Stewart also testified regarding the harm to the Plaintiffs because of the Defendants’ failure to adequately staff the institutions. At best, Defendants have found a temporary solution in some respects by taxing current staff members into unreasonable overtime activities to mask the fundamental problem of inadequate staffing. Given this, the Court finds the Defendants’ underlying premise that they have engaged in “reasonable” efforts to correct harmful conditions is simply incorrect.
Moreover, the Court finds that it properly considered the relevant case law and Circuit precedent in reaching its decision. Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent require this Court to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the conditions as described at the preliminary injunction hearing, as well as the current attitude of the Defendants, in determining whether or not a permeant injunction should issue. Wilson, Farmer, Wellman, and ClevelandPerdue all provide guidance in this case. The bottom line is, this case has painfully played out over a decade. Over that time, the Defendants have acknowledged their staffing problem, agreed to increase their staffing levels, made no substantive progress in that area, and now argue their efforts are reasonable under the circumstances. This Court disagrees. Defendants’ lack of reasonable efforts, coupled with their failure to comply with their own identified deficiencies, is thoroughly examined in this Court’s Order and overwhelmingly demonstrates their response to the current crisis related to mental health is wanton and/or subjectively reckless.
Defendants argue the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Sinn is contrary to the result this Court reached. In Sinn, the Seventh Circuit examined a case involving an inmate’s Section 1983 claim that various prison officials, including a sergeant, correctional officer, former unit manager, former superintendent, and former Commissioner of Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), were deliberately indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from
6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 7 of 16
gang violence at prison. Id., 911 F.3d at 418. Sinn did not change the general construct of deliberate indifference and relied on Farmer and other cases in holding that prison officials can be deliberately indifferent when they are “aware of ‘a systematic lapse in enforcement’ of a policy critical to ensuring inmate safety” yet fail to enforce that policy. Id. at 423 (citing Steidl v. Gramley, 151 F.3d 739, 741 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Goka v. Bobbitt, 862 F.2d 646, 652 (7th Cir. 1988)). That is the case here. This Court finds that Sinn does not change the previous Orders in this case.
Finally, Defendants argue the Court erred in basing its findings predominantly on “stale” evidence from the preliminary injunction hearing without acknowledging or addressing “substantial unrefuted” evidence showing the care currently provided system-wide with existing staffing levels. This Court disagrees. This Court’s Order found that the Defendants’ evidence showing any improvements noted were the result of the unsustainable use of overtime and/or caused deficiencies in other areas. (ECF No. 2460 at 43, Order discussing the Defendants’ ability to minimize the backlog at certain locations comes at the cost of providing care in other areas.). The Defendants also argue the Court improperly discounted their expert Holly Andrilla, who generally implied, among other things, that the IDOC has more than enough psychiatrists to treat its mentally ill population. (See e.g. ECF No. 2375 at 59). The Court finds there can be no reasonable argument that Andrilla’s analysis is applicable given her opinions were contrary to all of the testimony and established facts in this case. (See ECF No. 2460, at 20-21, Order discussing the Court’s reasoning for giving Holly Andrilla’s testimony little weight).
With respect to this Court’s Order that the Defendants comply with the 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan, Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs did not introduce any version of a “2014 Remedial Staffing Plan” into evidence. Defendants’ assertion is contrary to the Court’s record.
7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 8 of 16
The record reveals that the document was entered into evidence. (ECF No. 2362, Exhibit and
Witness List). Moreover, there was testimony on the document. (See e.g. 1758, at 101-104, Dr.
Hinton’s testimony). Most importantly, as noted in this Court’s Order:
The Court recognizes the amount of staff necessary may not ever be identified with exact precision. Nonetheless, the Court finds that immediate action must be taken by the Defendants to address the dangerous situation that exists in the correctional facilities. As such, in order to mitigate the current dangerous situation that exists, the Court directs the Defendants to meet the staffing requirements of their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan within 90 days of this Order. The Court finds the 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan is the best starting point to address the staffing deficiencies within the IDOC. Notably, the Illinois Department of Corrections found the staffing contained therein was sufficient to satisfy its constitutional violations. (ECF No. 1716, Exhibit and Witness List, Ex. 9, IDOC Proposed Remedial Plan dated April 17, 2014, “Pursuant to its September 20, 2013 Facility and Staffing Plan, the Illinois Department of Corrections (“Department” or “IDOC”) is pleased to present this proposal for staffing levels and bed and treatment space allocations that satisfy its constitutional duty to provide mental health care to seriously mentally ill (“SMI”) offenders.”).
(ECF No. 2516 at 7). The Court finds no reason to modify its Order to amend its findings, make
additional findings, or make any changes to its requirement that the IDOC employ additional staff
sufficient to meet its staffing requirements of their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan.
That being said, the Court has considered Defendants’ other requested modifications to
specific areas of the Court’s Order dated December 20, 2018.
On Page 8 of the Order::
e. Prior to discharge from crisis watch, a multidisciplinary team (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan;
The Court finds this provision is duplicative of Section 2(f) on the same page. As such,
the above language in Section 2(e) is removed. Additionally, Defendants request modification to
Section 2(f) limiting the application of the requirement to the time of discharge. The Court
modifies the language as follows:
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 9 of 16
f. No later than at the time of discharge from crisis watch, an appropriate mental health professional (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan which will apply after discharge from crisis watch. The updated treatment plan will address causes which led to the deterioration and the plan for risk management to prevent relapse; Defendants also argue Section 2(h) should be amended with respect to out-of-cell time for class members on crisis watches, to expressly provide that such care will be provided “unless contraindicated” or “to the extent clinically appropriate.” The Plaintiffs do not oppose the language “unless contraindicated” being added, and it is so ordered. All other requests for modifications contained in the Defendants’ Motion are denied. Having fully considered all of the Defendants’ arguments, other than the limited changes to Sections 2(e), 2(f), and 2(h) noted above, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Injunction Orders. (ECF No. 2540). Motion to Stay A stay pending appeal should only be granted in limited circumstances. Schmude v. Sheahan, 2004 WL 1179418, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2004) (“[A] request for a stay is a request for extraordinary relief, equitable in character, and the movant bears a heavy burden.”) (citing Winston–Salem Forsyth County Bd. of Educ. v. Scott, 404 U.S. 1221, 1231 (1971); Chan v. Wodnicki, 67 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir.1995); see also Strategic Capital Bancorp, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 2015 WL 13595164, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2015). The factors to be considered include: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Bradford–Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d 504, 505
9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 10 of 16
(7th Cir. 1997); Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 269 (7th Cir.1985); Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds of Illinois v. Royal Builders, Inc., 2008 WL 4876856, at *2–3 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008).
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal generally relies on the arguments made in their Motion for Reconsideration. As discussed above, the Court does not believe the Defendants will be successful on the merits of their appeal. Again, the Defendants have acknowledged their staffing problem, agreed to increase their staffing levels, and made no substantive progress in this critical area. The Court does not believe the Court of Appeals will relieve Defendants of their constitutional obligation.
Defendants also argue that the Court erred in determining that it had jurisdiction to rule on the attorneys’ fees award. Defendants specifically argue that the agreement on the attorneys’ fees was a contract between the Plaintiffs and the State of Illinois and any action to enforce contractual rights against the State must be brought in the Illinois Court of Claims. The Court finds no reason to question its determination that the attorneys’ fees issue was properly before this Court. The Court’s involvement in the fees, the Parties’ need to have the Court approve the fees, and the fact that the fees are based on a statutory foundation (42 U.S.C. § 1988), provide the Court with the basis to resolve any conflict regarding the matter. Moreover, as fully detailed in this Court’s Order, the fees are now due. The Court does not believe the Defendants will be successful on their appeal of this matter.
With respect to the fees, Defendants also argue that judicial efficiency dictates that this matter should be deferred until the Court’s ruling on the Plaintiffs’ new fee petition. The Court finds no reason for delay as those matters can be adequately separated. The Court does in fact rule on the new fee petition in this Order.
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 11 of 16
With respect to this Court’s Order that the Defendants comply with the 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan, Defendants argue that they have a strong argument on appeal that the Court should not have ordered compliance with a staffing plan that was never introduced into evidence and that Plaintiffs did not move to enforce. As noted above, Defendants’ argument is premised on the incorrect belief that the document was not entered into evidence. It was. Additionally, as noted above, the Court does not believe Defendants will be successful on appeal on this issue.
The Court has also considered the other relevant factors. The Court recognizes that the Defendants will have a burden to comply with the Court’s staffing directive. However, the Court finds that compliance with this directive is necessary, and more importantly, the continued delay in constitutionally staffing the institutions places the inmates in significant danger. This must be corrected now. It is not only in the interest of the inmates and correctional officers, but also in the interest of the public.
Having considered all of the relevant factors, the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal is DENIED. (ECF No. 2543). Attorneys’ Fees
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) gives a prevailing party the opportunity, at the Court’s discretion, to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in civil rights actions. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. There is no real dispute that the Plaintiffs are prevailing parties as the term is used under the statute. Furthermore, the Court finds, in the exercise of its discretion, that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to their pursuit of the preliminary and permanent injunctions. On January 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs seeking recovery of $918,180.70 in attorneys’ fees and $42,631.27 in expenses. (ECF No. 2532). On January 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed Corrections to Fees and Expenses reducing their fee request to $913,531.11,
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 12 of 16
and costs to $26,256.17. (ECF No. 2573). On February 7, 2019, Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs challenging the Plaintiffs’ request arguing the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover no more than $434,480.19 in fees and $22,450.00 in expenses. (ECF No. 2565). Defendants specifically argued that their review of the Plaintiffs’ request revealed objectionable fee and costs requests in the areas of: (1) inadequately documented or noncompensable hours; (2) secretarial tasks; (3) block billing; (4) duplicative work; (5) excessive time; and (6) non-compensable expenses. Id.; see also ECF No. 2565-1 through ECF No. 2565-6.
The burden of proving the fees are reasonable falls on the prevailing party. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). In awarding fees, the Lodestar method instructs the Court to multiply the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Fritcher v. Health Care Service Corp. 301 F.3d 811, 819 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34 (1983)). A “reasonable hourly rate” is “the rate that lawyers of a similar ability and experience in the community normally charge to their paying clients.” Id. (citing McNabola v. Chicago Transit Auth., 10 F.3d 501, 519 (7th Cir. 1993)). Plaintiffs seek a rate of $220.50 per hour for the attorney work on this case, and a rate of $125 per hour for the paralegal hours. There is no real dispute that these rates fall within that allowed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The PLRA imposes additional limitations on the ability to recover attorneys’ fees in suits brought by prisoners. The PLRA provides:
(1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney's fees are authorized under section 19881 of this title, such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that— (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 of this title; and (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or
12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 13 of 16
(ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e. This Court recognizes that a request for attorneys’ fees should not result in second major litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. Additionally, there is no precise rule or formula for making determinations related to fee reductions. Id. The Parties also recognized that a line-by-line accounting would result in a protracted proceeding. During the hearing held on February 19, 2019, the Parties agreed to provide general arguments on the areas highlighted in the Defendants’ opposition. Having thoroughly reviewed the Plaintiffs’ submissions and the Defendants’ response and considered the arguments of the Parties, the Court finds that considering the broad categories (via briefing and argument) it can adequately scrutinize counsels’ work and arrive at a reasonable range of appropriate hours that are compensable under the law. Evans v. City of Evanston, 941 F.2d 473 (7th Cir. 1991); see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436–37 (“There is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations. The district court may attempt to identify specific hours that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award to account for the limited success. The court necessarily has discretion in making this equitable judgment.”). Defendants broadly argue that Plaintiffs seek to recover for large amounts of work dating back to 2016 and early 2017, including routine contract monitoring and prison visits that are not directly related to the preliminary and permanent injunction. Many of these items are included in Defendants’ Exhibit 1. (ECF No. 2565-1). Defendants also challenge many of these items arguing the charges are duplicative and/or excessive. While the Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of work dating back to 2016, the timing itself is not problematic. Much of this work was directly supportive of their claims and reasonably incurred, and therefore recoverable. That being said, the Court
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 14 of 16
recognizes some of the items appear to fall outside the parameters of the action. (See e.g. ECF No. 2565-1 at 1-2, entries labeled “E-mails regarding Budget” and “accommodating eating disorder”). The Court also recognizes that some of the descriptions are vague. (ECF No. 2565-1 at 1, entry labeled “E-mails”); (But see ECF No. 2573 removing the vague items). Having reviewed the entirety of these challenges, considered the Plaintiffs’ supplemental filing removing items, and carefully implementing the guidance of the Seventh Circuit1, the Court finds that an across-the-board reduction of 20% in this category is appropriate.
Time for truly administrative tasks are unrecoverable. See Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544, 553 (7th Cir. 1999) (unbillable administrative tasks that could be performed by secretary). And it is clear some of the time Defendants identify falls in that category. However, a review of challenged time reveals much of it is related attorney work. For example, Defendants challenge Ms. Nicole Schult’s time for typing her prison visit notes. (ECF No. 25651 at 1). At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated they would often compile their notes in a meaningful fashion by drafting a summary of their visit before sending it to other members of the litigation team to review. The Court cannot say such time is truly administrative. That being said, the Defendants do identify several items that are administrative. Having considered all of the arguments, the Court finds a 30% reduction is appropriate.
The Court has considered Defendants’ challenge regarding block billing and finds that there is little merit. The descriptions and Plaintiffs’ representations reveal almost all of the time was necessary and appropriately submitted for reimbursement. The Court finds there is only a de minimis amount of time that could arguably be challenged (See ECF No. 2565-3, item dated 2/26/18) and reduces this category by 2%.
1 The Court’s review included, but was not limited to, a sampling of the billing records, examining the court procedural history, and considering the Plaintiffs’ remarks and justification regarding their time.
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 15 of 16
Duplicative billing is not recovered under a fee-shifting statute. Jardien v. Winston Network, Inc., 888 F.2d 1151, 1160 (7th Cir. 1989). Defendants provide several hours of Plaintiffs’ work wherein they argue it is duplicative. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs often overstaffed hearings and other matters. Plaintiffs countered that this matter involved complex issues, and further noted that the Defendants staffed this matter in a similar fashion. This matter was complex, and this Court finds that the Plaintiffs used good judgment in their overall staffing in the case. If there were any overstaffing or duplicative efforts being sought, it is extremely modest. To the extent the Court identifies any modest overstaffing, it finds a 15% reduction appropriate.
The Court has reviewed the submitted expenses in this matter and there was much agreement by the Parties on this issue. Items such as Liz Mazur’s admission to the Southern District of Illinois was removed. In fact, Plaintiffs agreed to a 15% reduction on items included on Defendants’ Exhibit 6 and a $9000.00 reduction on items listed on Exhibit 7.
Having considered all of the arguments related to attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court finds that the total to be awarded to Plaintiffs’ counsel under the fee-shifting statute is $873,002.75, which is comprised of $841,137.98 in fees and $31,864.77 in expenses.
CONCLUSION For reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Injunction Orders (ECF No. 2540) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. With the exception of the limited modifications of Sections 2(e), 2(f), and 2(h) of this Court’s Order dated December 10, 2018, noted above, the Motion is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (ECF No. 2543) is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 2532) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART insofar as Plaintiffs
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2579 Page 16 of 16 are awarded $841,137.98 in fees and $31,864.77 in expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Entered this 26th day of February 2019. /s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm U.S. District Court Judge
16

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 1 of 102

E-FILED
Tuesday, 28 May, 2019 03:19:04 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH

)

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.

)

Hawley

)

)

)

THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 2 of 102
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………4 METHODOLOGY/MONITORING ACTIVITIES ………………………………………7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………….9 DETAILED FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………..14 IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING ………………16 V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS ……………………………18 VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION …………………………………..22 VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW ……………………………..23 VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS.27 IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF………………………………………….29 X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE ………………………………………………………….. 32 XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING ………………………………………………….…40 XII: MEDICATION.……………………………………………………………………….42 XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION …………………………………………46 XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS ……………………………………………………….. 50 XV: SEGREGATION …………………………………………………………………….. 52 XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION …………………………………………………………... 64 XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES ……………... 71 XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS ……………………………………………………………. 76 XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY ………………………………………………………………. 77 XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION …………………………………………………80 XXI: STAFF TRAINING …………………………………………………………………. 81
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 3 of 102 XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS …………………………………….. 82 XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY …………………………………………….. 82 XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE ……………………………………….. 83 XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS ………………...91 XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM …………………….. 100 XXVII: MONITORING …………………………………………………………………... 101 XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING ………………………………………. 102 CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………….102
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 4 of 102
BACKGROUND
IDOC: IDOC consists of 29 adult correctional facilities. Among these are four maximum security facilities (including a facility for women), and two additional facilities for women. Four of the facilities have Reception and Classification units where inmates are received into IDOC. Three of the facilities, Logan, Joliet and Dixon, have Residential Treatment Units. The Joliet Treatment Center began receiving offenders on October 4, 2017 and as of April 1, 2019 the census was 126. The RTU at Pontiac is not operating as of the submission of this report although it does have the beginnings of a program with approximately 40 residents. The Amended Settlement Agreement states that the RTU at Pontiac is to open no later than July 6, 20181. All facilities have crisis care beds as well as having some form of segregation, including administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, and investigative status.
Settlement: The original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The Amended Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) was approved May 23, 2016. It covers a range of practices affecting inmates with mental illness or serious mental illness:
• Policies and procedures • Intake screening • Medication continuity on arrival • Referrals • Mental health evaluations • Crisis Intervention Team • Licensure • Inmate orientation • Treatment plans and updates • Psychiatric evaluations • Follow-up after discharge from specialized treatment settings • Staffing plans and hiring • Bed, programming, and office space for residential treatment units, inpatient
facilities, and crisis beds • Administrative staffing • Medication administration, documentation, evaluations, lab work, side effects
monitoring, informed consent, non-compliance follow-up • Enforced medication • Housing assignment notice and recommendations • Treatment, housing conditions, and out-of-cell time in segregation and
investigative status • Review of segregation terms length • Suicide prevention • Restraints for mental health purposes • Mental health care records and forms • Confidentiality • Change of Seriously Mentally Ill designation
1 Id page 12, section X(b)ii(B)
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 5 of 102

• Staff training • Nondiscrimination in program participation • Records and medication continuity on inter-facility transfers • Use of force and verbal abuse • Mental health input into discipline • Continuous quality improvement • Terms of monitoring this Settlement • IDOC reporting
Deadlines: Deadlines in the Settlement range from immediate to the year 2020; this report calculates many deadlines from the Amended Settlement Agreement approval date of May 23, 2016. A number of deadlines on critical issues were contingent upon, and calculated from, the state budget approval date of July 6, 2017. The team reviewed each provision of the Settlement per the specific deadlines identified in the Settlement. Of note, there are many provisions for which the deadline is “as agreed upon” between the parties but for which the monitoring team did not receive a schedule of specific agreed-upon dates. For these particular issues, the assigned compliance ratings reflect the current status of the issues.
The following table lists the requirements in order of their deadlines to be accomplished. Of the 39 items with deadlines on or before May 22, 2019, 24 have reached Substantial Compliance. Ratings are also indicated for those items to be accomplished “in a reasonable time,” in the event that it is determined that a reasonable time is now at hand. A more detailed summary of the compliance status of all Settlement Agreement provisions can be found in the body of the report.

Amended Settlement Agreement provision

Timeline

Crisis Beds are to be outside Control Units (except Pontiac) Regional Director hires State employee at each facility to supervise State clinical staff, monitor and approve vendor staff Architectural plans to Monitor 12 Mental Health Forms in use Treating mental health professionals2 disclose information to patient Medical Records and medication transferred with patient Intergovernmental Agreement with Department of Health Services Medication delivery, recording, side effects monitoring, lab work, patient informed, non-compliance follow-up

May 2016
June 2016 June 2016
July 2016 July 2016 July 2016
August 2016 August 2016
August 2016

Substantial Compliance?
Partial
Yes Partial
Yes Yes Partial
Yes Yes
Partial

2 Referred to throughout the Settlement Agreement and this report as MHP
- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 6 of 102

Propose any amendment to Staffing Plan
Any objections to proposed amended Staffing Plan
All policies/procedures/ADs specified in Settlement Agreement – drafts to Plaintiffs and Monitor
Confidentiality: records, mental health information, policies and training Behavior Treatment Program pilot Quality Improvement Manager hire Review Committees for SMI Disciplinary Segregation terms Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 8 hours out of cell time weekly Inmate Orientation policy and procedure Crisis beds at Pontiac moved to protective custody Suicide Prevention measures Physical Restraints measures
Staff Training plan and program developed Discipline: policies related to self-injury Mental health staff Training plan and program developed Transfers: consults and notification Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 12 hours out of cell time weekly Staffing: quarterly hiring reports, meeting targets
Mental health referrals and evaluations Staffing to run RTU at Joliet Central office staff hires for policies and recordkeeping RTU Programming and Office Space Staffing hires – Dixon, Pontiac, Logan
RTU Bed Space
Inpatient Bed Space construction
Screening conducted with sound privacy Training for all State and vendor staff with inmate contact Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 16 hours out of cell time weekly MHP review within 48 hours after Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement placement Inpatient Facility – transfer ownership and expand, policies

August 2016
October 2016
November 2016 (unless otherwise specified) November 2016

Original requirement-n/a Original requirement-n/a
Partial
Partial

November 2016 February 2017 February 2017

Partial Yes Yes

May 2016-May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017
May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017-May 2018 Quarterly from October 2017 on November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 January 2018 January-July 2018 January-October 2018 JanuaryNovember 2018 May 2018 May 2018 June 2018-May 2019 July 2018
November 2018

Partial
Yes No Partial Some institutions Yes Partial Yes Yes No
No
Partial No Yes Partial No
Partial
Yes Yes Yes No
Some institutions Partial

- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 7 of 102

Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 20 hours out of cell time weekly Segregation and Temporary Confinement for mentally ill: housing decisions, MHP review, treatment and out-of-cell requirements Develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations Screening on arrival at reception Psychotropic medications continued on arrival, reviewed, and related documentation Inmate Orientation Treatment Plans Psychiatry Review frequency Follow-up after Specialized Treatment Settings Enforced Medication
SMI Housing Assignment information and consultation Change of SMI designation only by treatment team (or treating MHP before teams are operating) Mental illness does not prevent access to prison programs Use of Force and Verbal Abuse
Discipline system conforms to AD 05.12.103 Discipline in RTU or inpatient is carried out in a mental health treatment context Quality Improvement Program implemented

June 2019-May 2020 May 2020
After IGA is signed Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time

Not due
Not due
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Partial Partial Partial Some institutions Yes Yes
Yes Some institutions Partial Yes
Yes

METHODOLOGY / MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This report was prepared and submitted by Pablo Stewart, MD, Virginia Morrison, JD, Reena Kapoor, MD, and Miranda Gibson, MA.
To accomplish the monitoring obligations, the monitoring team sought information in a variety of ways. The monitoring team conducted 37 site visits of 19 different IDOC facilities, where interviews of administrators, staff, and offenders were conducted. While on site, the monitoring team would meet with the administrative and clinical leadership of the facility and then tour the facility. The tour would include observing general population units, segregated housing units, crisis care units, infirmary areas including medical records and restraint rooms, working spaces for the clinical staff, group therapy areas (if present), as well as any other area associated with the provision of mental health services. The monitoring team also toured the Residential Treatment Units at Logan, Joliet and Dixon. The Monitor personally inspected the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac on six separate occasions. The team also requested and analyzed systemwide data, and a sampling of health care or master file records, as to some requirements.
- 7 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 8 of 102

Centralia

Danville

Decatur

Dixon

7/20/18 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson East Moline

2/13/19 Ms. Gibson
Elgin

4/2/19 Ms. Gibson
Graham

2/7-2/8/19 Dr. Kapoor
Illinois River

4/8/19 Ms. Gibson

1/16/19 Dr. Stewart

7/16-7/17/18 Ms. Morrison

7/23/18 Dr. Kapoor

2/22/19 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

3/4-3/6/19 Ms. Morrison

Jacksonville

Joliet

Lawrence

Logan

12/23/18 Ms. Gibson
Menard

10/22/18 Dr. Kapoor
12/28/18 & 3/22/19 Dr. Stewart Pinckneyville

7/19/18 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

6/27/18 & 12/27/18 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

Pontiac

Robinson

6/25/18, 10/17/18 & 1/8/19 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

10/16/18 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

6/26/18, 10/18/18, 12/28/18 & 3/22/19 Dr. Stewart

3/6/19 Ms. Gibson

6/12/18 & 9/11-9/12/18 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

1/22/19-1/24/19 Ms. Morrison

Shawnee

Stateville

Vandalia

Vienna

7/23/18 Ms. Gibson

6/25-6/26/18 (proper) 11/27/18

Dr. Kapoor

Ms. Gibson

8/6-8/8/18 Ms. Morrison

10/11-10/12/18 (NRC) Ms. Morrison

Western

3/21/19 (NRC) Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

7/18-7/20/18 Ms. Morrison 1/28/19 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

- 8 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 9 of 102

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As reported in the midyear report, there has been a tremendous amount of litigation during the reporting period. The Court issued a Preliminary Injunction on May 25, 2018 which was followed by a Permanent Injunction on December 20, 2018. It is my understanding that the staffing provisions of the Permanent Injunction have been appealed to the 7th Circuit. The Monitoring Team completed its own staffing analysis and submitted it to parties and the Court on April 24, 2019

The Monitoring Team conducted 37 site visits to 19 different IDOC facilities during the reporting period. Hundreds of charts were reviewed, hundreds of IDOC staff were interviewed as well as hundreds of mentally ill offenders interviewed. I feel that the data set from which the opinions in this report are based is especially robust. I also meet with IDOC’s executive staff, including the Director, on two separate occasions during the reporting period. Finally, I have instituted the rating of “partial compliance” to more accurately reflect the progress that IDOC has made in meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Of note, I have also met with counsel for the plaintiffs’ several times during the reporting period.
As we close out the 3rd year of the Settlement Agreement, I can definitely state that IDOC has greatly improved its ability to care for mentally ill offenders. As documented in the body of this report, the following areas were found to be in Substantial Compliance:

• IV: • VI: • XIV: • XVIII: • XX: • XXI: • XXII: • XXIII: • XXVII: • XXVII: • XXVIII

Initial (Intake) Mental Health Services: Screening Mental Health Services Orientation Housing Assignments Medical Records Change of SMI Designation Staff Training Participation in Prison Programs Transfer of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders From Facility to Facility Continuous Quality Improvement Program Monitoring Reporting and Recordkeeping

A major problem that is preventing IDOC from being substantially compliant with the entire Settlement Agreement is staffing. Inadequate number of mental health staff prevents IDOC from being substantially compliant with the following areas:

• V: • VII: • VIII: • IX: • XI: • XII: • XV:

Mental Health Evaluations and Referrals Treatment Plan and Continuing Review Transition from Specialized Treatment Settings Additional Mental Health Staff Administrative Staffing Medication Segregation

- 9 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 10 of 102

• XIX: • XXIV: • XXV:

Confidentiality Use of Force and Verbal Abuse Discipline of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders

Although staffing is a major problem preventing full compliance, IDOC still has much work to do with Mental Health Evaluations and Referrals, Treatment Planning, Medication, Segregation, Confidentiality, Use of Force and Discipline. Please refer to the individual sections of the report to see the actual status of each of these sections that was not found in substantial compliance.

I look forward to continuing cooperation from IDOC in achieving the goal of meeting the requirements of the entire Settlement Agreement.

A summary of compliance findings follows:

Requirement
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
(IV)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
(V)(a) (V)(b), (c), (d), (e) (V)(f), (V)(g) (V)(h), (i) (V)(j)
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
(VI)(a), (b) VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW

Compliance Status
Overall: Substantial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Partial compliance Substantial compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance Partial compliance
Overall: Substantial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:

- 10 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 11 of 102

Requirement (VII)(a), (b), (c), (d) (VII)(e)
VIII: TRANSITION FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
(VIII)(a) (VIII)(b)(i), (b)(ii)
IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
(IX)(a), (b) (IX)(c) (IX)(d), (e) (IX)(f)
X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
(X)(a) (X)(b)(i), (ii) (X)(c)(i), (ii) (X)(d) (X)(e) (X)(f) (X)(g) (X)(h) (X)(i)
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
(XI)(a), (b) (XI)(c), (XI)(d)
XII: MEDICATION

Compliance Status Partial compliance Substantial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Partial compliance
Overall: Non-compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Non-compliance No rating Substantial compliance No rating
Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance

- 11 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 12 of 102

Requirement
(XII)(a) (XII)(b) (XII)(c)(i) (XII)(c)(ii), (iii), (iv) (XII)(v) (XII)(vi) XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION

Compliance Status
Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance Partial compliance Finding: Substantial Compliance for 15 institutions Partial compliance for remaining institutions

XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
(XIV)(a), (b), (c)
XV: SEGREGATION
(XV)(a)(i) (XV)(a)(ii) (XV)(a)(iii) (XV)(a)(iv)
(XV)(a)(v), (XV)(a)(vi), (XV)(vi)(sic) (XV)(a)(vii) (XV)(b)(i),(ii), (iii), (iv) (v), (vi) (XV)(c)(i) (XV)(c)(ii) (XV)(c)(iii) (XV)(c)(iv) (XV)(c)(v) (XV)(c)(sic) (XV)(d)

Overall: Substantial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance in 18 institutions; partial compliance in the rest. Non-compliant Partial compliance Non-compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance Partial compliance Non-compliance Substantial compliance Non-compliance No rating

- 12 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 13 of 102

Requirement XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION

Compliance Status Overall: Partial compliance

(XVI)(a), (b)

Subfindings supporting overall finding: Partial compliance

XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
(XVII)(a)
(XVII)(b),(c) (XVII)(d)

Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance as to 14 institutions; partial compliance as to the rest of the institutions Substantial compliance Noncompliance

XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS (XVIII)(a), (b)
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
(XIX)(a) (XIX)(b) (XIX)(c), (d)
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION XXI: STAFF TRAINING
(XXI)(a), (b), (c) XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM

Overall: Substantial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Partial compliance
Finding: Substantial compliance
Overall: Substantial compliance
Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
Finding: Substantial compliance
Overall: Substantial compliance

- 13 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 14 of 102

Requirement FACILITY TO FACILITY
(XXIII)(a), (b), (c)
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
(XXV)(a) (XXV)(b) (XXV)(c) (XXV)(d)

Compliance Status Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
Finding: Partial compliance
Overall: Partial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Partial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance Partial compliance

XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(XXVI)(a), (b)

Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance

XXVII: MONITORING XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

Finding: Substantial compliance Finding: Substantial compliance

DETAILED FINDINGS
This Section details the Monitor’s findings for each provision of the Settlement.
Overall structure: This Section is organized along the same structure as the Settlement; each major section below corresponds with a substantive section of the Settlement. That said, the Settlement includes provisions that appear multiple times across different sections. The Monitor attempts in this report to address each substantive requirement in that section of the Settlement where it appears.
Compliance with specific provisions of policies or law incorporated by reference: Unlike the Settlement itself, the report lays out the specific provisions of the various Administrative Directives (“ADs”), administrative code (“Code”), or the Mental Health Standard Operating Protocol Manual (“Manual” or “SOP Manual”) that are incorporated by reference in the Settlement. This significantly lengthens the report, but it is critical that the monitoring team evaluates these substantive requirements, especially given that many of them are central to providing the kind of treatment, out-of-cell opportunities, conditions, and protection from harm contemplated in the Settlement. For example, it is in the ADs and the Manual that one finds
- 14 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 15 of 102
detailed requirements on suicide prevention, including crisis placement, crisis intervention teams, and suicide reviews. However, the team will apply the compliance/partial compliance/noncompliance rating only to the provision of the Settlement, not to individual provisions of ADs or the Manual or Code incorporated by reference. In this way, IDOC may be out of compliance with one or two provisions of the cited AD, for example, but, depending on the severity (including the importance of the particular provision of the AD) or how widespread that non-compliance is, nonetheless may be in substantial compliance with the provision of the Settlement.
Compliance ratings: In all previous reports, the team applied the “Substantial Compliance” and “Non-compliance” ratings for each provision, as specified in the Settlement. In actual fact, these may mask IDOC’s true performance in meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. In practice, IDOC has made substantial progress on a number of requirements. This progress possibly could be more accurately described as “partially compliant.” The terms of the Settlement, however, only allow for the use of “Substantial Compliance” and “Non-compliance.” After discussions with counsel for the defendants and plaintiffs, “Partial Compliance” will be utilized in this report. “Partial Compliance” is defined as making substantial progress on a particular requirement without fully meeting the rigorous obligations of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
Section II (t) of the Amended Settlement Agreement defines “Substantial Compliance” as follows: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOCwide or at specific facilities. For the purposes of this report, most compliance ratings will be IDOCwide. This was done because the changes to the mental health delivery system contemplated in the Settlement represent a major shift in both the clinical care provided to the offenders and the overall culture of the IDOC. As the monitor of this seismic shift for IDOC, I continue to feel that it is more appropriate to consider system-wide compliance prior to evaluating the compliance of specific facilities. Most Settlement Agreement provisions are complex with many factors to fulfill, so the substantial compliance findings are in the minority but are growing. It is important to note that during the first three years of monitoring the Settlement Agreement, IDOC has improved the overall quality of psychiatric and mental health services offered to the offender population. IDOC still has a long way to go to fully meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement especially in terms of staffing.
- 15 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 16 of 102
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
IDOC is in substantial compliance with this section. Mental health screenings are occurring within the designated time frame, they are being performed by MHPs utilizing the proper forms, and unlicensed clinicians are being properly supervised. Mental health screenings occur in confidential settings. Policies and Procedures have been developed to ensure that offenders prescribed psychotropic medications continue to receive their medications. The Monitoring team has observed that psychotropic medications are being properly continued. The mental health screenings are a comprehensive review of the offenders’ mental health history. The Monitoring team will not be reviewing this requirement going forward unless specifically asked by the Court or parties.
(IV)(a): Specific requirement: All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at pg. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101(II)(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100 (II)(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
Findings: During the reporting period, the monitoring team conducted nine separate site visits at the four Reception and Classification Centers operated by IDOC. That is, two visits each for Graham, Logan and NRC and three visits to Menard. In all sites visited, the monitoring team observed that “all persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system.” These screenings were occurring within 24 hours of arrival at a reception center. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this specific requirement.
(IV)(b): Specific requirement: The mental health screening conducted upon admission to IDOC shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional [MHP]3 and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement.
Findings: The monitoring team has observed at all reception centers that mental health screenings are conducted by a Mental Health Professional. In those cases where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, the monitoring team found that these employees are properly supervised by a licensed MHP. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this specific requirement.
3 The Settlement uses MHP to indicate Mental Health Professional. This report adopts that convention as well.
- 16 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 17 of 102
(IV)(c): Specific requirement: Offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
Findings: The monitoring team noted that this requirement is being met at all IDOC facilities audited. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this specific requirement.
(IV)(d): Specific requirements: In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
Findings: The monitoring team has previously determined that all reception centers conduct screenings with sound confidentiality. This finding was confirmed during the current reporting period. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this specific requirement.
(IV)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
Findings: IDOC has developed policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this specific requirement.
(IV)(f): Specific requirement: Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
Findings: As reported previously, IDOC has been generally meeting this requirement. That is, in the majority of the cases reviewed, IDOC is meeting this requirement. A minority of cases reviewed revealed that medications were modified without adequate documentation that the offender was given the opportunity to ask questions of the prescribers. As this was found in only a small number of cases, IDOC will be found in substantial compliance with this specific requirement.
(IV)(g): Specific requirement: Screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required
- 17 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 18 of 102

to be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). The screening process shall also include review of the records which accompany the offender.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS

Summary: A persistent backlog exists for the timely completion of mental health evaluations and the majority of the backlogged cases are greater than 14 days late. Also, due to the tremendous workload and limited number of staff at NRC, mental health evaluations are generally not occurring. A Policy and Procedure has been created which addresses referrals and the proper forms are being utilized.
Gatekeeping by the custody staff regarding the use of the Crisis Intervention remains an issue. The Director and Chief of Operations assured the Monitor that they will personally address this issue.
Due to the ongoing presence of a backlog for timely completion of mental health evaluations and the question of gatekeeping, IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance.

(V)(a): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.

Findings: IDOC has improved greatly over the course of the Settlement Agreement in regards to this requirement. A review of recent backlog data suggests that IDOC continues to struggle with fully meeting this requirement:

3/22/19

262 mental health evaluations backlogged 135 within 1-14 days late

3/29/19

292 mental health evaluations backlogged 118 within 1-14 days late

4/5/19

287 mental health evaluations backlogged 124 within 1-14 days late

4/12/19

313 mental health evaluations backlogged 135 within 1-14 days late

The data doesn’t allow for a more comprehensive understanding of exactly what percentage of the total mental health evaluations this backlog represents. Also, in this particular sample, 60% of the backlogged cases are greater than 14 days late.

Finally, it is important to note that mental health evaluations are not routinely completed at the NRC. This is due to their tremendous workload of new intakes and having to house a large number of offenders on writs. While workload may make this understandable, it is a significant compliance issue. IDOC’s April Quarterly Report states that offenders stay at the NRC for an

- 18 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 19 of 102
average of 18 days if they do not have pending court or medical matters. What it does not say is that those exceptions involve hundreds of people.
In a visit during this monitoring period, the team analyzed caseload lengths of stay for the population onsite at the time. Using IDOC’s data and applying very conservative measures,4 169 people had been at NRC longer than the stated average that week, and staff said there was nothing unusual about the population at the time. Over a year’s time, of course, this total would multiply. Staff appropriately attempted to prioritize higher acuity patients for evaluations, to mitigate these circumstances, but were only successful in a slight majority of such cases onsite at the time.
IDOC will receive a rating of “partial compliance” for this requirement. A rating of substantial compliance will be assigned when IDOC can demonstrate that the mental health backlog represents less than 15% of the total mental health evaluations and that the majority of these cases are in the 14 days or less category.
(V)(b): Specific requirement: Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
Findings: The monitoring team observed that referrals are made by staff and offenders and are documented on the appropriate forms. IDOC is found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(V)(c): Specific requirement: IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
Section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) provide:
Referrals for mental health services may be initiated through staff, credible outside sources such as family members, other offenders or self-reporting.
(a) To ensure proper handling of requests from credible outside sources, the Department shall ensure mail room staff and facility operators, gatehouse staff and other staff who may come in contact with family members, visitors or other interested persons are aware of procedures for receiving and addressing inquiries regarding referrals for mental health services. Additionally, the contact information and procedures by which outside sources may refer offenders for mental health services shall be provided on the Department’s website.
(b)The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall ensure a procedure for referring offenders for mental health services is established.
(1) Referrals from staff shall:
4 The team reviewed the Mental Health Database maintained by NRC staff. Calculating from the date a patient is added to the caseload, the team included those patients onsite and on the caseload 3 weeks or more—not the 2-week requirement—to allow for short delays in evaluation practice, filing, and/or data entry. Thus, the 169 total is reached using these more flexible criteria.
- 19 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 20 of 102
(a) Be initiated on the Mental Health Services Referral, DOC 0387; (b) Be submitted to the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management through the chain of command; and (c) Include a copy of the Incident Report, DOC 0434, if applicable.
(2) The facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in the offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others, if not treated immediately.
(c) Procedures for self-referrals by offenders for mental health services shall be provided in the offender handbook. The offender will be encouraged to submit their requests on the Offender Request, DOC 0286.
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has established the required referrals procedures and has been found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement in previous reports. They continue to be found in substantial compliance.
(V)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
Findings: The monitoring team inspected all four of IDOC’s Reception Centers during the current reporting period. The team observed that this requirement was being met. As reported in V(a), above, mental health evaluations are not routinely being completed at the NRC. Referrals are being made, however, which fulfills the requirements of this subsection. IDOC will receive a rating of substantial compliance.
(V)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests, which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has developed the required policy and procedure, 04.04.100 and it is being implemented throughout the Department. This policy contains a section, II.G.4, which outlines the record-keeping mechanism for requests. Section II.G.4(d) states “All referrals shall be documented in the offenders medical file and shall include the date and source of the referral and the resulting referral action, such as scheduled to see appropriate mental health professional.” This record-keeping mechanism technically fulfills the requirement of V(e) so the Department will receive a rating of substantial compliance. IDOC, however, is strongly encouraged to maintain a centralized referral tracking system at each facility. This would allow for an effective means of following each referral to ensure that they receive the proper follow up. Without a system, it is impossible for internal or external auditors to determine whether referrals are receiving a response in a reasonable time, or if some are inadvertently overlooked, creating a risk to patient care.
- 20 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 21 of 102
(V)(f): Specific requirement: Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral.
Findings: As reported in V(a), IDOC still struggles to meet the 14-day requirement for completing mental health evaluations. In an eight-week period, 2/22-4/12/19, the Department had a total backlog of mental health evaluations of 2,305. Among this backlog, 54% of the mental health evaluations were more than 14 days late. This means that slightly over half of the offenders who received a referral for a mental health evaluation were waiting more than 28 days for this evaluation to be completed.
The most recent IDOC Quarterly Report also offered commentary on this issue.5 That report offered that, on a particular recent date, the backlog represented 2% of the mental health population, and suggests that the issue is concentrated at a minority of institutions, as 22 facilities reportedly had an evaluation backlog of five or fewer persons.
IDOC will receive a rating of non-compliance for this subsection.
(V)(g): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.
Findings: IDOC has made some improvement regarding this requirement but struggles to achieve substantial compliance. During the current reporting period, numerous reliable complaints were received from plaintiffs’ counsel about custody staff acting as gatekeepers. This issue was also noted by the monitoring team at numerous facilities throughout IDOC. It is impossible, however, to determine exactly how widespread a problem is this gatekeeping.
The Monitor and Assistant Monitor Ms. Gibson met with IDOC executive staff on 4/4/19. This gatekeeping issue was discussed at length during this meeting. The Director and Chief of Operations stated unequivocally that gatekeeping is an unacceptable practice. They assured Ms. Gibson and I that they will personally look into this issue. Several IDOC quarterly reports, including the most recent, describe formal investigations IDOC has undertaken for this issue, and the systemwide distribution of two memos during the monitoring period reminding staff of the obligations of this subsection. As complaints on this issue frequently emanate from Pontiac, IDOC offered that 1,403 crisis team contacts at Pontiac in 2018 supports the institution’s position that gatekeeping is not occurring.
IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance for this subsection.
(V)(h): Specific requirement: The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(3).
5 The report comments on backlogs on a single date, March 22, so is not completely parallel to the two-month period discussed herein, but provides some context.
- 21 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 22 of 102
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(V)(i): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by mental health professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D./Psy.D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(V)(j): Specific requirements: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Due to the enduring presence of a backlog of mental health evaluations and the unresolved issue of gatekeeping by custody staff in regards to the Crisis Intervention Team, IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance for this requirement.
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
Summary: IDOC has been found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement since the First Annual Report. This requirement will not be monitored after submission of the Third Annual Report.
(VI)(a): Specific requirement: In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, § II (G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(VI)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
- 22 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 23 of 102
VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
Summary: Significant backlogs exist for the timely completion of treatment plans. Improvements were noted in the completion of treatment plans when an offender is placed on crisis watch. Treatment plans, however, are not routinely being completed upon entrance to segregation or updated properly. Problems also remain regarding timely psychiatric follow up visits. Although there has been some improvement in the quality of treatment planning, overall much work needs to occur to fully meet the rigorous requirements of this section of the Settlement Agreement. Of note, Form 0284 has gone through many iterations. As such, it is not consistently being implemented. This results in treatment plans often being completed by the MHP or the psychiatric provider.
(VII)(a): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (II)(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.
Findings: Treatment planning backlogs still plague the Department. As of 5/24/19, there were 440 backlogged treatment plans within IDOC with the majority of them, 62%, being greater than 30 days late. Of note, the backlog at Pontiac was 107 and at Illinois River 105. Regardless of how one defines collectively, significant numbers of treatment plans only being prepared by MHP or psychiatric providers were discovered during site visits. Menard, Stateville NRC, Western, Vandalia and Danville were facilities where this was noted.
The RTUs at Logan and Joliet demonstrated true multidisciplinary treatment planning. The STC at Dixon also utilized multidisciplinary treatment planning but not the RTU located in Xhouse.
As for crisis watch treatment plans, the monitoring team reviewed them during each site visit, and also studied a systemwide sample.6 In all crisis watches in that study, the patient had a documented treatment plan at some point during the watch (though not necessarily at each required point in the watch); there was only one watch with no apparent treatment plan.
6 The sample was drawn from all 26 institutions that had crisis watches in February 2019. The sample consisted of all crisis watches, or a sample reportedly chosen by random selection method, depending on the number of watches at an institution. An additional set was provided to demonstrate updates during lengths of stay longer than one week. The total was 147 watches; since most patients had more than one treatment plan during the watch, 299 plans were reviewed.
- 23 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 24 of 102
In the study, in terms of plans being prepared collectively, it bears discussing separately the treatment plans due at different stages. On admission, there was only an indication of any kind of joint process in 10% of the treatment plans. This improved where weekly updates took place for longer term placements; here, 59% of the plans showed multidisciplinary contributions and most of those appeared to be a joint meeting. Most of IDOC’s efforts on crisis watch plans have been directed at discharge plans and results are evident. Here, descriptions and/or the timing of signatures show that 57% clearly were, or likely were, discussed in a joint meeting in person or by phone. Another 20% appear to have been prepared by one discipline and reviewed by another, consistent with IDOC’s plans but contrary to the Monitor’s views on appropriate treatment planning. For the final 23%, however, there was still no indication of more than one discipline being involved with the treatment plan.
Other aspects of process and content of crisis watch treatment plans were also of concern, and will be discussed in the sections that follow.
As noted above, backlogs are a concern with treatment plans. The most recent IDOC Quarterly Report offers that, on a recent date, backlogged treatment plans affected less than 5% of the mental health population. It noted that backlogs are most highly concentrated at two institutions and that more than half of facilities have no backlog. It reported that the majority of backlogged evaluations are overdue by 30 days or less, which is not accurate, but did not include what percentage this reflects7 nor the length of delay for the minority of cases.
(VII)(b): Specific requirement: The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on form 0284 or its equivalent.
Findings: IDOC Form 0284 has gone through many iterations throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. As such, the Monitoring Team encountered the use of several different forms during the current reporting period.
The overall assessment of the status of treatment planning within the Department is that the Monitoring Team has noted some improvement but more work is needed to meet the requirements of this subsection. There still exists treatment plans created only by the psychiatric provider which only list medications. Similarly, MHP-only treatment plans were noted in which no reference was made to medication management. The Monitoring Team did encounter wellprepared treatment plans at the RTUs at Logan and Joliet as well as the STC at Dixon. Of note, these are relatively well staffed facilities. This demonstrates that if the Department was appropriately staffed, good quality, multidisciplinary treatment plans could be the norm.
As for crisis watch treatment plans, clinicians do, for the most part, use a form formatted to call for goals, frequency and duration of treatment activities, and the staff responsible. Rarely in the systemwide sample, staff instead offered a progress note to demonstrate their treatment
7 It could be significant to an assessment of compliance whether “majority” refers to 51%, 99%, or anywhere within that range.
- 24 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 25 of 102
planning. In that study, Illinois River and Jacksonville seemed to have the strongest practice. Hill, Sheridan, and Vandalia showed the greatest need to improve.
IDOC training has emphasized the need to complete these fields and the monitoring team observes some improvement in this regard. The greatest improvement is evident in recording patients’ problems and goals: in the systemwide study, 34% of the plans captured these well.8 Another 22% were adequate but had minimal content and minimal tailoring to the patient. Fully 23% were insufficient. These reflected issues such as missing a key problem of the patient’s, omitting goals altogether, content that appeared unrelated to the patient, and boilerplate that would not appear to assist in treating the patient.9
The interventions described in the plans lagged much further behind. Here, only 12% in the study capture these well, and another 9% were adequate. The vast majority were insufficient. This principally took the form of naming the Rasho-required contacts but not discussing what treatment would take place during them. Some omitted one or more of the problems that led to the crisis watch, contained content inapplicable to that patient, or omitted interventions altogether.
(VII)(c): Specific requirement: Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes).
Findings: IDOC continues to show improvement in this area. A rating of substantial compliance will be given for VII(c).
Specific requirement: Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: In the above-referenced systemwide study, 95% of the monitored records had a treatment plan update upon entrance. The sample included 43 patients who were in crisis watch long enough for weekly updates; only 35% of their records demonstrated all the weekly updates required. Where there was noncompliance, it was about evenly divided between cases with updates in some weeks but not others (often the number of misses exceeded the number completed) and cases where there appeared to be no updates at all. Staff assert that they routinely complete these reviews but do not always document it. On discharge, the sample provided updated treatment plans for 86% of the patients who had been released from crisis watch.
A chart review of the inpatient facility at Elgin revealed that 100% of the inpatients met this requirement.
8 This includes clearly tailored problems and goals, and instances where the language is standardized but clearly fits the patient’s situation and would be helpful in reducing his or her acute symptoms sufficient to discharge to less intensive care. 9 These percentages do not add to 100% because, in the remaining subset, a plan was required but the monitoring team received no indication that one was completed; for example, a patient might have a plan on admission but not on discharge.
- 25 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 26 of 102
Specific requirement: For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: As reported above, the RTUs at Logan, Joliet and the STC at Dixon are meeting this requirement. The RTU located in the X-house at Dixon is not meeting this requirement.
Specific requirement: For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: The monitoring team conducted a multi-site chart review10 of 80 mentally ill offenders assigned to segregated housing. Only 21 of the 80 charts reviewed (26%) confirmed that treatment plans were reviewed and updated within seven days of placement on segregation status.
In addition to this data-driven analysis, Dr. Kapoor reported that at Dixon, treatment plans are not updated upon entry into segregation for any offender. Illinois River had the best practice, with an updated plan in essentially all reviewed cases, but these were completed late, between two and three weeks after placement.
The monthly reviews and updates were assessed with a much smaller cohort because many fewer mentally ill patients in the sample remained in segregation longer than 30 days. Among the 16 relevant charts, none had their treatment plans reviewed and updated on a monthly basis, though a few had one or two updates.11
(VII)(d): Specific requirement: Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:
(i) For offenders at the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.
(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.
(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days with no extension of the follow-up appointments.
10 Graham, Western, Decatur, Stateville NRC, Danville, East Moline, Pontiac, Robinson, Vandalia, Vienna, and Illinois River. 11 Relevant charts were included from Graham, Illinois River, Pontiac, Stateville-NRC, and Western Illinois
- 26 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 27 of 102
Findings: The monitoring team conducted a data-driven analysis of the frequency of psychiatry contacts in general population. This consisted of chart reviews for 138 mentally ill offenders from 10 facilities12 who were prescribed psychotropic medication. A review of the medication practices at Dixon was also conducted and will be described later. Only 74 of the 138 charts reviewed demonstrated that the time parameters were being met. Examples of the problems encountered:
• 90-day follow ups were scheduled without patient stability documented in the medical record
• 60-day follow up was scheduled without patient stability documented in the medical record
• 55-day follow up scheduled for a patient started on a new medication • 30-day follow ups were planned but completed weeks late
The most recent IDOC Quarterly Report offers that the backlog for psychiatry contacts, measured on a recent date, represented a single-digit percentage of the total mental health population. It is unknown what percentage of the psychiatry caseload—which is significantly smaller--this constitutes. As of 5/24/19, the psychiatric backlog was 668 out of a total caseload of 9790. This equates to a backlog of 6.82%. The backlog is able to measure the timeliness of the most recent contact, but is not designed to fully answer about the pattern of contacts described under this requirement. Nevertheless, the backlog has undeniably decreased through concerted efforts by IDOC leadership.
In addition, the monitoring team reviewed the frequency of psychiatry contact in crisis watch. Based on a sample of 664 crisis watches in 2019 drawn from across all institutions, 87% saw a psychiatric provider within one week and nearly all others were seen by the 30-day point. Only 5% had no psychiatry contact during their admission. This analysis did not capture patients who remained in crisis watch for multiple months, so is silent as to whether those patients were seen at least every 30 days.
(VII)(e): Specific requirement: Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.
Findings: As previously reported, the Monitoring Team has reviewed thousands of progress notes written by MHPs after a clinical contact. There is not a method to accurately measure IDOC’s performance with this requirement. As such, they will receive a rating of substantial compliance given the ubiquitous nature of MHP progress notes.
12 Elgin, Western, Graham, Menard, Pinckneyville, Logan, Pontiac, Illinois River, Vienna, and Stateville-NRC and Stateville proper.
- 27 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 28 of 102
VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
MHPs are involved in the transfer of offenders to general population units from a “specialized treatment setting.” Five-day follow ups as occurring when an offender is discharged from a crisis watch. The 30-day follow ups, however, are not occurring due to staffing shortages.
(VIII)(a): Specific requirement: SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team. The Settlement provides a definition of “Specialized Treatment Setting”: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
Findings: IDOC is meeting the requirements of VIII(a). It is not clear, however, to what extent multidisciplinary treatment teams are involved in this process with the exception of Joliet, Logan and the STC at Dixon.
(VIII)(b)(i): Specific requirement: For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form, which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor.
Findings: A data driven analysis of nine facilities13 was conducted. A total of 49 charts were reviewed. Five (5) working day follow ups occurred in 37 of the 49 charts reviewed. This equates to 76% completion rate. Consistent with other requirements, IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance until such time that they can demonstrate a completion rate of at least 85%.
Specific requirement: This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from crisis watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
Findings: The same chart review referenced above looked at this particular requirement. 36 of the 49 charts reviewed showed evidence of seven (7) day follow ups where the Evaluation of Suicide Potential was administered. This equates to 73% completion rate. Partial compliance will be given until this completion rate is at least 85%.
The Monitoring Team was not able to conduct a similar analysis for the monthly follow ups for at least six (6) months. As discussed with IDOC executive staff, my opinion as Monitor is that this six (6) month follow up is clinically unnecessary. I have encouraged IDOC staff to request a modification of the Settlement Agreement for this particular requirement.
13 East Moline, Menard, NRC, Western, Vandalia, Robinson, Danville, Decatur and Graham.
- 28 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 29 of 102

(VIII)(b)(ii): Specific requirement: Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within 30 days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (F)(2)(c)(4)(c).
Findings: Due to staffing shortages within the Department, this requirement is not consistently being met.
IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF

Summary: Substantial and problematic vacancies remain in multiple disciplines at Dixon, Logan, and Pontiac well past the Agreement-specified deadlines. This is also the case for Joliet, though to a lesser degree. With targets having been missed, this issue is being litigated and is not in the negotiation process.
IDOC does provide quarterly hiring progress reports, as required, and to the monitoring team’s knowledge, MHPs are dedicated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.

(IX)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates: Dixon Correctional Center and Logan Correctional Center – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date; Pontiac Correctional Center – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date.

Findings: All staffing levels are current as of 3/22/19:

• Dixon: o Mental Health Training Director o Mental Health Unit Director o Post-Doc Psychologist o Pre-Doc Psychologist o Staff Psychologist o QMHP o Recreational Therapist o BHT o Psychiatrist
• Logan: o Mental Health Unit Director o Post-Doc Psychologist o Staff Psychologist o QMHP o Recreational Therapist o RN-Mental Health

1.00 FTE vacant 3.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 0.975 FTE vacant 3.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 4.50 FTEs vacant
3.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 6.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 3.00 FTEs vacant

- 29 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 30 of 102

o Psychiatrist • Pontiac:
o Mental Health Unit Director o Post-Doc Psychologist o Staff Psychologist o QMHP o BHT o Psychiatrist

3.287 FTEs vacant
3.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 2.00 FTEs vacant 4.00 FTEs vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 3.1 FTEs vacant

The deadline for Dixon and Logan meeting their staffing requirements was February 6, 2018. Pontiac’s deadline was July 6, 2018. Of note, the staffing levels for psychiatrists is especially problematic. That is, Dixon only has 5.50 of 10.00 psychiatrists, Logan has 6.713 of 10.00 psychiatrists and Pontiac has 2.90 of 6.00 psychiatrists. IDOC is clearly non-compliant with this requirement.

(IX)(b): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Findings: All staffing levels are current as of 3/22/19:

• Joliet: o Mental Health Unit Director o Post-Doc Psychologist o QMHP o BHT o RN-Mental Health o Psychiatrist

1.00 FTE vacant14 1.00 FTE vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 1.00 FTE vacant 3.00 FTEs vacant 1.50 FTEs vacant

The deadline for Joliet to meet their staffing requirements was November 22, 2017. The IDOC Quarterly Report issued in April indicates that Joliet staffing is at “nearly 80%” for its state positions and is silent as to Wexford positions. IDOC is non-compliant with this requirement.

(IX)(c): Specific provision: Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.
Findings: As noted in previous reports, the Defendants did not opt to propose a staffing plan amendment within the three-month deadline.
14 Position hired, start date 4/1/19
- 30 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 31 of 102
(IX)(d): Specific requirement: To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement. (IX)(e): Specific requirement: In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized. Findings: IDOC provides quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the approved Remedial Plan. As Monitor, I have regularly met with IDOC staff to discuss their staffing shortfalls. The first formal meeting to discuss staffing took place at IDOC headquarters on June 26, 2017. The Director, Chiefs Lindsay and Hinton participated in this meeting as well as representatives from Wexford. At this meeting, I made several concrete recommendations on how to increase staffing. These recommendations included utilizing primary care physicians and advanced practice nurses to provide psychiatric care. At this meeting I also authorized the increased use of telepsychiatry. More recently, I met with the executive staff of IDOC on January 30, 2019. Staffing was one of the primary topics of this meeting. Finally, I have proposed holding a “staffing summit” where several days can be dedicated to addressing the serious staffing problems facing IDOC. As will be discussed more fully in section XXVII, I have requested the addition of a staffing expert to the Monitoring team. IDOC will receive a rating of substantial compliance for this requirement. (IX)(f): Specific requirement: In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX. Findings: As there is currently litigation regarding staffing, IDOC will receive a rating of “no rating” for this requirement.
- 31 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 32 of 102
X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
Summary: IDOC has met, and often exceeded, all construction requirements for RTU beds and programming space; it is making them available at two institutions but availability falls far short in two other institutions. As to delivering therapeutic services, two RTUs are meeting the requirements specified in this section; two other RTUs are unable to do so, principally because of understaffing.
As to inpatient care, IDOC has an intergovernmental agreement in place and 44 beds are available, with a substantial portion of them in use. IDOC also reports that groundbreaking for a new facility took place in March 2019.
IDOC facilities have established crisis beds as required and they are in use throughout the system. For the most part, patients are not housed in control units when receiving crisis care, though more remains to demonstrate whether this requirement is met. In terms of aggressive mental health treatment to reduce acute symptoms and stabilize the patient, IDOC has put significant work into improving this treatment. Daily MHP meetings are often more substantive than when observed in the past, but a significant number still resemble an assessment alone. IDOC increased psychiatry contacts, with a great majority of these patients being seen within one week. Treatment planning did not do much to support the required level of treatment; nearly every patient received a new treatment plan on admission, but the content remained limited and approaches did not appear to change for patients with extended stays. Multidisciplinary treatment planning improved, particularly on discharge.
For a substantial number of patients, the care is not serving to stabilize them within 10 days or effect a transfer to a more intensive care setting. Hundreds of cases exceeded the expected 10 days—some for several months--and few were referred to RTU or inpatient care.
(X)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(X)(b): RTU beds for male offenders
(i): Specific requirement: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
Findings: IDOC has identified 1257 units of RTU bed space for male offenders. This number was provided to the Monitor during the Executive staff meeting on 4/4/19. IDOC is in substantial compliance.
- 32 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 33 of 102
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately 626 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;
(B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: o Dixon-RTU bed count of 648. 537 beds are currently filled. o Pontiac-RTU bed count of 187. 41 beds are filled with offenders assigned to the RTU level of care. Of note, the actual RTU is not operating. IDOC officials are unable to provide the monitoring team with an official opening date because of staffing recruitment difficulties. o Joliet-RTU bed count of 422. 126 beds are currently filled.
Although deadlines have not been consistently met, IDOC is exceeding the requirement for construction for RTU beds and programming space. This is important progress.
An essential component of this requirement, however, is to “make its RTU beds available.” This has not been achieved. Neither Pontiac nor Joliet has ever filled more than a fraction of those beds. While there is no obligation to keep units at full occupancy, and there are natural fluctuations in demand, Pontiac has fewer than 25% of the beds filled and cannot expand in the foreseeable future. Joliet has been open a year and a half and, to the Monitor’s knowledge, the current occupancy—35% of the requirement—is the highest level reached to date. IDOC could certainly be in compliance with some number of beds unfilled; Dixon is an example of that, with fluctuating numbers but a substantial percentage of beds filled. But at Joliet and Pontiac, the distance between the required number and these minimal occupancy levels is too great. It cannot be said that the required number of beds is being made available there.
Neither are the beds going unfilled for lack of demand. The monitoring team analyzed nine months of referrals to higher level of care; almost 40% of them15 waited more than 1 month for a bed and some waited as long as 4.5 months. As described in section (X)(f), an additional 88 people were not referred and should have been, and that number might approach 500 on closer inspection of relevant patients’ circumstances. It cannot be said that IDOC is making these RTU beds available but there is simply no need for them.
Dixon is in substantial compliance with this requirement; Pontiac and Joliet are in partial compliance. The Monitor urges IDOC to examine and address the barriers to making more of these RTU beds available as there is substantial indication of unmet need for this treatment.
15 Where timing could be discerned
- 33 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 34 of 102
(X)(c): RTU beds for female offenders
(i): Specific requirement: IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108 female offenders at Logan CC.
Findings: IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 146 female offenders at Logan CC. This includes the beds in the “Acute Crisis Care Unit.” IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings:
(A) The deadline for creating RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders was February 6, 2018. This requirement has been met.
(B) The deadline for creating RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders was July 6, 2018. This requirement has been met.
IDOC is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section.
(X)(d): Specific requirements: The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains an RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
Findings:
• Dixon RTU: The requirements of (X)(d) are not being met at the Dixon RTU. Dr. Kapoor has made six site visits to Dixon over the life of the Settlement Agreement. Her most recent visit occurred on February 7 & 8, 2019. Based on her experience and expertise, she is in a unique position to report on the status of RTU-level treatment at Dixon. Dr. Kapoor noted that short-staffing—particularly of psychiatrists—and high staff turnover remain significant problems at Dixon. Because of inadequate staffing, Dixon has had to choose parts of the Settlement Agreement on which to focus its efforts, recognizing that full
- 34 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 35 of 102
compliance is impossible at current staffing levels. Accordingly, as the facility has tried to comply with the requirements for Segregation and Crisis Watch, programming in RTU settings has decreased substantially. Many of the front-line mental health professionals resented the directive from IDOC to focus on offenders in segregation, feeling that their sickest patients (those in the RTU) were being neglected in order to care for a few chronically problematic offenders. Overall, even the most dedicated mental health professionals were growing frustrated with both IDOC leadership and the Rasho litigation, believing that little improvement in care was being made.
The most recent IDOC Quarterly Report indicates that Dixon is able to offer far more than the required 10 hours of unstructured out of cell activities, citing 48.5 hours per week. As to structured therapeutic activity, the report states that one unit is offered more than the required amount (15 hours) while the other is offered half of the required hours. The monitoring team has not reviewed this data.
• Pontiac RTU: The monitoring team made seven site visits to Pontiac over the reporting period. As noted above, the RTU has not officially opened as of May 13, 2019. 187 RTU bed spaces have been identified and, as of April 4, 2019, there are 41 offenders housed there who have been designated RTU-level of care. As with Dixon, Pontiac suffers from being significantly understaffed. This understaffing prevents Pontiac from fulfilling the requirements of (X)(d).
• Logan RTU: The monitoring team conducted site visits of Logan, including the RTU, on 6/27/18 & 12/27/18. This facility is clearly meeting the requirements of (X)(d). The most recent IDOC Quarterly Report indicates that Logan is able to offer 40 hours per week of unstructured out of cell activities and 13 hours of structured therapeutic activity, more than is required.
• Joliet RTU: The monitoring team made three site visits to Joliet over the course of the reporting period. This facility is clearly meeting the requirements of (X)(d). The most recent IDOC Quarterly Report indicates that Joliet is able to offer 15 hours per week of unstructured out of cell activities and 15 hours of structured therapeutic activity, more than is required.
(X)(e): Inpatient beds
Specific requirement: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (‘IGA’) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for
- 35 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 36 of 102
female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget approval contingent date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
Findings: This requirement contains several sub-requirements:
• Within three (3) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (‘IGA’) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this sub-requirement.
• Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget approval contingent date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. The facility has been in use since April 2018 and IDOC reports occupancy as 33 as of April 2019. IDOC indicates that staffing is at more than 90% of state positions for this facility; the April Quarterly Report is silent as to any Wexford positions. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this sub-requirement.
• Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. IDOC has begun to meet this sub-requirement, having broken ground in March 2019 for a facility to be located on the Joliet Treatment Center campus. This is not within the required period of performance, but is a useful step. Non-compliance.
• Finally, Dr. Puga has been meeting with the Monitor to develop policies and procedures related to inpatient level of care.
IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(X)(f): Crisis beds
Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be
- 36 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 37 of 102
moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
Findings: IDOC facilities have established crisis beds as required. Logs indicated that eight institutions housed patients in segregation cells during a crisis watch during this monitoring year; leaving aside Pontiac, however, it appeared that this occurred very rarely.16 Such placements are permitted in exigent circumstances and for three days or less. Assessing for those criteria, the length of stay commonly met that criterion, but exceeded the permitted length in 34% of the relevant watches. Lincoln employed a segregation cell in almost half of its crisis watches, and Stateville proper did so in 10% of its watches, indicating there is ongoing demand for more crisis cells than are available in those facilities, raising a question as to whether this is truly exigent use. Both of these percentages show improvement in recent months, however, and Robinson appears to have resolved its similar issue.
Examining Pontiac separately, it initially had the highest usage, housing 197 crisis watches17 in the segregation unit during the initial months of this monitoring year. After ceasing to use that unit for segregation in September 2018, however, it appears that Pontiac has resolved the longstanding issue of housing crisis watches in a control unit, a significant accomplishment. The Settlement Agreement language calls for the beds to be in protective custody instead; that is not the case. This requirement specifically states “These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.” This is an example of how IDOC should move to modify the Settlement Agreement or actually move all crisis beds to protective custody.
All in all, there is improvement on this requirement. When all reporting IDOC facilities can provide housing information as called for on IDOC’s crisis watch logs, and the current level of performance is sustained systemwide for one year, this requirement can be found in substantial compliance. With the current amount of data, IDOC has demonstrated partial compliance.
Specific requirement: Section II (e) of the Settlement Agreement states in part: Crisis beds are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.
Findings: Logs show that all institutions except two—Kewanee and Murphysboro—had crisis watches during the monitoring year.
In terms of aggressive mental health treatment to reduce acute symptoms and stabilize the
16 This analysis is based on eight months of crisis watch logs provided by IDOC. Placements marked as being in segregation cells were 1% of the total crisis watches. With a large number of entries where housing was not indicated, however, one cannot discern whether this is all of the segregation placements. 17 The analysis in the Mid-Year Report has been updated based on new information.
- 37 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 38 of 102
patient, IDOC clinicians continue their practice of daily MHP meetings with the patient, and IDOC leadership has strongly encouraged that these be longer interactions so that more substantial treatment can take place. During the monitoring team’s visits, the team observed contacts ranging from 5 to 40 minutes, though most typically they followed IDOC’s directive of 20 minutes or more. The content of the contacts varied quite a bit; some provided therapeutic guidance to work through the issues underlying the crisis watch admission, but many still resembled an assessment alone.
IDOC has also brought attention to increasing psychiatry contacts during crisis watch, a welcome addition. The monitoring team reviewed a sample of 664 crisis watches from a twomonth period in 2019 that was drawn from across all institutions. In that sample, 40% of patients saw a psychiatric provider by the day after admission, the standard the Monitor would expect for a crisis setting. Another 47% were seen within one week. There was especially good practice at Centralia, Decatur, Dixon, Robinson, Sheridan, and Stateville-NRC. On the other hand, at some institutions,18 that contact appeared only to occur at the discharge decision, so did not seemingly affect the course of care in crisis watch. Other patients appeared to be housed for multiple weeks before a psychiatry contact.19 Five percent had no psychiatry contact during their admission.
Treatment planning did not do much to support the provision of aggressive mental health treatment to reduce acute symptoms and stabilize the patients. IDOC has put significant work into treatment planning in the last year and improvement is evident, but there is further to go. The monitoring team reviewed treatment plans during each site visit. Additionally, the team conducted a systemwide study of 299 recent crisis watch treatment plans. It revealed that nearly every patient received a new treatment plan on admission, but these were not decided by a multidisciplinary team, a minority identified patient-specific problems and goals, and, for treatment, nearly all merely named the standard number of contacts but said nothing about what the treatment would be or how the clinician and patient would move toward meeting the goals. Multidisciplinary engagement in treatment planning improved to over half in those crisis watches lasting more than one week, though documents had the same content problems—indeed, the approaches did not appear to change over time, nor to respond to the fact that the patient had been in this acute setting for weeks or months--and were generated much less often than required. For a detailed discussion, please see section VII, above.
Additionally, logs suggest that, for a substantial number of patients, the care is not serving to stabilize them within 10 days or effecting a transfer to a more intensive care setting. Crisis watch logs indicate that 13% of crisis watches exceeded the expected 10 days.20 While all such cases were authorized by a Mental Health Professional in the relevant charts reviewed, these hundreds of cases suggest a substantial unmet need for a higher level of care, whether by failing to recognize the need or by failing to make available the needed beds.
18 This was particularly evident at East Moline, Hill, Shawnee, and Taylorville. 19 These two points, however, may reflect a difficulty with data and may not always be accurate. Additionally, there was a large, additional set of records NOT included in this analysis because dates could not be discerned. Thus, this analysis reflects a snapshot of a substantial number of crisis watches, but results might shift, positively or negatively, with a more complete data set. 20 This analysis is based on a review of eight months of crisis watch logs from all IDOC institutions, exempting Elgin from the 10-day expectation. It excludes those entries where length of stay could not be discerned.
- 38 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 39 of 102

Most disturbing were the 114 people who stayed in crisis watch one month or more. This practice was widespread, occurring at 14 institutions, though it was most prevalent at Dixon, Stateville, Pontiac, and Lawrence. Shockingly, among that group, 11 patients were in this setting for 3 months to more than 1 year. These occurred principally at Dixon, but also at Pontiac, Pinckneyville, and Stateville. Yet few were referred to a higher level of care.21 Those referrals can be summarized as:

Length of stay
11-29 days 1 – 3 months 3 months - >1 year

Number of people
472 103 11

Referred to higher level of care
65 24 2

There is also an indication that this is not fully explained as a deliberate judgment that a
higher level of care is not needed. In a complementary study of treatment plans in crisis watches exceeding 10 days, only 19% contained any documented consideration of another level of care.22

It appears, at minimum, 88 people needed a higher level of care and did not receive it, and the number potentially approaches 500.23

Although some improvement occurred over the reporting period, IDOC will receive a rating of non-compliance for this very important section of the Settlement Agreement.

(X)(g): Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own ADs, forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement .
Findings: The RTUs at Dixon, Logan and the JTC are in substantial compliance with this requirement.

The RTU at Pontiac has at least 10 treatment spaces whose configuration allows them to be used efficiently for 1:1 and group contacts. Custody staff said they presently can run five spaces concurrently, and programming schedules show structured activity being offered seven days per

21 According to the monitoring team’s review of eight months of logs from all institutions showing referrals to
RTU and Elgin. 22 This is a portion of the systemwide study of crisis watch treatment plans described in section VII above. Among
the 26 patients with stays exceeding 10 days and for whom a treatment plan update was provided, only 19% made any mention of other levels of care. Progress notes were not part of this review, so this figure is not definitive, but it serves as one part of the picture. 23 For patients in crisis watch 11 days or more, one expects at least consideration of whether a higher level of care is
needed. Patients with multiple crisis watches also warrant this consideration under some circumstances; the monitoring team did not undertake this analysis.

- 39 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 40 of 102
week, for a total of 4.5 to 6 hours per week for most patients. All spaces are well constructed for sound privacy. The unit, however, is not fully operational. Only after it is fully operational, with a complete complement of mental health staff and mentally ill offenders can it be determined if it meets this requirement. IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance for this subsection.
(X)(h): Specific requirement: The treatment and other space required by subsections (d)(g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.
Findings: The RTUs at Logan, Dixon and the JTC are meeting this requirement. The RTU at Pontiac is not fully operational. Therefore, IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance for this subsection.
(X)(i): Specific requirement: Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.
Findings: IDOC has been in substantial compliance with this requirement for the life of the Settlement Agreement.
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
Summary: IDOC is meeting the requirements of this section in the areas of Regional Directors, Statewide Quality Improvement Manager, and Central Office Staff. Currently there are five facilities that have vacancies for Clinical Supervisors. The overall rating for this section is partial compliance due to the Clinical Supervisor vacancies.
(XI)(a): Regional Directors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.
Findings: IDOC has been in substantial compliance with this requirement throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement.
(XI)(b): Statewide Quality Improvement Manager
- 40 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 41 of 102

Specific requirement: IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.

(XI)(c): Clinical supervisors

Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.

Findings: At the time of the submission of this report, there existed five clinical supervisor vacancies:

• Danville • East Moline • Menard • Pontiac • Stateville NRC

PSA-8k Social Worker IV PSA-8k Social Worker IV PSA-8k

IDOC is in partial compliance with this requirement.

(XI)(d): Central office staff

Specific requirement: IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facilityspecific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.

Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.

- 41 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 42 of 102
XII: MEDICATION
Summary: The monitoring team found that IDOC medical staff are contemporaneously recording medication administration and contacts with medical staff as to medications. A review of the psychiatric backlog and a data driven analysis regarding the frequency of medication follow up visits reveals that IDOC still does not meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement concerning proper frequency of medication follow up visits. IDOC has made progress in assuring that prescribed medications are actually being delivered and taken by the offenders. Similarly, IDOC is making progress regarding the charting of medication side effects, the use of standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, providing explanations to the offenders regarding their prescribed medications and addressing medication non-compliance.
(XII)(a): Specific requirement: In accordance with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
Findings: IDOC has been consistently meeting this requirement since the midyear report of 11/22/17.
(XII)(b): Specific requirement: Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5) provides: Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, subject to the following:
(a) For offenders in the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for the extension of follow-up appointments may be considered, with no follow up appointment to exceed 90 days.
(b) For offenders at a Special/Residential Treatment Unit level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments may be considered with no extension to exceed 60 days.
- 42 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 43 of 102
Findings: The psychiatric backlog data must be taken into consideration when evaluating IDOC’s performance regarding this requirement. At the beginning of the reporting period, 6/1/18, the psychiatric backlog was 1265. At that time, the largest backlogs existed at Dixon (134), Menard (172), Pontiac (138), Shawnee (155), Stateville (113) and Western (98). IDOC has made progress in reducing the backlog over the reporting period. As of 5/10/19, the backlog was 680. Some facilities had no backlog.24 Other facilities had significant backlogs: Dixon, 223 of 897 cases (25%); Robinson, 120 of 273 cases (44%); and Vienna, 67 of 194 cases (35%).
Overall, this backlog of 680 represents 7% of the total psychiatric caseload. Although a backlog of 680 is significantly preferable to one of 1265, it remains an unacceptable figure given the critical nature of timely psychiatric follow up. This is especially true at Dixon given their large number of RTU-level offenders.
Backlog, however, is only one indication of IDOC’s performance regarding this requirement. The monitoring team conducted a data-driven analysis of the requirements of Section XII, throughout the reporting period. This consisted of chart reviews for 138 mentally ill offenders from 10 facilities25 who were prescribed psychotropic medication. A review of the medication practices at Dixon was also conducted and will be described later. This analysis revealed that regarding the specific requirements of XII(b), only 74 of the 138 charts reviewed demonstrated that the time parameters were being met. Examples of the problems encountered:
• 90-day follow ups were scheduled without patient stability documented in the medical record.
• 60-day follow up was scheduled without patient stability documented in the medical record.
• 55-day follow up scheduled for a patient started on a new medication.
Given the problems associated with the psychiatric backlog and that only 54% of the reviewed charts demonstrated timely psychiatric follow up, a rating of non-compliance will be assigned for XII(b).
(XII)(c): Specific requirement: In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:
(i): Specific requirement: The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
Findings: As Monitor, I have been very critical of IDOC’s lack of progress regarding this specific requirement in the past.26 Since this midyear report, however, IDOC has made a concerted effort to address this critical issue. These endeavors include:
24 Big Muddy, Centralia, Danville, East Moline, Elgin, Jacksonville, JTC, Kewanee, Menard, Murphysboro, Sheridan and Taylorville. 25 Elgin, Western, Graham, Menard, Pinckneyville, Logan, Pontiac, Illinois River, Vienna, and Stateville-NRC and Stateville proper. 26 Midyear Report, dated 11/30/18, page 48.
- 43 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 44 of 102
• IDOC reports that facilities actively identify those mentally ill offenders who have a history of “cheeking” medication. Hill is offered as an example of such a facility and a robust procedure is described. The monitoring team looks forward to learning about other facilities undertaking similar practices.
• Using better lighting to inspect the mouths of offenders in restricted housing settings. Almost half of institutions report upgrading in-cell lighting and/or using flashlights.
• Pulling patients out of their cells—either on to the tier, in a holding cell, at an officer’s desk, or in the health care unit or other pill window--where they can be better observed while taking their medications. Seven institutions have instituted this as routine practice, and another seven employ this method when necessary.
• Illinois River and Shawnee utilize a “crush and float” method of medication administration.
• Changing the formulary to address this issue (i.e. introducing oral-disintegrating tablets of the antipsychotic and mood stabilizer, Zyprexa; moving to daily dosing of certain medications.)
Nine institutions report using the normal procedures, without enhancements, and the belief that that is sufficient in their circumstances.
All of these changes, however, are not without challenges. In an email to Chief Lindsay on 4/19/19, plaintiffs’ counsel reported that on a recent site visit to Menard “We received many concerns from Class Members that their psychiatric medications on order for ‘crush and float’ are passed out already crushed with no assurance to them that the crushed medications are in fact their own prescribed medications.” The monitoring team has received similar concerns from mentally ill offenders while touring facilities during the current reporting period.
Reena Kapoor, M.D. conducted her sixth visit to Dixon on February 7th & 8th, 2019. She noted that hoarding and misappropriation of medications is a problem at Dixon, contributing indirectly to the suicide of an offender in 2018. As one method to manage this issue, Dixon reports it has replaced metal screens with plexiglass in its segregation units, a valuable change that should greatly improve visibility during cellside medication administration.
The efforts of IDOC to address this very difficult issue are duly noted and appreciated. A rating of partial compliance will be assigned for this subsection.
(ii): Specific requirement: The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskinesia [sic], high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
Findings: As reported in the midyear report of 11/30/18, IDOC has been making steady progress in meeting the requirements of this subsection. Aggregating three studies the monitoring team conducted, 94 of the 150 charts reviewed (63%) were satisfying the requirements of this subsection. A significant subset of the cases falling short did chart efficacy, so were partially compliant. A rating of partial compliance will be assigned for this current report. IDOC can expect
- 44 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 45 of 102
to receive a rating of substantial compliance for XII(c)(ii) when they can demonstrate a compliance rate of 85%.
(iii): Specific requirement: Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
(iv): Specific requirement: The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
There is significant overlap with XII(c)(iii) and (iv). Aggregating three sets of monitoring team analyses, charts demonstrated that 99 of the 149 charts reviewed (66%) were meeting the requirements of these two subsections. This 66% compliance finding is an improvement over previous reviews. A partial compliance rating will be assigned for both of these subsections. Again, IDOC can expect to receive a rating of substantial compliance for XII(c)(iii) & (iv) when they can demonstrate a compliance rate of 85%.
(v): Specific requirement: That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanation from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
Findings: As reported in the midyear report of 11/30/18, IDOC remains in substantial compliance with this requirement. Again, this rating is based on a box being checked on the psychiatric progress note form. I encourage IDOC to better document the degree to which the psychiatric provider is explaining the medication management of a given mentally ill offender.
(vi): Specific requirement: That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
Findings: As reported in the midyear report of 11/30/18, IDOC was found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement based on evidence of psychiatry considering the patient’s compliance/non-compliance with his or her medication regimen. In a more recent, multisite chart review, however, only 62% of the charts referenced this.
To the monitoring team’s knowledge, IDOC does not maintain a system that would allow staff or monitors to identify the population of patients who have been noncompliant with their medication. While medication adherence is one subject of the monitoring team’s chart reviews, the cohort on which to make an assessment remains small as they are encountered by chance.27 Among those reviews, however, only 23% were fully compliant with the terms of this Settlement Agreement requirement. Deficiencies tended to be concentrated at the nursing referral step; referrals either were not made, were made late, or progress notes suggested the possibility that a
27 This analysis is based on 22 charts, the only charts evidencing nonadherence to medication regimen for stretches of 3 days or more, per IDOC policy, during the monitoring period. These were the only such charts in a multi-site review of 188 charts.
- 45 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 46 of 102
referral was made but it is unclear whether that took place. Charts also raised a question when progress notes show patients telling clinicians that they had been refusing medication but MARs show the patient receiving medication at that time.
Once mental health staff was aware of a referral, response tended to meet required timeframes; there were only a few exceptions where response was late or the MHP does not appear to have referred the patient to psychiatry when it was warranted.
To remain consistent with previous ratings, IDOC will be found to be in partial compliance with this requirement. Again, a compliance rate of 85% will earn IDOC a substantial compliance rating. Additionally, the monitoring team and IDOC will need to collaborate on methods to identify the relevant population so that the Monitor and the Court may have confidence in the sufficiency of studies.
XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION
Summary: There appeared to be an increase in the number of patients subject to enforced medication. In the records reviewed, IDOC personnel followed the required notice and hearing procedures. However, in 67% of reviewed cases, a decision to enforce medication was made when the record did not reflect that the standard had been met.
Previously, 15 institutions have been found in substantial compliance, and that finding remains in place.
Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70. The cited provision of the Administrative Code is lengthy and includes numerous detailed provisions:
a) Administration of Psychotropic Medication 1) Psychotropic medication shall not be administered to any offender against his or her will or without the consent of the parent or guardian of a minor who is under the age of 18, unless: A) A psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that: i) The offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) The medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) The offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others; and B) The administration of such medication has been approved by the Treatment Review Committee after a hearing (see subsection (b) of this Section). However, no such approval or hearing shall be required when the medication is administered in an emergency situation. An emergency situation exists whenever the required determinations listed in subsection (a)(1)(A) of this Section have been made and a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that the offender poses an imminent threat of serious
- 46 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 47 of 102
physical harm to self or others. In all emergency situations, the procedures set forth in subsection (e) of this Section shall be followed. 2) Whenever a physician orders the administration of psychotropic medication to an offender against the person’s will, the physician shall document in the offender’s medical file the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination that the standards in subsection (a)(1) of this Section have been met and: A) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be notified as soon as practicable; and B) Unless the medication was administered in an emergency situation, the Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee shall be notified in writing within three days. b) Treatment Review Committee Procedures The Treatment Review Committee shall be comprised of two members appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer, both of whom shall be mental health professionals and one of whom shall be a physician. One member shall serve as Chairperson of the Committee. Neither of the Committee members may be involved in the current decision to order the medication. The members of the Committee shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall designate a member of the program staff not involved in the current decision to order medication to assist the offender. The staff assistant shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 2)The offender and staff assistant shall receive written notification of the time and place of the hearing at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The notification shall include the tentative diagnosis and the reasons why the medical staff believes the medication is necessary. The staff assistant shall meet with the offender prior to the hearing to discuss the procedural and mental health issues involved. 3) The offender shall have the right to attend the hearing unless the Committee determines that it is likely that the person’s attendance would subject the person to substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm or pose a threat to the safety of others. If such a determination is made, the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination shall be documented in the offender’s medical file. The staff assistant shall appear at the hearing whether or not the offender appears. 4) The documentation in the medical file referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this Section shall be reviewed by the Committee and the Committee may request the physician’s personal appearance at the hearing. 5) Prior to the hearing, witnesses identified by the offender and the staff assistant may be interviewed by the staff assistant after consultation with the offender as to appropriate questions to ask. Any such questions shall be asked by the staff assistant unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 6) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses be interviewed by the Committee and may submit written questions for witnesses to the Chairperson of the Committee. These questions shall be asked by the Committee unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of
- 47 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 48 of 102
individuals or the security of the facility. If any witness is not interviewed, a written reason shall be provided. 7) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses appear at the hearing. Any such request shall include an explanation of what the witnesses would state. Reasonable efforts shall be made to have such witnesses present at the hearing, unless their testimony or presence would be cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility, or for other reasons including, but not limited to, unavailability of the witness or matters relating to institutional order. In the event requested witnesses are unavailable to appear at the hearing but are otherwise available, they shall be interviewed by the Committee as provided for in subsections (b)(6) and (9) of this Section. 8) At the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may make statements and present documents that are relevant to the proceedings. The staff assistant may direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing. The offender may request that the staff assistant direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing and the staff assistant shall ask such questions unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 9) The Committee shall make such investigation as it deems necessary. The staff assistant shall be informed of any investigation conducted by the Committee and shall be permitted to direct relevant questions to any witnesses interviewed by the Committee. The staff assistant shall consult with the offender regarding any statements made by witnesses interviewed by the Committee and shall comply with requests by the offender to direct relevant questions to such witnesses unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 10) The Committee shall consider all relevant information and material that has been presented in deciding whether to approve administration of the medication. 11) A written decision shall be prepared and signed by all members of the Committee that contains a summary of the hearing and the reasons for approving or disapproving the administration of the medication. Copies of the decision shall be given to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Any decision by the Committee to approve involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be unanimous. The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Committee. 12) If the Committee approves administration of the medication, the offender shall be advised of the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Agency Medical Director by filing a written appeal with the Chairperson within five days after the offender's receipt of the written decision. c) Review by Agency Medical Director 1) If the offender appeals the Treatment Review Committee’s decision, staff shall continue to administer the medication as ordered by the physician and approved by
- 48 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 49 of 102
the Committee while awaiting the Agency Medical Director’s decision on the appeal. 2) The Chairperson of the Committee shall promptly forward the written notice of appeal to the Agency Medical Director or a physician designated by the Agency Medical Director. 3) Within five working days after receipt of the written notice of appeal, the Agency Medical Director shall: A) Review the Committee’s decision, make such further investigation as deemed necessary, and submit a written decision to the Chief Administrative Officer; and B) Provide a copy of the written decision to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chairperson of the Committee. 4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Agency Medical Director. d) Periodic Review of Medication 1) Whenever any offender has been involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication continuously or on a regular basis for a period of six months, the administration of such medication shall, upon the offender’s written request, be reviewed by the Treatment Review Committee in accordance with the procedures enumerated in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section. Every six months thereafter, for so long as the involuntary medication continues on a regular basis, the offender shall have the right to a review hearing upon written request. 2) Every offender who is involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, and the psychiatrist shall document in the offender's medical file the basis for the decision to continue the medication. e) Emergency Procedures Subsequent to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in an emergency situation: 1) The basis for the decision to administer the medication shall be documented in the offender's medical file and a copy of the documentation shall be given to the offender and to the Agency Medical Director for review. 2) A mental health professional shall meet with the offender to discuss the reasons why the medication was administered and to give the offender an opportunity to express any concerns he or she may have regarding the medication. f) Copies of all notifications and written decisions shall be placed in the offender’s medical file. g) Grievances An offender may submit a grievance concerning the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication directly to the Administrative Review Board in accordance with 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Subpart F. In considering the grievance, the Board shall confer with the Agency Medical Director.
Findings: In the past, IDOC has provided documentation concerning staff at each institution who have been trained to serve on hearing committees, and the April Quarterly Report notes additional training provided in April 2018 and April 2019.
- 49 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 50 of 102
It appears there are substantially more people subject to enforced medication—258--than in previous monitoring periods.28 Logs show 118 new decisions issued since the Second Annual Report. The monitoring team reviewed 10% of the new decisions drawn from half of the institutions issuing them. In all cases, documents indicated that IDOC followed the prescribed procedures: the patient was issued a written notice; a staff assistant was assigned;29 a hearing was convened with the correct mental health disciplines; and a hearing record was issued, specifying the basis for the decision. The patient appeared, or the hearing record noted that he or she was given the option and refused. There were notes concerning whether the patient wished to call witnesses; none were requested in the documents reviewed.
While procedures were followed, the central purpose of this protection was only fulfilled in 33% of the cases reviewed. While the hearing personnel considered a substantial amount of clinical information, and it reflected clearly sick patients, in the large majority of cases, it did not describe someone gravely disabled nor at substantial risk on inflicting serious harm to him- or herself or others, any more than the risk posed by a great number of other IDOC patients. While medicating these patients would be very desirable, it is a serious matter to remove a patient’s right to bodily integrity, and too often the committees did so where the record did not demonstrate that the standard had been met.
During previous monitoring periods, the team found 15 institutions to be in substantial compliance with this requirement. No contrary information has come to the team’s attention, so I find that those institutions continue to be in substantial compliance.
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
Summary: IDOC has been in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section since the midyear report of 11/22/17. The Monitoring team will not be reporting on this section in future reports.
(XIV)(a): Specific requirements: Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
28 It is unclear, however, whether the method of reporting contributes to this impression. If the reporting is consistent, there was a 38% increase over previous monitoring periods. 29 In a few instances, it appeared that a different staff assistant served notice—and presumably prepared the patient—than the one who participated in the hearing a short time later.
- 50 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 51 of 102 (XIV)(b): Specific requirement: For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII (a)(v)(F), below. Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement. (XIV)(c): Specific requirement: If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation. Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
- 51 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 52 of 102
XV: SEGREGATION
Summary: IDOC appropriately considers classification concerns and confers with Mental Health staff before double-celling mentally ill prisoners. Documents do not demonstrate that existing treatment plans are continued after segregation placement. There have been great improvements in MHPs assessing patients within 48 hours of placement, a high-risk time. It is impressive that, in recent months, 81% of reviewed placements systemwide were compliant and fully 18 institutions are in substantial compliance on this important function.
A minority of treatment plans are updated at the first week and monthly thereafter. Systems are well-established to provide weekly rounds, but documentation suggested periodic lapses. As for out-of-cell time, there has been incremental improvement in the amount of structured time offered. However, approximately 30% of patients in segregation were not offered 16 hours per week of out-of-cell time. Then, with a very high recorded refusal rate, the percent who actually receive that amount of time is in the single digits.
There have been improvements in the physical conditions in segregation units, particularly at Pontiac. More improvement to the segregation units is needed throughout the Department if substantial compliance is to be achieved.
XV(a)(i): Specific requirement: Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
Of note, AD 05.03.107 provides: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility with segregation and protective custody units designed to double cell offenders shall develop a written policy that includes, but is not limited to, the following for routine segregation and protective custody placement:
• Segregation placement • PC placement • Documentation • Review of documentation and final determination • Compatibility contraindications • Review with other inmates • Upon determination to double-cell:
o Documentation
- 52 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 53 of 102

o Suitability review following placement o Documentation upon release • Documentation and Reassessment for disciplinary report

Findings: IDOC continues to meet the requirements of this subsection. A rating of substantial compliance will be assigned.

XV(a)(ii): Specific Requirement: Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670. Section 504.620 is detailed and covers a number of issues regarding conditions in segregation: double celling, secure fastening of the bed, clean bedding, running water, lighting, placement above ground with adequate heat and ventilation, food passage and visual observation, use of restraints inside the cell, cleaning materials, showers and shaves, toiletries, clothing and laundry, dentures, glasses and other hygienic items, property and commissary, food, visits, medical, chaplain and correctional counselor visits, programs, exercise, phone calls, mail privileges and reading materials. Section 504.630 provides for the same conditions and services in investigatory status as in segregation status. Section 504.670 addresses recreation, including requiring five hours of recreation for inmates who have spent 90 or more days in segregation, yard restrictions, and related documentation.

Findings: IDOC continues to struggle with this particular requirement. Overall, the segregated housing units within the Department do not meet the requirements of this subsection. Of note, however, IDOC has implemented some of the recommendations of the Monitor regarding the use of segregated housing. The offenders previously placed in the North House at Pontiac have been transferred and the facility has been refurbished. Hopefully, with new leadership looking at this critical issue, improvements regarding the use of segregated housing will continue to occur. The Monitor and his staff remain very willing to work with the Department in addressing this issue, especially regarding the placement of mentally ill offenders in segregated housing units.

XV(a)(iii): Specific requirement: Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.

Findings: The Quarterly report of 4/23/19 states on page 19 “The Department continues to work to ensure that this mandate is fulfilled.” I completely agree with this statement in that the Department recognizes that more work needs to occur to fully meet the requirements of this subsection. For example, the most recent backlog data regarding treatment planning is as follows:

• 4/19/19 • 4/26/19 • 5/3/19 • 5/10/19 • 5/17/19 • 5/24/19

545 Department wide 604 Department wide 528 Department wide 457 Department wide 463 Department wide 440 Department wide

161 at Pontiac 156 at Pontiac 142 at Pontiac 136 at Pontiac 123 at Pontiac 107 at Pontiac

- 53 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 54 of 102
This data suggests that at Pontiac, a significant number of mentally ill offenders, many of whom are placed in segregated housing, are either without a treatment plan or an updated treatment plan.
In a six-institution study, only 22% of the patients placed in segregation clearly had their treatment plans continued on entry.30 More specifically, among those institutions, a chart review of treatment plans at Pontiac revealed that in most of the 13 charts reviewed, it could not be discerned if the treatment plan was being continued while the offender was in segregation. This was due to the fact that the treatment plan was vague in its treatment recommendations or that the treatment only included MHP contacts every 60-90 days and that time had not passed. In the handful of charts where a determination could be made, three did not continue the full treatment plan and only one did. Similar findings were encountered in a chart review of mentally ill offenders housed in segregation at Illinois River. The ITP was generally not continued when an offender was transferred to segregated housing. For example, relevant treatment plans called for MHP contact every 60-90 days, but there were no documented contacts for these offenders for three to four months. In a few instances, there was no treatment plan in the chart with which to make an assessment.
These findings from Pontiac and Illinois River, however, are consistent with those encountered by the monitoring team throughout the Department during the current reporting period. Given the totality of the data regarding this requirement, IDOC will be assigned a rating of partial compliance.
XV (a)(iv): Specific requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
Findings: The Department has brought attention to this important requirement and substantial improvement is evident. To accomplish this, IDOC has reported reconfiguring staff schedules; considering alternative staffing for the task; and incorporating this requirement in a major policy document, Departmental Rule 504, to reinforce its importance.
The monitoring team’s first analysis in the monitoring period, conducted in June and July 2018, found a compliance rate of 27% in the 92 charts examined. However, analyzing a more recent and larger sample found compliance had jumped to 81%, an impressive accomplishment.31 Where practice was noncompliant, most often the screening was completed but it was late—half of those only one day late and the others completed within a week after the deadline. Dixon and
30 This is drawn from site visits to Graham, Pontiac, Illinois River, Stateville-NRC, Vienna, and Western Illinois. Among a larger sample of mentally ill segregation patients, 27 had a treatment plan in place before entering segregation and served as the basis for this analysis. 31 The team reviewed two additional snapshots, one in November 2018 and one in February 2019. The sample totaled 308 new Segregation placements; these concentrate on SMI patients and were drawn from 23 institutions, exempting only those that had no such placements and one facility that appeared to misunderstand the request. Both the date of placement and the next mental health paperwork were provided for each person in the sample. For some institutions, all such placements were included; where there were large numbers of placements, IDOC provided a subset reportedly using random selection method. It is not practical to determine the total number of mental health caseload patients placed in segregation in a given period, so some relevant measurements are not included, but this does provide a substantial sample of overall practice.
- 54 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 55 of 102
Hill had the greatest difficulty with timely screening; Pinckneyville and Pontiac also had late screenings, but their practice was much improved by the February review. There was no evidence of screening in 6% of the segregation placements in the systemwide sample.
The following institutions have shown consistent, strong practice on this requirement, or have not have mental health patients in segregation for an extended period, and are found to be in substantial compliance: Big Muddy, Centralia, Danville, Decatur, East Moline, Graham, Jacksonville, Kewanee, Logan, Murphysboro, Robinson, Shawnee, Sheridan, Stateville and Stateville-NRC, Southwestern, Vandalia, Vienna, and Western Illinois.
XV (a)(v): Specific requirement: As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: The Quarterly report of 4/23/19 states “These provisions have been implemented although, due to staffing issues, are not occurring at all required times.” This statement is consistent with the findings of the monitoring team throughout the Department during the current reporting period. The monitoring team conducted a multi-site chart review32 of 80 mentally ill offenders assigned to segregated housing. Only 21 of the 80 charts reviewed (26%) confirmed that treatment plans were reviewed and updated within seven days of placement on segregation status.
In addition to this data-driven analysis, Dr. Kapoor reported that at Dixon, treatment plans are not updated upon entry into segregation for any offender. Illinois River had the best practice, with an updated plan in essentially all reviewed cases, but these were completed late, between two and three weeks after placement.
The monthly reviews and updates were assessed with a much smaller cohort because many fewer mentally ill patients in the sample remained in segregation longer than 30 days. Among the 16 relevant charts, none had their treatment plans reviewed and updated on a monthly basis, though a few had one or two updates.33
XV(a)(vi): Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established.
32 Graham, Western, Decatur, Stateville NRC, Danville, East Moline, Pontiac, Robinson, Vandalia, Vienna, and Illinois River. 33 Relevant charts were included from Graham, Illinois River, Pontiac, Stateville-NRC, and Western Illinois
- 55 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 56 of 102
F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings:
Continuation of ITP with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation: The most recent Quarterly report paints a rosy picture of the Department’s response to this requirement. The Monitoring Team takes strong exception to this characterization. The ITP may be continued while in segregation but not consistently. Please see section XV(a)(iii), above, for a discussion of how ITPs are generally not continued in segregation. The Quarterly Report states “greater, or enhanced, care is being provided to mentally ill offenders in segregation than to those in general population.” That may be the case but that is not what this requirement calls for. The requirement states “enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.” The Monitoring Team did not observe this occurring while conducting 37 visits to 19 different facilities during the current reporting period.
Rounds: Rounds are well-established; during the monitoring team visits, all institutions have demonstrated that they have systems in place and designated staff to accomplish this. Nevertheless, interruptions to the system are not uncommon. In an analysis of six of the institutions visited,34 75% of segregation cases had rounds documented for the full length of the patient’s placement. For most noncompliant records, there were gaps in the rounds’ performance—either all patients missed for a week, or sporadic misses for individual patients. In 4% of cases, the records did not show any rounds contacts for those patients. Pontiac and Stateville-NRC had the strongest performance; each showed 100% compliance. The plaintiffs’ counsel also raised the issue about whether BHTs are sufficiently qualified to conduct these rounds.
Pharmacological treatment: Pharmacological treatment does occur when an offender is placed in segregation. Of note, there was a psychiatric backlog of 668 visits on 5/24/19.
Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP: The Monitoring Team found that this episodically occurs. When it does occur, it is usually for only 15-30 minutes monthly.
Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established: This is really only occurring at Joliet and Logan. There may be some form of multidisciplinary involvement at other facilities, but not consistently throughout the Department.
MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing: This is occurring throughout the Department
34 A total of 68 records across Graham, Illinois River, Pontiac, Stateville-NRC, Vienna, Western Illinois
- 56 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 57 of 102
Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record: Clinical contacts were routinely documented in all records reviewed by the monitoring team.
Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation: This is generally occurring. There remains a serious problem with refusals, however.
XV(a)(vi):35 Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-ofcell time in accordance with subsection (c) below.36
Findings: As of June 2018, it is required that mentally ill offenders housed in a control unit for longer than 60 days receive at least 8 hours of structured and 8 hours of unstructured activities per week. It is consistently the case that 12 or fewer institutions house patients in a control unit for this length of time and thus are subject to this requirement.
The monitoring team analyzed IDOC’s systemwide tracking of out-of-cell time for this population.37 According to these logs, early in the round, the patient population was being offered 15.3 hours per week on average, and by late in the round, the average hours offered were exactly what they should be – 8 hours of structured and 8 hours of unstructured activities per week. Similarly, the April IDOC Quarterly Report provides a list showing the hours offered at each institution, with each meeting or exceeding the requirement, with one exception. That list was not consistent with logs maintained and provided by IDOC, for unknown reasons.38
Moreover, the averages do not reveal distinct differences in what the individuals are offered. Throughout the review, 31% to 32% of patients were not offered the required amount. This occurred consistently at Big Muddy River, Dixon, Menard, Shawnee, and Western Illinois. Menard has a large long-term segregation population and was particularly troubling; in the most recent month analyzed, nearly every patient in the sample had a multiple-week stretch where the only unstructured time offered was one or two showers per week, and sometimes not even that.
35 This numbering from the Settlement Agreement is in error but this report will continue to use it to remain consistent with the numbering in the Settlement Agreement. 36 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on page 20 of the Settlement Agreement 37 The team reviewed a month early in the third year of monitoring and a month nearing the end of the monitoring period (June 2018 and February 2019). Where feasible, the review included all relevant cases for an institution. Where the relevant population is larger, the reviewer employed random selection method of every 4th, 6th, 10th, or 15th case, depending on the population size. In total, 154 cases were reviewed. The analysis controls for length of time each patient was in a control unit during the reviewed month, adjusting for releases to general population and time off unit for writs, crisis watch, etc. 38 The monitoring team compared the Hours Offered data from individuals on the most recent log analyzed by the team (February) to the March data cited in the report, and the log matched or exceeded the report contents for only 2 institutions. The comparison was possible for 10 institutions; the others had no caseload patients in segregation longer than 60 days on the log, not surprisingly. The offerings could certainly vary from February to March, but the monitoring team has no information that would suggest a substantial change occurred in that time period.
- 57 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 58 of 102
IDOC also has a very high rate of refusals for all types of out-of-cell time. In total, only 9 patients in the sample, or 6%, actually received the required number of hours. And when the hours fell short, they did not just miss the mark; on average, patients received half of the requirements. The balance did shift over time, so that incremental improvement in structured therapeutic time was evident by February (on average, 4.3 hours per week),39 a welcome advance.
IDOC indicates that MHPs meet with patients who refuse and document the reasons for the file. The monitoring team has noted refusal forms in the health care records but in all cases these contained only the patient’s signature; the team encourages staff to expand into gathering reasons, as described, as this would be valuable information for treatment purposes. The April IDOC Quarterly Report also describes staff discussing during multidisciplinary meetings those patients who repeatedly refuse. Logs show substantial numbers of those patients at each institution with a relevant population; monitoring team members have attended a number of multidisciplinary meetings and have never observed this topic under discussion, though a good example was offered in IDOC’s report. Bringing different disciplines’ experience to identifying and addressing participation barriers would be quite effective.
No correctional system can guarantee full attendance in programming and patients will invariably refuse some programming. However, when 94% are either not being offered, or are refusing so often, that they commonly receive only half of the required hours, this is a systemic problem that IDOC is obligated to work to reduce.
XV(a)(vii): Specific requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP40 unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement.
XV(b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
XV(b)(i): Specific requirements: IDOC will organize Review Committees (‘Committees’) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
39 Unstructured time appeared to decline, although this may be a product of more accurate reporting of time associated with some activities. Taking structured and unstructured time together, however, the net was very similar: In June, the average hours received per person was 7.7, while that figure was 7.56 in February. 40 IDOC’s compliance with the portion of this provision regarding MHP recommendations for placement into crisis care is discussed elsewhere this report.
- 58 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 59 of 102
Findings: The Monitoring Team has previously found the Department to be in substantial compliance with this requirement. The most recent Quarterly report confirms that IDOC is continuing to meet the requirements of this subsection.
XV(b)(ii): Specific requirements: The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
Findings: The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(iii): Specific requirements: With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
Findings: The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(iv): Specific requirements: The committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
Findings: The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(v): Specific requirements: The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
Findings: The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(vi): Specific requirements: These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XV(c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
XV(c)(i): Specific requirements: With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/ Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
20 Illinois Administrative Code Section 504 Subpart D: Segregation, Investigative Confinement and Administrative Detention—Adult provides:
Applicability, definitions, and responsibilities for IDOC staff regarding placement of offenders in segregation status; segregation standards for offenders placed into segregation,
- 59 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 60 of 102
investigative confinement, administrative detention; and standards for recreation for offenders in segregation status.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
II (G): Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
II (H): Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the
- 60 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 61 of 102
offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
- 61 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 62 of 102
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: Please see section XXV, page 91, Discipline of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders, for a discussion of the disciplinary process.
II (I): Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: Please see section XXV, page 98, for a discussion about “Observation and Follow-up.”
XV(c)(ii): Specific Requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: Please see section XV(a)(iv), above, for a discussion on this requirement.
XV(c)(iii): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
1) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP.
2) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
3) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). 4) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP.
- 62 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 63 of 102
5) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. 6) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. 7) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. 8) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings: Please see section XV(a)(vi), above, for a discussion about this requirement.
XV(c)(iv): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.41
Findings: Please see section XV(a)(vi), above, for a discussion about this requirement.
XV(c)(v): Specific Requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendation shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: The Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XV(c)42: Specific Requirement: Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-ofcell time per week.
ii. For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-ofcell time per week.
iii. For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours outof-cell time per week.
41 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on pages 19 and 20 of the Settlement. 42 As above, this appears mislabeled in the Settlement but is carried forward here.
- 63 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 64 of 102
iv. For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours outof-cell time per week.
Findings: Please see section XV(a)(vi), above, for a discussion of this requirement.
Structured out-of-cell time & unstructured out-of-cell time: Again, please see section XV(a)(vi), above, for a discussion of this requirement.
The 60-day requirement: The Department is not meeting the 60-day requirement for outof-cell time for mentally ill offenders in segregation. Section XV(a)(vi) has an in-depth discussion about the current status of out-of-cell time within the Department.
Segregation-like settings: I continue to advocate for more out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders housed in the R&Cs.
XV(d): Specific Requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The deadline for this finding has not been met.
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
Summary: Crisis teams have been formed and trained and crisis intervention data is being tracked in the CQI system. Each facility has a designated crisis area and crisis beds have been removed from segregation settings. Each facility has an Institutional Directives regarding crisis care although some of these IRs lack the appropriate sections. There remains the question of custody staff acting as gatekeepers to the Crisis Intervention Teams.
Four completed suicides occurred during the reporting period. Administrative Reviews and Psychological Autopsies were completed on each of the suicide victims. There is a serious issue of IDOC not fully implementing the recommendations contained in these reviews. It is imperative that clinical leadership thoroughly review these four sets of reviews and put into effect the recommendations for reducing the risk of future suicides.
(XVI)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
The section titled “Identification, Treatment and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” from
- 64 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 65 of 102
the IDOC Mental Health SOP Manual43 provides general guidelines for the handling of suicidal offenders. AD 04.04.102, however, provides a number of specific requirements:
II (F) Requirements: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall: 1)Establish a Crisis Intervention Team. a. The Crisis Intervention Team shall consist of: (1) A Crisis Intervention Team Leader who shall be an MHP; (2) All facility MHPs and nursing staff; and (3) At least one member of the facility’s security staff of the rank of Lieutenant or above. NOTE: Other Crisis Intervention Team members may be chosen from facility staff upon the recommendation of the Team Leader to ensure at least one member is on site at all times. b. Prior to serving, all members of the Crisis Intervention Team shall receive training in accordance with Paragraph II.g.1. Crisis Intervention Team Members on leave of absence shall be required to make up missed training upon return and prior to resuming service on the Crisis Intervention Team. c. All Crisis Intervention Team Members shall participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.
(1) Meetings shall be held to: (a) Review all events involving offender suicide during the previous quarter; (b) Review the Facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan in accordance with Paragraph II.G; and (c) Assess the adequacy of the facility’s training program in relation to the facility’s needs
(2) Meetings shall be documented in writing and shall: (a) Include the date and minutes of the meeting, a list of all persons in attendance and any recommendations or issues noted; (b) Be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer, the respective Regional Psychological Administrator and the Chief of Mental Health
Findings: The requirements of Administrative Directive 04.04.102, effective 11/1/17, are being met. That is, Crisis Teams have been formed and trained. Crisis Intervention data is tracked in the CQI system.
2) Designate a Crisis Care Area. a. Crisis care areas shall be used to house offenders determined by an MHP to require removal from his or her current housing assignment for the purpose of mental health treatment or observation. b. Excluding exigent circumstances as determined by the Director or a Deputy director, segregation units shall only be utilized for crisis care areas if no other crisis care areas are available, and only until alternative crisis care areas are available. c. Cells designated as crisis care areas shall: Allow for visual and auditory observation of the entire cell; Allow for prompt staff access; Control outside stimuli; Contain beds that are suicide resistant and constructed of a metal base, cinder block, concrete slab or herculite
43 The Settlement references “Mental Health Protocol Manual.” IDOC has changed the name of this manual to “Mental Health SOP Manual.”
- 65 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 66 of 102
material; Contain a pass through or chuck holes that open out of the cell; Contain mesh coverings over all vents; Contain laminated glass over all windows or be safely and security glazed windows; and Be made appropriately suicide resistant and provide adequate lighting and temperature.
Findings: Each facility has a designated crisis area. The monitoring team has observed the crisis areas in the 19 separate facilities visited during the current reporting period and found them to have the required features. Crisis beds have finally been removed from segregation areas during the current reporting period.
II (G): Prevention and Intervention Plan
The Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the facility’s mental health authority, shall establish a written procedure for responding to, and providing emergency mental health services, including prevention and intervention of emergency mental health situations. The procedure shall be reviewed annually and shall be approved by the Chief of Mental Health and shall include, at a minimum, provisions for the following: training, referrals for emergency mental health situations, crisis intervention team response, crisis watch, response to self-inflicted injuries and suicide, and quality improvement reviews.
Findings: IDOC has provided Institutional Directives for all institutions capturing the key provisions of the crisis intervention policy. The monitoring team has reviewed each Institutional Directive and found that they are consistent with the system’s Administrative Directive. The great majority are comprehensive. There are five institutions whose directives are nearly complete but are missing a brief but significant section.
1) Training The Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training shall establish standardized training programs that provide information on emergency mental health services. All training shall be provided by an MHP, or in the absence of the MHP, a current crisis team member and, where appropriate, shall include enhanced content specific to the facility. a. Level I Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all staff that have regular interaction with offenders, and shall include a minimum of one hour of the following: (1) Elements of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan; (2) Demographic and cultural parameters of suicidal behavior in a correctional setting, including incidence and variations in precipitating factors; (3) Risk factors and behavioral indicators of suicidal behavior; (4) Understanding, identifying, managing and referring suicidal offenders, including the importance of communication between staff; (5) Procedural response and follow-up procedures including crisis treatment supervision levels and housing observation; and (6) Documentation requirements. b. Level II Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all personnel identified in the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan as having the authority to initiate a crisis watch. Level II training shall consist of a minimum of
- 66 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 67 of 102
four hours of in-depth didactic and experiential training in assessing suicide risk and procedures for initiating a crisis watch. c. Level III Training shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members, excluding MHPs, and shall consist of 24 hours of advanced training in the philosophy of suicide prevention and continuous quality improvement of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan.
(1) Crisis Intervention Team members shall also be trained by an MHP, designated by the Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training. This training will give the Crisis Intervention Team member the ability to instruct on the standardized training curriculum that provides information on emergency mental health services during cycle training, in the absence of the MHP. (2) Training shall be completed prior to active service with the Crisis Intervention Team. d. Clinical Continuing Education shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members and shall consist of a minimum of one hour per quarter of training to assist Crisis Intervention Team members in monitoring facility policy and procedure and in reviewing suicide attempts or completions. Clinical Continuing Education Training may be obtained through participation in the quarterly Crisis Intervention Team quality assurance meeting.
Findings: As previously reported, this training requirement has been met.
2) Referrals for Emergency Mental Health Situations: Staff shall immediately notify the Crisis Intervention Team, through his or her chain of command, of any situation whereby an offender exhibits behavior indicative of mental or emotional distress, imminent risk for harm to self or an attempted suicide.
Findings: Throughout the first three years of monitoring the Settlement Agreement, there have been concerns whether custody staff in all circumstances “immediately notify the Crisis Intervention Team, through his or her chain of command, of any situation whereby an offender exhibits behavior indicative of mental or emotional distress, imminent risk for harm to self or an attempted suicide.” Please see section V(g) for details. This is a vexing problem that cannot be proven one way or the other. IDOC leadership is strongly encouraged to continually emphasize the importance of this issue with custody staff.
3) Crisis Intervention Team Response a. At least one Crisis Team member shall be on site at all times. The designated Crisis Intervention Team Leader shall be available by phone when not on site. b. The Chief of Mental Health and the respective Regional Psychological Administrator shall be notified within 24 hours of the suicide of an offender, and within 72 hours of any attempted suicide. c. Upon notice of a potential crisis situation, a Crisis Intervention Team member shall: (1) Implement necessary means to prevent escalation and to stabilize the situation. (2) Ensure that the offender is properly monitored for safety. (3) Review
- 67 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 68 of 102
the situation with the Crisis Team Leader or and MHP to determine what services or referrals shall be provided. If the Crisis Intervention Team Leader is not on grounds and cannot be reached by telephone, and there are no MHPs on grounds, the Crisis Team member shall contact an alternative MHP and the review may be completed via telephone. (4) Initiate a crisis care treatment plan to monitor and facilitate the delivery of services, including referrals for mental or medical examination, and any additional recommendations of the MHP. The crisis care treatment plan shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Log, DOC 0377. Referrals for additional examination or services following the offender’s release from a crisis care treatment level of care shall be documented on a DOC 0377. (5) If determined that the offender does not need to be placed in the crisis care area, notify the Shift Commander of any additional care requirements for security staff.
Findings: As previously reported, when called, the response of the Crisis Intervention Team is generally timely. Please see V(g) for a discussion of problems associated with the timely notification of the Crisis Intervention Team.
4) Crisis Watch a. A crisis watch shall be initiated when: (1) An offender exhibits behavior that is likely to cause harm to him or herself. (2) Mental health issues render an offender unable to care for him or herself. (3) Gestures, threats or attempts of suicide are made. (4) The Evaluation for Suicide Potential, DOC 0379, if administered, indicates need. (5) Less restrictive measures have failed or are determined to be clinically ineffective.
Findings: This requirement has been met throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. Based on numerous interviews with mentally ill offenders, a problem exists in that potentially suicidal offenders withhold their true degree of suicidality out of fear of being placed in a crisis bed with its very austere conditions and lack of meaningful psychiatric care.
b. Determination to initiate a crisis watch shall be made by an MHP. If an MHP is not available, the following individuals, in order of priority, may initiate a crisis watch: (1) Respective Regional Psychologist Administrator, (2) Any Regional Psychologist Administrator, (3) Chief of Psychiatry, (4) Chief of Mental Health Services, (5) Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Leader, (6) Back-up Duty Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Member c. Offenders in crisis watch shall not be transferred to another facility unless clinically indicated and approved by the Chief of Mental Health or in the absence of the Chief of Mental Health, the Chief of Psychiatry. d. Upon initiation of a crisis watch, an MHP shall determine: (1) The appropriate level of supervision necessary in accordance with Paragraph II.E.; and (2) Allowable property, including the type and amount of clothing. e. Unless medically contraindicated: (1) Water shall be available in the cell or offered at regular intervals. When water is not available in the cell, the offers shall
- 68 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 69 of 102
be documented on the DOC 0377. (2) Meals not requiring utensils shall be provided in the cell or crisis care area. If contraindicated, alternative nutrition sources shall be provided. f. The offender’s vital signs shall be taken by health care staff within 24 hours of placement on crisis watch, or sooner if the offender has been placed in restraints for mental health purposes. g. Prior to placement in a designated crisis care area, the offender shall be stripsearched and the cell inspected for safety. h. Offenders shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, dependent upon level of supervision. All observations shall be documented within the appropriate staggered intervals, on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378, and shall include staff’s observation of the offender’s behavior and speech, as appropriate. i. The offender shall be evaluated by an MHP, or in his or her absence, a Crisis Intervention Team member, in consultation with the Crisis Team Leader, at least once every 24 hours. The evaluation shall assess the offender’s current mental health status and response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented on the DOC 0377. j. An offender’s crisis watch shall only be terminated by an MHP following the completion of an evaluation assessing the offender’s current mental health status and the offender’s response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented in the offender’s medical record and the termination of the crisis watch shall be documented on the DOC 0377.
Findings: IDOC is meeting the requirements of this subsection.
5) Response to Self-Inflicted Injury and Suicides a. Responses to medical emergencies shall be in accordance with AD 04.03.108 and shall include immediate notification of an MHP. b. In the event of attempted suicide, the preservation of the offender’s life shall take precedence over preservation of the crime scene; however, any delay in response due to security factors shall be noted in the Incident Report, DOC 0434.
Findings: IDOC is meeting the requirements of this subsection
6) Quality Improvement Reviews a. Mortality Review: In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief of Mental Health shall designate an MHP to complete a psychological autopsy. The psychological autopsy shall be documented on the Psychological Autopsy, DOC 0375, and shall be submitted to the Chief of mental Health within seven working days of assignment.
b. Administrative Review (1) In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief Administrative Officer shall: (a) Establish a clinical review team who shall systemically analyze the event. The Review Team shall consist of: i. Mental health and medical staff,
- 69 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 70 of 102
including an MHP, a psychiatrist and a registered or licensed practical nurse. Medical staff chosen for the clinical review team shall have no direct involvement in the treatment of the offender for a minimum of 12 months prior to the event. ii. A security staff supervisor. NOTE: Facility administrators or staff, whose performance or responsibilities maybe directly involved in the circumstances of the suicide, shall not be chosen for the review team. (b) Designate a clinical review team Chairman who shall ensure all relevant documentation pertaining to the offender and his or her treatment including, but not limited to, the master file, medical record, Medical Director’s death summary and the DOC 0375, if applicable, is available to the clinical review team. (2) Within ten working days following the suicide, the clinical review team shall complete a review to: (a) Ensure appropriate precautions were implemented and Department and local procedures were followed; and (b) Determine if there were any personal, social or medical circumstances that may have contributed to the event, or if there were unrealized patterns of behavior or systems that may have indicated earlier risk. (3) Upon completion of the review, the Chairperson shall submit a written report to the Chief Administrative Officer, the facility’s Training Coordinator, the Chief of Mental Health and the respective Deputy Director summarizing the review team’s findings and providing any recommended changes or improvements.
Findings: An Administrative Review and a Psychological Autopsy was conducted for the four suicides that occurred during the current reporting period. These reports are generally done well and contain a variety of recommendations regarding how to prevent future suicides. The most recent Quarterly Report lists the various ways that these recommendations are disseminated throughout the Department. As Monitor, I do not dispute that these recommendations are distributed to those in leadership who have the authority to enact the appropriate changes proposed in the Administrative Review and the Psychological Autopsy. The problem remains that these suggested changes are not routinely acted upon. The following are recommended changes to clinical practice made in Administrative Reviews and Psychological Autopsies that have not been acted upon in the current reporting period:
• “It is recommended that all psychiatric vacancies be filled.” • “It is recommended that all psychologist, QMHP, and Recreational Therapist
positions be filled.” • “It is recommended that offenders who present with intellectual deficits receive
psychological testing to aid in clarifying the appropriate diagnoses.” • “Insufficient out-of-cell programming hours were offered to offenders in the
maximum-security (DPU) RTU setting.” • “It is encouraged that Correctional Counselors routinely attend the
Multidisciplinary Treatment Team Meetings when possible.” • “The offender may have benefitted from further ADA assistance in regards to his
hearing aid.”
- 70 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 71 of 102
IDOC will continue to receive a rating of less than substantial compliance until it can demonstrate that it has enacted the changes to practice recommended in these post-suicide reviews.
(XVI)(b): Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department continues to fall short of its responsibilities for XVI(b).
XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
Summary: Restraints practices were consistent with those in previous reviews and largely consistent with policy. Face-to-face assessment before an order only took place in a minority of reviewed cases, however, even during clinical working hours. A few records did not reflect an attempt at less intrusive means, and should have, but overall practice has improved. Initial and extension orders were usually written within expected time limits, though there were exceptions.
Orders appropriately detailed the rationale and the criteria for release, and it was common to release patients earlier than the maximum ordered time. Timing records were incomplete, but it appears likely that at least 80% of restraints were removed by the 24-hour point and only three men were subject to very long times in restraints. Nothing came to the Monitor’s attention that would suggest restraints being used as punishment.
(XVII)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC AD 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for the Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
IDOC AD 04.04.103 provides for:
II (G): Requirements
1. Restraints for mental health purposes shall be applied under medical supervision and shall only be used when other less restrictive measures have been found to be ineffective.
a. Under no circumstances shall restraints be used as a disciplinary measure.
b. Restraint implementation shall be applied by order of a psychiatrist, or if a psychiatrist is not available, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist. (1) If a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, a Registered Nurse (RN) may initiate implementation of restraints for mental health purposes. (2) The nurse shall then immediately make contact with the psychiatrist within one hour of the offender being placed
- 71 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 72 of 102
into restraints and obtain an order for the implementation. If the psychiatrist is not available, the nurse shall make contact with the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist.
2. Crisis treatment shall be initiated in accordance with AD 04.04.102.
a. The initial order for the use of restraints shall not exceed four hours.
b. Should subsequent orders become necessary, the time limit may be extended, but no subsequent order for restraint extension shall be valid for more than 16 hours beyond initial order. Documentation of the justification for extension of the restraint order shall be recorded in the offender’s medical chart.
c. If further restraint is required beyond the initial order and one extension, a new order must be issued pursuant to the requirements provide herein.
II (H): Orders for Restraints
1. Only a psychiatrist who has conducted a face to face assessment, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, who has conducted a face to face assessment, may order the use of restraints for offenders in a crisis treatment supervision level of continuous watch or suicide watch when the current crisis level does not provide adequate safeguards.
2. If a psychiatrist, physician or licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, and the Crisis Team Member, after consultation with the on-call Crisis Team Leader or Mental Health Professional, in accordance with AD 04.04.102, has recommended the use of restraints, a RN may obtain an order from a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist via telephone.
3. The offender must be assessed, face to face by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist within one hour of being placed in restraints. If a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site within the hour time limit, a RN shall conduct a face to face assessment, and present that assessment to the psychiatrist, the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist via a telephone consultation, and document accordingly in the medical chart. Verbal orders shall be confirmed, in writing, by the ordering individual within 72 hours.
4. Orders for restraints shall be documented on the Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes, DOC 0376, and shall include: a. The events leading up to the need for restraints, including efforts or less intrusive intervention; b. The type of restraints to be utilized; c. The length of time the restraints shall be applied; d. The criteria required for the offender to be taken out of restraints (e.g. the offender is no longer agitated or combative for a minimum of one hour, etc.; and e. The offender’s vital signs, checked by medical staff, at a minimum of every four hours. The frequency of vital signs checks for offenders with serious chronic health conditions may be required more frequently during the restraint period.
- 72 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 73 of 102
II (I) Implementation and Monitoring 1. Restraints shall be applied in a bed located in a crisis care area, or similar setting that
is in view of staff. Immediately following the placement of an offender in restraints for mental health purposes, medical staff shall conduct an examination of the offender to ensure that: a. No injuries exist; b. Restraint equipment is not applied in a manner likely to result in injury; and c. There is no medical contraindication to maintain the offender in restraints. 2. Monitoring and documentation of visual and verbal checks of offenders in restraints for mental health purposes shall be performed as a continuous watch status or a suicide watch status in accordance with AD 04.04.102. All checks shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378. 3. Two hours after application of restraints, and every two hours thereafter, an offender may be allowed to have movement of his or her limbs. Movement shall be accomplished by freeing one limb at a time from restraints and for a period of time of approximately two minutes. Movement shall only be allowed if the freeing of the limb will not pose a threat of harm to the offender being restrained, or others. Limb movement shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart and by the watch officer on the DOC 0378. Denial of free movement and explanation for the denial shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart by medical staff. 4. Release from restraints for short periods of time shall be permitted as soon as practical, as determined by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or clinical psychologist. 5. The amount of restraint used shall be reduced as soon as possible to the level of least restriction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the offender and staff. 6. Clothing shall be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with the application and monitoring of restraints. The genital area of both male and females, and the breast area of females shall be covered to the extent possible while still allowing for visual observation of the restraints. Females shall not be restrained in a position where the legs are separated. 7. Restraints shall be removed upon the expiration of the order, or upon the order of a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, or in the absence of one of the approved aforementioned professionals being physically on site, an RN who, based upon observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition, determines that there is no longer cause to utilize restraints. Observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition shall be documented in the medical chart. 8. Offenders shall remain in, at minimum, close supervision status for a minimum of 24 hours after removal of restraints. Should any other crisis level or care status be utilized, justification of the care shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart. 9. Documentation of the use of restraints for mental health purposes shall be submitted to the Agency Medical Director and shall include the DOC 0376 and subsequent nursing and mental health notes. 10. All events whereby the use of restraints has been issued shall be reviewed during quality improvement meetings in accordance with AD 04.03.125.
Findings: Restraints were used for mental health purposes 257 times, a monthly rate
- 73 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 74 of 102
similar to previous monitoring periods. Restraints were used in 14 IDOC institutions; unsurprisingly, this was predominantly at Dixon, Elgin, and Joliet. The use at Dixon showed a major increase, more than doubling from the numbers reported in the Monitor’s Second Annual Report. Logan, Pontiac, and Stateville also showed significant use during this monitoring period.
The monitoring team previously determined that IDOC has appropriate policies governing the criteria for orders, who can issue them, and the maximum times to review them. The practices shown in restraints records reviewed during this monitoring period44 were consistent those in previous reviews and largely consistent with policy. Face-to-face assessment was an exception. It is required unless there are no such professionals onsite; however, this only happened in a minority of reviewed cases. Professionals also are expected to attempt less intrusive means before ordering restraints; there were a few cases that did not seem to fulfill this requirement, but overall practice has improved since the last monitoring team analysis. Appropriately licensed staff wrote initial orders for four hours and always detailed the rationale. It was routine to write extension orders for no more than 16 hours. There were, however, rare exceptions to each of these timeline requirements.
There was indication of routine checks of the restraints and taking vital signs, but insufficient information in the material provided to make an assessment of this. Criteria for release were always specified and it was common, in the sampled records, to apply the criteria and release patients earlier than the maximum ordered time. During this monitoring period, times were logged less consistently, but it appears likely that at least 80% of restraints were removed by the 24-hour point, similar to the Second Annual Report finding. Only three men were subject to very long times in restraints. Two were restrained for five and six days, respectively, at Pontiac. Most disturbingly, one man was restrained for many months continuously at Stateville and now Joliet; he was discussed at length in the Second Annual Report.
Fourteen institutions were previously found in substantial compliance; no new information came to the attention of the monitoring team that would change that finding, so I consider them to remain in substantial compliance.
(XVII)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60, and Administrative Directive 05.01.126. The Administrative Code sections are titled Section 501.30: Resort to Force; Section 501.40: Justifiable Use of Force; and Section 501.60: General Use of Chemical Agents.
IDOC AD 05.01.126 provides for:
II (F): The Chief Administrative Officer shall ensure a written procedure for the use and control of security restraints is established. The written procedure shall provide for the following:
Use of Security Restraints
44 The team reviewed records for 12 uses of restraints provided by IDOC from Graham, Illinois River, Lawrence, Logan, Menard, and Shawnee.
- 74 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 75 of 102
(1) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints shall be used: (a) To prevent an offender from escaping. (b) To retake an offender who has escaped. (c) To prevent or suppress violence by an offender against another person or property. (d) When transporting an offender outside the facility for the purposes of transfers, writs, etc., except when transporting offenders to assigned work details outside the facility, pregnant offenders for the purposes of delivery, or offenders assigned to the Moms and Babies Program on approved day release while transporting a minor child. (e) When transporting a transitional security offender for other than job related or programmatic activities directly related to successful completion of the transition center program.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints may be used: (a) When moving an offender who is in disciplinary segregation or who is in segregation pending investigation within the facility; or (b) Whenever the Chief Administrative Officer deems it is necessary in order to ensure security within the facility or within the community.
(3) Offenders on funeral or critical illness furlough shall be restrained in accordance with AD 05.03.127.
Inventory and Control
(a) A written master inventory of all security restraints, dated and signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, shall be maintained.
(b) All security restraints that have not been issued to staff shall be stored and maintained in a secure area or areas that are not accessible to offenders.
(c) A log documenting issuance and return of security restraints shall be maintained in a secure area or areas. The log shall include: (1) Date and time issued; (2) Receiving employees name; (3) Issuing employees name; (4) Date and time returned; and (5) Name of employee receiving the returned restraints.
(d) A written report shall be filed on lost, broken, or malfunctioning security restraints. The report shall be reviewed by the Chief of Security and maintained on file with the security restraints inventory records for no less than one year.
Findings: IDOC is fulfilling the requirements of this subsection.
(XVII)(c): Specific requirement: Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.
Findings: Throughout its reviews, the monitoring team has not encountered any indications of restraints being used to punish patients. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
- 75 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 76 of 102
(XVII)(d): Specific requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Compliance was not met as of the specified date
XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS
Summary: IDOC is in substantial compliance with these provisions requiring the use of standardized forms and the transfer of records when a patient transfers. These provisions do not cover the quality of records.
(XVIII)(a): Specific requirement: In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
Findings: IDOC has implemented the use of standardized forms throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. Many of these forms have gone through modifications in an attempt to improve clinical care and decrease the paperwork burden of mental health staff. This requirement only speaks to the use of standardized forms and not the overall quality of the medical records. IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(XVIII)(b): Specific requirement: No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(7): The medical record shall be transferred to the receiving facility at the time of offender movement.
(7)(a): In the event that an offender is transferred from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice to an IDOC facility, the entire original medical record shall be transferred with the offender. The transferring youth center may keep a copy of the medical record. Such movement shall be treated as a departmental transfer with regard to documentation.
(7)(b): The medical record and, if applicable, medication shall be sealed in a clear plastic envelope through which the offender’s name and ID number can be easily identified.
- 76 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 77 of 102
(1) If the information on the DOC 0090 is not urgent in nature, the DOC 0090 shall be placed inside the front cover of the medical record.
(2) If the DOC 0090 contains urgently needed medical or medication disbursement information, the following steps shall be taken: (a) The DOC 0090 shall be folded in half to promote confidentiality and a notation of “URGENT MEDICAL INFORMATION” shall be made in bold print on the exposed (blank) side of the DOC 0090. (b) The folded DOC 0090 with the notation side up shall be enclosed on top of the medical record inside the clear plastic so that these individuals can be immediately identified and evaluated upon arrival at a new institution. (c) Prior to transferring an offender who has significant medical problems as determined by the transferring facility Medical Director, the transferring Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing shall telephone the receiving Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing to advise of the transfer.
(7)(c): A member of the receiving health care staff shall complete the Reception Screening section of the DOC 0090. The DOC 0090 shall be placed chronologically in the progress notes section of the medical record; no progress note shall be required.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
Summary: IDOC maintains the confidentiality of health care records.
Policies, procedures, and training are in place to support staff in keeping mental health contacts confidential as well; there have been substantial improvements over time and IDOC is largely successful in this, though there are a few troubling exceptions.
A form was implemented one year ago to improve informed consent. While useful, it is also inconsistently used in a way that can create confusion for treatment planning. The Monitor advises additional staff training to improve both informed consent and treatment planning practices.
XIX(a): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E) (10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E) (10) provides: Offender medical and mental health records are confidential. Access to medical and mental health records shall be limited to health care staff, other Department personnel and outside State and federal agencies on a need-to-know basis as determined appropriate by the Facility Privacy Officer or the Health Care Unit Administrator. All staff having access to medical records or medical information shall be required to sign a Medical Information Confidentiality Statement, DOC 0269, and a new DOC 0269 shall be signed during cycle training annually thereafter. The most recent DOC 0269 shall be retained in the staff member’s training file.
- 77 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 78 of 102
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
Specific requirement: Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services:
XIX(b): Specific requirement: Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
Findings: IDOC modified AD 04.04.100, effective ate 6/1/17. As previously reported, this modification did not occur until over six months past the deadline. Notwithstanding this lateness, IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
(XIX)(c): Specific requirement: Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)).
This section Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Confidentiality of the clinician-offender relationship is grounded in ethical and legal principles. It rests, in part, on the assumption that a patient will be deterred from seeking care and discussing the important matters relevant to therapy if there is not some guaranteed confidentiality in that relationship.  Clinicians should clearly specify any limits of confidentiality of the offender-clinician relationship. This disclosure should occur at the onset of treatment, except in emergencies. Notwithstanding these necessary limits on confidentiality, relevant guidelines should be adhered to, to the greatest degree possible.  36  
Requests from outside organizations for Mental Health-related information about offenders shall be referred to the Treating Mental Health Professional. The release of any Confidential Mental Health Records must be accompanied by a consent form or release of confidential information form signed by the offender on an Authorization for Release of Offender Mental Health or Substance Abuse Treatment Information, (DOC 0240). In addition, the CAO shall be notified of this request.
Offender disclosures made to a Mental Health Professional in the course of receiving Mental Health Services are considered to be confidential and privileged, with the following exceptions: Threats to physically harm self-and/or others; Threats to escape or otherwise disrupt or breach the security of the institution; Information about an identifiable minor
- 78 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 79 of 102
child or elderly/disabled person who has been the victim of physical or sexual abuse; All other information obtained by a Mental Health Professional retains its confidential status unless the offender specifically consents to its disclosure;
In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
Findings: IDOC has demonstrated improvement in providing mental health services in a confidential setting over the course of the settlement agreement. As previously reported, all of the R&C facilities conduct their mental health screenings in a confidential manner. Additionally, a review of 142 facilities45 determined that the overwhelming majority of daily crisis contacts were conducted in confidential settings. Over the course of the reporting period the monitoring team noted fewer cell side contacts, which previously were an accepted method for delivering mental health services. Menard has installed glass doors/windows in the interview rooms which greatly facilitates confidentiality between the mentally ill offenders and the mental health staff.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, in an email to Chief Lindsay on April 19, 2019, reported:
“a significant problem with non-confidential treatment persists at Menard through the presence of correctional officers in the mental health treatment groups. In the North 2, even though class members are in restraints and inside cages that separate them from staff, officers remain in the room during mental health sessions. Groups for East and West Houses are run out of the dining hall. Correctional officers are in the room with the group, as well as in the tower. It is also common for other officers and prisoners to pass through the space during the session.”
The monitoring team observed a similar issue with Pontiac crisis watch contacts occurring in cages in a hallway where officers and prisoners both pass through and stand in close proximity for extended periods. Given these serious violations of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance. Hopefully, this situation will be immediately corrected.
(XIX)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into the IDOC AD 04.04.101 section II (E)(2) within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
45 East Moline, Menard, Stateville-NRC, Dixon, Pontiac, Western, Vandalia, Robinson, Logan, Graham, Decatur, Vienna, Illinois River, and Danville.
- 79 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 80 of 102
Before initiating psychotropic medication, the psychiatric provider must complete at least a brief history and Mental Status Examination to determine that the offender (a) has a basic understanding that he or she has a Mental Health Problem, (b) understands that medication is being offered to produce relief from that problem, and (c) is able to give consent to treatment. The clinician must also inform the offender about alternative treatments, the appropriate length of care, and the fact that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without compromising access to other Health Care. With the exception of Mental Health emergencies, informed consent must be obtained from the offender each time the Psychiatric Provider prescribes a new class of Psychotropic Medication.46
Findings: The Quarterly Report of April 23, 2019 states at the top of page 29 “The informed consent procedures (Subsection (d)) are addressed in Form 284, the mental health treatment planning form. A stand-alone confidentiality and consent form, DOC0537, was implemented in May 2018.” Notwithstanding this statement, over the course of the reporting period, the monitoring team encountered numerous examples of both forms being used which contributed to two different treatment plans being created. I strongly recommend that more training be provided to all mental health staff regarding the proper use of these forms to help expedite the informed consent process. IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance for this requirement.
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
TShpiescmifeictrirceqhausirneemveernbt:eeTnhetradcekteerdmbiynaItDioOnCt.hOatnagnoionfgfernedveier,wwohfothoenocevemraeltl the criteria of seriousnlyummbeenrtaolflySiMll,Inooffleonndgeerrsmcoeueptslesducwhitchrittheerialamckuostfbceommpaldaeinbtys rthegeaorfdfienngdtehre’s mental health treatmeinntaptpearompraiantde rdeomcouvmaelnotfedSMinI dtheesigonffaetinodnesr’ssugmgeensttsalthhaetanltohrereacl odridffsi.cuUltnietisl mental health treatmeenxtistet acmonscaerreniensgtatbhliisshreedq,utihreismfeunntc. tAiosnMshoanliltobre, pIeqrufoersmtioend ibfyalal torfeathtiengmMenHtaPll.y ltiostreedvipeiIcrFwlrolbiic.taoneeBsfdrdefiaeiuanstnrhefgdeiodssewr:roosSaAnnsMwstcbhhIpleiiosrdnieneiqlvcgisumiaiofagloiulntiilesnfalldyottyeiwosfrroavneemridpebSopwiunMrltstetedIhoadidonfd, sedmInesDtioefhgOtneenwtrCaaeftalccildceoyaotinsveitelhesalsacnotttthhfoutifathasetletnoltryhdamffeceriokrecmsncitaioewhtlinoivhsdireotieponstcargihilrgniettnsieagcaarduwtlmeiyloasaimnrshg.amcnesotaeinttniroocitcnidr..eeTcnheteiavlaleybdoaavbnelyecomplaints about offenders inappropriately losing their SMI status, IDOC will receive a rating of substantial compliance.
My opinion, however, is that not all eligible mentally ill offenders are designated as SMI. Over the reporting period the average percentage of mentally ill offenders in IDOC is approximately 42%. For male, mentally ill offenders the average is approximately 39% and for female mentally ill offenders the average is approximately 60%. Given my three years of experience monitoring the mentally ill population within IDOC, it is my opinion that the male average should be in the 50% range and the female average should be in the 65-70% range. I am well aware that this data is not pertinent to this requirement, but it is an issue that the Chief of Mental Health should seriously review.
46 The Manual defines “Informed Consent”: “Informed Consent is defined as consent voluntarily given by an offender, in writing, after he or she has been provided with a conscientious and sufficient explanation of the nature, consequences, risks, and alternatives of the proposed treatment.” This section of the Manual also provides: “Offenders should be advised of the Limits of Confidentiality prior to their receiving any Mental Health Services.” This requirement is nearly identical to the requirement discussed above regarding confidentiality, so the team does not address it again here under Informed Consent.
- 80 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 81 of 102
XXI: STAFF TRAINING
Summary: IDOC is fulfilling all of the requirements of this section of the Settlement Agreement. The Monitoring Team will not be reporting on this section moving forward unless directed by parties and/or the Court.
XXI(a): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
Findings: IDOC has met this requirement and will receive a rating of substantial compliance.
XXI(b): Specific requirement: Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII (a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas: i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population; ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal; iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication; iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability; v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises; vi) Suicide prevention; vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
Findings: IDOC was found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement on the midyear report of November 30, 2018. The Quarterly Report of April 23, 2019 provides further data supporting a continued rating of substantial compliance. This data from the Quarterly Report is consistent with the findings of the Monitoring Team over the course of the current reporting period. IDOC will continue to receive a rating of substantial compliance for this requirement.
XXI(c): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
- 81 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 82 of 102
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has developed a written plan for the orientation, continuing education and training of all mental health services staff with the deadline of May 22, 2017.
XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
Summary: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement. Parties are encouraged to share with the monitoring team any additional data regarding the compliance status of this requirement.
(XXII)(a): Specific requirement: Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
Findings: IDOC was found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement in the midyear report of November 30, 2018. The monitoring team did not encounter any problems with this requirement during the remainder of the current reporting period. Plaintiffs’ counsel did receive one complaint from a mentally ill offender, however. This complaint involved a mentally ill offender who claimed to have been prevented from participating in a “life-skills reentry program” due to his being prescribed psychotropic medications. I am yet to receive any further documentation about the validity of this complaint. As such, IDOC will continue to be found in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
Summary: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XXIII(a): Specific requirement: To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement. I have personally observed mental health supervisors facilitating the transfer of mentally ill offenders and explaining at length to the treating MHP the reasons for transfer.
- 82 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 83 of 102
XXIII(b): Specific requirement: When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
Findings: IDOC had received a rating of non-compliance for this requirement on the Second Annual Report. This was due to the fact that “numerous examples where the receiving facility had not been made aware of an offenders’ particular mental health needs. This was also noted at Dixon in transfers between the STC and the segregation unit in the X-house. The Monitoring Team has not observed these same deficiencies during the second half of the current reporting period. IDOC will receive a rating of substantial compliance for this requirement.
XXIII(c): Specific requirement: The provisions of this section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
Summary: Use of Force continues to be a contentious issue between the parties. The Monitoring Team conducted an analysis of a series of use of force incidents and found that in 9 of the 18 incidents reviewed, mental health was not called prior to OC being deployed and/or ERT performed a cell extraction. IDOC policies clearly state that “Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate…” This issue will be closely monitored during the next reporting period.
Specific requirements: IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108(B)47 and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.30
Section 501.30 of the code, “Resort to Force,” provides: a) Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable
or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary to achieve a permitted purpose. b) Use of force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary. c) Medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force, which results in bodily injury. d) Corporal punishment is prohibited.
AD 05.01.173, “Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions” provides:
F. General Provisions
1. Use of force shall be terminated as soon as the need for force is no longer necessary.
47 AD 03.02.108(B) does not appear to be the correct citation. The monitoring team believes the Settlement contemplated AD 03.02.108(I)(B).
- 83 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 84 of 102
2. Nothing in this directive shall preclude staff from immediately using force or applying restraints when an offender’s behavior constitutes a threat to self, others, property, or the safety and security of the facility.
3. Restraints shall be applied in accordance with Administrative Directive 04.04.103 or 05.01.126 as appropriate.
4. Failure by the offender to comply with the orders to vacate is considered a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution and may result in the use of chemical agents in accordance with Department Rule 501.70
5. Unless it is not practical or safe, cell extractions shall be video recorded from the time circumstances warrant a cell extraction until the offender is placed in the designated cell.
NOTE: Any interruption in recording, including but not limited to changing a video tape or battery shall orally be documented on the video tape.
6. Use of force cell extractions shall be performed by certified Tactical Team members as designated by the Tactical Team Commander. The Tactical Team Commander shall designate one or more members who may function as the Tactical Team Leader.
G. Equipment
1. The following equipment items shall be available to and used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Orange jump suits; b. Protective helmets and full-face shields; c. Knife resistant vests; d. Protective gloves; e. Restraints minimally including hand cuffs and leg irons; f. Protective convex shields; g. Batons (36-inch length by 1.5 inches in diameter of oak or hickory); h. Gas masks; i. Leather boots, purchased by the employee, a minimum of 8 inches high for ankle protection; and j. Video camera with a minimum of two batteries and a video tape.
2. Chemical agents shall be available and may be used in accordance [with] Department Rule 501.70.
501.70: Use of Chemical Agents in Cells (Consent Decree) provides:
a) This Section applies only to the transfer of a committed person who has refused to leave his cell when so ordered. The transfer of a committed person shall be undertaken with a minimal amount of force. Only when the individual threatens bodily harm to himself, or other committed persons or correctional officers may tear gas or other chemical agents be employed to remove him.
b) Prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents, the committed person shall be informed that such tear gas or other chemical agents will be used unless he complies with the transfer order.
c) The use of tear gas or other chemical agents may be authorized only by an officer the rank of Captain or above. (For purposes of this rule, the shift supervisor or
- 84 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 85 of 102
higher authority in the Juvenile Division may authorize the use of tear gas or other chemical agents.)
d) Precautionary measures shall be taken to limit the noxious side effects of the chemical agents. In addition, the following procedures shall be followed whenever tear gas or other chemical agents are used to compel a committed person to leave his cell:
1) If circumstances allow, ventilation devices, such as windows and fans, shall be readied prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents. In any event, these devices shall be employed immediately after tear gas or other chemical agents are used. The purpose of this procedure is to minimize the effect of tear gas or other chemical agents upon other committed persons located in the cell house.
2) Gas masks shall be available for use by correctional officers at the time the tear gas or other chemical agent is used.
3) When a gas canister is placed inside a committed person’s cell, the gas will quickly take effect and correctional officers shall enter the cell as soon as possible to remove the individual.
4) The committed person shall be instructed by the correctional officer to flush his eyes and skin exposed to the chemical agent with water. If the individual appears incapable of doing so, a member of the medical staff present shall perform this task. If no member of the medical staff is present, the correctional officer shall undertake this procedure.
e) An incident report shall be prepared immediately after the use of the chemical agent. This report shall be signed by each correctional officer involved in the transfer, who may indicate disagreement with any fact stated in the report.
f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall examine these incident reports to ensure that proper procedures were employed. Failure to follow proper procedures will result in disciplinary action.
g) Before Section 501.70 is modified, legal staff must be consulted. This Section was promulgated pursuant to Settlement litigation by order of the court. It may not be modified without approval of the court.
3. The following equipment items may be used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Throat protectors (cut resistant); and b. Elbow, groin, knee, and shin protectors
H. Tactical Team Structure for Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions
The Tactical Team shall consist of six certified Tactical Team members for a single offender cell extraction and seven certified Tactical Team members for a multiple offender
- 85 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 86 of 102
cell extraction. One member of the team shall serve as the Tactical Team Leader; however, the team leader shall not be the person responsible for video recording the incident.
1. For a single offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the offender against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. Two members (also known as Number 2 and 3 persons) shall secure the offender’s arms and hands and place restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. c. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall secure the doorway with a baton to prevent the offender from escaping, and if necessary, to assist in the application of restraints. d. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; remain outside of the cell with a baton in the event the offender should attempt to escape from the cell; and deploy chemical agents if necessary. e. The video recording member (also known as Number 6 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
2. For a multiple offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the first offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. The assistant shield person (also known as Number 2 person) shall use a shield; secure the second offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. c. A member (also known as Number 3 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member in most need of assistance by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. d. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member with the other offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. e. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team members with the most combative offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands for placement of restraints. f. A member (also known as Number 6 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; secure the doorway with a baton to prevent an offender from escaping, and if necessary, deploy chemical agents and assist in the application of restraints. g. The video recording member (also known as Number 7 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct
- 86 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 87 of 102
orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
I. Calculated Use of Force Cell Extraction Procedures
1. Once an officer has ordered an offender to move from the cell and the offender refuses, the officer shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
2. The Lieutenant or above shall again order the offender to vacate the cell. If the offender refuses, the Lieutenant or above shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
3. On site personnel shall begin video recording the offender’s actions.
4. When time and circumstances permit, the Shift Commander shall obtain the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer for calculated use of force cell extractions. In all other situations, the Shift Commander or above shall approve the cell extraction.
5. If the decision is made to proceed with a cell extraction, the Shift Commander shall activate the Tactical Team.
6. The Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Secure the area by removing all non-involved staff and non-secured offenders; b. Ensure the video camera is present and recording the offender’s actions; and c. Notify medical staff of the pending cell extraction.
7. Upon notification of a pending cell extraction, Health Care staff shall check the offender’s medical file for pertinent medical information and be present in a secure area that is close to, but not in the immediate vicinity of the cell extraction.
8. Upon arrival of the Tactical Team, the Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Brief the Tactical Commander of pertinent information; b. Ensure the transfer of the video tape to a designated Tactical Team member to continue recording; c. Notify the Duty Administrative Officer of the incident, pending cell extraction, and other information as it becomes available; and d. Be available, if needed, but remain out of the immediate area of the cell extraction.
9. Prior to the use of force, the Tactical Team leader shall: a. Orally attempt to obtain the offender’s voluntary compliance to vacate the cell or area prior to the use of force. In cells or areas with two or more offenders, each offender shall be given the opportunity to comply and be voluntarily removed. Whenever possible, offenders who comply shall be placed in restraints and removed prior to action being taken. b. Issue three direct orders for the offender to comply. c. Advise the offender that failure to comply with the orders to vacate may result in the use of chemical agents.
10. If the offender does not vacate the cell voluntarily, the Tactical Team shall remove the offender from the cell.
- 87 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 88 of 102
11. Following removal from the cell, the Tactical Team shall escort the offender to a designated area to be examined by Health Care staff.
12. Following the completion of the cell extraction including medical care, the Tactical Team member who video recorded the incident shall: a. Label the video tape with the date and location of the incident, offender name(s) and number(s), and the name of the employee who recorded the incident; b. If available, activate any security measures such as breaking the security tab on the VHS (Video Home System) video tape to prevent the video tape from being erased or recorded over; c. Tag the video tape as evidence and process it in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.112.
13. Unless otherwise directed to maintain longer, the video tape shall be retained in a secure area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer for three years following the date of the extraction.
14. Each employee who participated in the cell extraction or who was otherwise involved shall complete an Incident Report and other appropriate reports documenting the incident in its entirety. When necessary, the incident shall be reported in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.105. (AD 01.12.105 provides general instructions on the reporting of “unusual incidents.”)
15. The Shift Commander shall ensure: a. A search of the involved area is completed after removal of the offender; b. The area is decontaminated if chemical agents were used; and c. Appropriate reports are completed and processed.
16. The Shift Commander or above shall debrief with the Tactical Team.
Findings: Use of force continues to be a serious issue with IDOC. As was correctly pointed out in the Quarterly report of April 23, 2019, in the midyear report of November 30, 2018, I made many serious allegations about the presence of an “informal” use of force system that exists in the Department, especially at Pontiac. The Quarterly Report then spends a great deal of energy criticizing the Monitor about the lack of evidence supporting these allegations and my lack of cooperation in following up on these allegations. In my opinion, these attacks on the monitoring process serve no helpful purpose in addressing the problems associated with the use of force within IDOC.
I met with the executive staff of IDOC on January 30, 2019 in part to clarify my position about what I saw as serious challenges regarding the use of force, especially at Pontiac. I attempted to make it clear that I wanted to point out the overall problems with use of force and was not looking for IDOC to necessarily follow up on all of my particular allegations of abuse. I left this January 30th meeting confident that IDOC and I agreed on how to proceed with this issue. So, it is disappointing that IDOC has returned to a more confrontational stance regarding this serious issue.
Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to the defendants’ counsel on March 26, 2019 outlining some of their concerns about use of force. In particular, plaintiffs’ counsel quoted several sections from 20 Ill. Admin. Code 501.30. This is one of the several controlling policies regarding the use of force in Section XXIV of the settlement agreement. In part, this policy states:
- 88 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 89 of 102
• Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary to achieve a permitted purpose.
• Use of Force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary. • Medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force which
results in bodily injury. • Corporal punishment is prohibited.
Defendants’ counsel responded to the plaintiffs’ concerns in a four-page letter dated April 25, 2019. I will refer to this letter later in this section. To address the concerns of the plaintiffs’ counsel and to evaluate IDOC’s response to the requirements of this subsection, the monitoring team conducted a data-driven analysis of a sample of the use of force incidents during the reporting period. In particular, the incident reports from Pontiac, Logan, Menard and Pinckneyville for the months of January & February 2019 were reviewed. This reviewed determined that 18 use of force incidents occurred in these four facilities in January & February 2019. The results follow:
• In nine incidents, mental health staff were not called to intervene prior to OC being deployed and/or the ERT performing a forced cell extraction.
• In all the incidents use of force was terminated as soon as force was no longer necessary.
• In all cases where OC was deployed and/or the offender was injured, medical screening and/or care was conducted.
• No evidence of corporal punishment was found in these 18 incidents.
The overall assessment is that IDOC is not meeting the first requirement of “force shall be employed only as a last resort.” The remainder of the requirements were met in this particular sample. This is consistent with the monitoring team’s Year 2 analysis. In it, the team found tactical teams rigorously follow required procedures with 55% of reviewed activations resulting in no force. Takedowns kept the level of force to a minimum and were clearly well-handled in at least 75% of reviewed cases. The monitoring team did have some concerns about whether force was always being employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable or inadequate (the idea of necessary force), and only to the degree reasonably necessary (the idea of force not being excessive). About 30% of reviewed incidents demonstrated these types of problems or, more often, raised questions. Health care did follow every incident in the videos reviewed, and there was no evidence of corporal punishment in that data set either.
As noted above, defendants’ counsel responded to plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter on April 25, 2019. This letter documented numerous efforts on the part of IDOC to address the challenges of use of force. Namely:
• Specific allegations of abuse have been forwarded to the appropriated investigative bodies
• All IDOC staff are trained in the appropriate use of force protocols. Correctional staff and mental health staff receive training specific to de-escalation.
• IDOC is in the process of implementing the use of De-escalation Response Teams (DRTs) comprised of specially trained staff who will attempt to de-escalate offenders and gain voluntary compliance.
- 89 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 90 of 102
• The Department is implementing a variety of additional changes relevant to excessive force claims such as body cameras and stationary surveillance cameras.
• At Pontiac in particular, a team consisting of internal affairs staff, medical staff, and a Shift Supervisor conduct daily wellness checks every shift to check on the wellness and physical appearance of offenders designated as SMI who have continually reported allegations of excessive force or abuse.
• When excessive force complaints are received, each complaint is investigated by IDOC staff.
• Staff are also provided training and programs for their own mental health and wellness.
• This letter ends with the statement “The Department takes any and all allegations of excessive force or staff abuse seriously and is committed to fully investigating all allegations.
Additionally, IDOC is working to prevent unnecessary force by preparing officers to deescalate situations. IDOC reports it has integrated a de-escalation course titled Verbal Judo into its pre-service security training for all incoming officers, and that all members of Crisis Intervention Teams, Hostage Negotiation Teams, and Tactical Teams have been trained, reportedly a total of more than 2,000 staff. This is part of a package of training being offered at Western, Hill, and Pontiac as well. The package also includes topics that increase understanding, such as Mental Health in Corrections and Implicit Bias, which could support decisions not to immediately use force.48 In previous reports, I have noted the possibility that the highly stressful conditions at Pontiac may be contributing to inappropriate uses of force and I called for attention to the needs of staff. IDOC reports that it began in February offering trainings in Trauma-Informed Correctional Care and Staff Wellness, with a plan for all Pontiac staff receive these.
Finally, in previous analyses, the monitoring team found 11 institutions to be in substantial compliance on Use of Force. No contrary information has come to the monitoring team’s attention, so I consider those institutions to continue to be in substantial compliance.
I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts of IDOC to address the challenges associated with use of force, especially at Pontiac, when dealing with seriously mentally ill offenders. IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance for this subsection.
Professional Conduct
AD 03.02.108(I)(B), “Standards of Conduct” provides: The Department shall require employees to conduct themselves in a professional manner and, whether on duty or off duty, not engage in conduct that is unbecoming of a State employee or that may reflect unfavorably on or impair operations of the Department.
48 Some courses reportedly were provided to all staff, while others were required for security and clinical staff. The monitoring team has received documents substantiating this for 68% to 100% of the reported total staff, depending on location and course.
- 90 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 91 of 102
Findings: Since the midyear report, the monitoring team has not received any reports of unprofessional conduct. However, since the reporting period covers May 23, 2018-May 22, 2019, IDOC will receive a rating of partial compliance due to the serious problems noted in the midyear report.
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
Summary: A data-driven analysis of the disciplinary system was conducted by Dr. Kapoor. She noted continued improvement since the midyear report of November 30, 2018. Areas for improvement included improving the quality of reporting on DOC 0443, MHPs are still not conducting face-to-face assessments of SMI offenders, different standards are being applied for similar offenses at various facilities and a large number of tickets were written for medication hoarding. This last issue calls into questions the effectiveness of the medication distribution system within IDOC. Although this issue has significantly decreased, mentally ill offenders are still being written up for self-injurious behaviors.
XXV(a): Specific requirement: IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code section 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in AD 05.12.103.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
G. Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
H. Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
- 91 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 92 of 102
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee
- 92 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 93 of 102

Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.

Findings: The Department continues to state that “This provision does not impose any obligations on IDOC.”49 As Monitor, I strongly disagree with their position. IDOC “has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceeds in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense…”50 IDOC, however, does have the obligation to appropriately implement the disciplinary policies and procedures.
To properly monitor IDOC’s obligations under XXV(a), I assigned Dr. Kapoor to conduct a review of the disciplinary process for SMI offenders, as she has throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. Her findings are as follows:
I performed an updated review of the disciplinary process for seriously mentally ill (SMI) offenders in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). In January and February of 2019, IDOC conducted its own audit of compliance with the SMI discipline and RHU provisions of the Rasho Settlement Agreement. This audit found between 0% compliance (Shawnee) and 98.2% (Joliet Treatment Center) compliance with the settlement agreement, with most facilities between

49 Quarterly Report of April 23, 2019, page 33. 50 Ibid

- 93 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 94 of 102
70% and 95% compliant. Overall, IDOC rated its own compliance with the “Discipline/RHU” section of the settlement agreement as 70% in Jan/Feb of 2019. A wide variety of reasons for noncompliance were found, including:
• Shift commander not notifying MHP of RHU placement • MHP not completing 0443 forms completely • MHP not submitting the forms to the hearing officer in a timely manner • MHP not evaluating the patient’s chart and treatment plan • MHP not completing a progress note (0282) at the time of review
Corrective action plans were developed at some IDOC facilities in order to address these deficiencies. Because I am unable to assess whether these problems have been remedied (e.g., I do not have access to the medical charts to check whether a progress note was completed, nor do I know the timeliness of submission of DOC 0443 forms), I base my conclusions in this report only on a review of the following documents:
1. IDOC Administrative Directive 05.12.103, “Administration of Discipline for Offenders Identified as Seriously Mentally Ill.”
2. IDOC April 2019 Quarterly Reports re: original Rasho settlement agreement and court order from December 20, 2018
3. Adjustment Committee reports, Mental Health Disciplinary Review (DOC 0443), and Offender Disciplinary reports (DOC 0317) for a total of 142 disciplinary infractions adjudicated during April 2019, representing approximately 20% of incidents involving SMI offenders at the following facilities:
1. Centralia – two incidents 2. Danville – one incident 3. Decatur – eight incidents 4. Dixon – 14 incidents 5. East Moline – two incidents 6. Elgin – one incident 7. Graham – one incident 8. Hill – two incidents 9. Illinois River – 11 incidents 10. Jacksonville – four incidents 11. Joliet Treatment Center – 10 incidents 12. Lawrence – 17 incidents 13. Logan – 13 incidents 14. Menard – eight incidents 15. Pinckneyville – eight incidents 16. Pontiac – 30 incidents 17. Shawnee – two incidents 18. Sheridan – three incidents 19. Stateville NRC – 12 incidents
- 94 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 95 of 102
20. Vandalia – one incident 21. Vienna – three incidents 22. Western Illinois – two incidents
Overall Findings
Overall, I see continued improvement since my last report in November 2018, particularly with regard to the individualized assessment of whether mental illness contributed to an inmate’s problematic behavior. In November 2018, MHPs found that mental illness was a significant factor in just 1 out of 125 disciplinary infractions (0.8%). In April of 2019, that number rose substantially, to 18 out of 142 infractions (12.7%).
In addition to this progress, IDOC has maintained its compliance in several other areas of the Settlement Agreement:
1. Segregation is not being used as a punishment (for SMI offenders) for 300- and 400-level infractions at any IDOC facility.
2. The Adjustment Committee consistently receives input from Mental Health regarding SMI inmates. In reviewing 142 infractions, I found just one instance at Pontiac in which it was not clear that the Adjustment Committee had considered mental health’s recommendations in reaching its conclusions. IDOC’s internal audit revealed similar results, with just two instances in which mental health input was not sent to the hearing officer in a timely manner.
3. As was the case in my November 2018 report, I did not see any cases in which inmates received disciplinary infractions for suicide attempts, self-injury, or suicide attempts.
4. Evaluations of offenders by MHPs (as documented in the DOC 0443 forms) appeared more individualized overall and contained less “boiler plate” language and pejorative descriptions of inmates. When problematic behavior was described by MHPs, appropriately clinical and non-judgmental language was used.
5. In the vast majority of cases, the Adjustment Committee is following IDOC’s policy 05.12.133, Section H.2, which states, in relevant part:
If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations (emphasis added).
If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).
- 95 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 96 of 102
In the 142 records I reviewed, the Adjustment Committee issued a sanction that was equal to or less than the Mental Health recommendation in all but four cases. All four of these cases involved staff assaults at Pontiac CC and are described in more detail below. At all other facilities, mental health’s recommendations were followed consistently by the Adjustment Committee.
Areas for improvement include:
1. The quality of mental health (MH) evaluations documented on the DOC 0443 form remains variable. In many cases, the reviewing MHP did not clearly state a rationale for his/her conclusions. In other cases, the documentation is incomplete or does not support the MHP’s recommendation. For example, one DOC 0443 form from Hill Correctional Center simply states:
This offender has an SMI designation. He works with his therapist and psychiatrist to monitor mental health symptoms but has displayed severe affective instability.
The MHP then recommends 0-6 months of segregation time for an assault on an officer, even though the accompanying incident report clearly shows that the inmate exhibited affective instability at the time of the offense.
In another example at Menard, two inmates were charged with the same offense after officers found five cans of chewing tobacco in their possession. For one inmate, the MHP recommended 0-9 months of segregation time, and a different MHP recommended 4 months of segregation time for the other inmate. No explanation for the varied recommendations was given. Additional incidents also occurred at Menard in which MHPs noted that an inmate was off his medications or on crisis watch when a ticket was issued, but they nonetheless found that the inmate “could be held accountable for his actions” without much of an explanation.
2. MHPs are still not performing face-to-face assessments of SMI offenders after they are charged with disciplinary infractions in most cases; the 0443 forms are completed based on a chart review and/or discussion amongst the mental health staff. As far as I can tell from the documentation, MHPs only at Pinckneyville (sometimes, not consistently), Shawnee, and Vienna appear to be interviewing the inmates about the circumstances of disciplinary infractions.
3. When making specific recommendations regarding segregation time, MHPs at different facilities appear to be using different standards/guidelines, if they are using any at all. For example, at some facilities the MHP’s segregation recommendation was uniformly one half of the typical sanction for the offense, while at other facilities the recommendation was seemingly chosen at random. For example, in one case at Dixon, an MHP recommended segregation time of “0 to 190 days” for the offense of having contraband pills in the cell, which struck me as both random and oddly specific (why a maximum of 190 days and not 180 or 200?). In another case at Dixon, two inmates
- 96 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 97 of 102
received tickets for fighting with each other. For one inmate, the MHP recommended 045 days segregation, and for the other inmate, a different MHP recommended 0-3 months segregation. Nothing in the documentation explained the reason for the different recommendations (e.g., was one inmate the aggressor, did one display more symptoms, was one easily victimized?). At Joliet Treatment Center, an assault on an officer led mental health to recommend “one year and 10 days of transformation time,” which is another oddly specific recommendation that was made without explanation.
As noted in my previous reports, additional training for the mental health staff across IDOC regarding how/why to recommend particular disciplinary sanctions to the Adjustment Committee may be helpful. Currently, the range of recommended sanctions is very wide, and many of the recommendations seem arbitrary.
4. There seem to be more tickets written for contraband in cells during this review period, especially for psychiatric medications or unidentified crushed pills at Dixon, Lawrence, and Illinois River. This raises some concerns about the thoroughness of nursing checks during direct-observation medication administration. During my January 2019 visit to Dixon, we discussed this concern, as a recent completed suicide had indirectly involved contraband medication, and the facility acknowledged that nursing shortages and high turnover did sometimes lead to less than thorough mouth checks.
5. MHPs at Lawrence CC seem to recommend particularly wide ranges and harsh sanctions for offenses. For example, an MHP recommended 6 months of segregation for trying to trade one pill (Effexor 75 mg), 3 months for a transgender inmate refusing housing, and “full 6 months” for having an erect penis in hand while talking to an officer. These harsh recommendations were often not followed by the Adjustment Committee, which generally reduced the sanctions into a more normal range. In addition, I noted that one inmate at Lawrence received 16 disciplinary infractions in one month, and no mention was made in the documentation of considering him for a higher level of care; he was simply given longer time in segregation. Perhaps this documentation exists elsewhere, and the inmate has been referred to JTC or another appropriate treatment facility, but I did not review it.
6. Pontiac is in a category by itself, with a much higher total number of disciplinary infractions and a disproportionately high number of them issued for public masturbation. I have never visited Pontiac, but the pattern of disciplinary infractions seems to indicate a patient population that his highly regressed, as well as an institutional culture in which mental health’s input is not valued.
For example, in 4 out of the 30 disciplinary infractions I reviewed at Pontiac, MHPs concluded that an inmate’s problematic behavior was caused by a clinical decompensation and recommended no segregation time. In all four cases, the Adjustment Committee gave the inmate segregation time anyway:
1. MH recommends no seg time  inmate given 6 months 2. MH recommends no seg time  inmate given 1 month
- 97 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 98 of 102
3. MH recommends no seg time (inmate was on crisis watch)  given 1 month 4. MH recommends no seg time  inmate given 1 month
Notably, all four cases involved assaults on corrections officers. The Adjustment Committee did follow IDOC policy regarding appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer, and the rationale for their decision was documented in three of the four cases. Therefore, I do not think that IDOC is out of compliance with its policies or the Settlement Agreement; I flag the issue mainly as a marker of institutional culture in which mental health recommendations are being consistently overruled in cases where custody officers are injured by inmates.
Additional Requirements:
I. Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
Findings: Weekly cell front rounds are generally being performed in segregation by BHTs.
In a letter to Chief Lindsay dated April 19, 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel made a comment about the quality of the segregation rounds being conducted at Menard. They stated “BHTs are making weekly rounds in the segregation units by walking through the galleries and pausing only briefly at cell-front to ask Class Members how they are doing. When Class Members ask for help or state a need to see mental health, the BHTs simply tell them to put in a request slip and walk on. The BHTs do not engage in any real conversation, nor do they regularly take the time to look into their cells to assess their living conditions (which can be a sign of deterioration.” As Monitor, I have not received any follow up from either party regarding this issue. I request that parties provide me with any additional information that would help to determine if the BHTs are truly qualified to perform this essential duty.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
Findings: The Department continues to struggle to meet this requirement as reflected in the number of backlogged mental health referrals. As of 5/24/19, there were 297 mental health evaluations, 185 (62%) of which were greater than 14 days late.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
Findings: This is not occurring. IDOC continues to tolerate the presence of severely
- 98 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 99 of 102
mentally ill offenders in its segregation units.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement.
(XXV)(b): Specific requirement: No later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
Findings: In her report, Dr. Kapoor noted “As was the case in my November 2018 report, I did not see any cases in which inmates received disciplinary infractions for suicide attempts or self-injury. As Monitor, however, I have received reports from plaintiffs’ counsel regarding discipline of class members who participate in self-injurious behaviors. One case in particular is of a mentally ill offender who received 45 days of segregation, 3 months of C grade and 6 months restriction on contact visits. Evidently, he was in a crisis cell and overdosed on medications. I request follow up from parties regarding this alleged incident.
(XXV)(c): Specific requirement: For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
Findings: IDOC is meeting this requirement.
(XXV)(d): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
Findings: Pontiac staff and IDOC administration report they have held weekly planning meetings for such a unit since early December 2018. In the meantime, a small Behavior Treatment Program began at Joliet in November 2018 and is treating 28 patients as of this writing.
- 99 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 100 of 102
Appropriate patients display behavioral issues and poor affect regulation; patients have transferred from Pontiac and Dixon and reportedly there is a transfer plan in place for other potential residents who have been identified.
Treatment reportedly is based on Dialectical Behavior Therapy and focuses on teaching skills and giving opportunities to practice these skills to improve behaviors and to engage in more socially appropriate behaviors. The program is set up to encourage residents to make appropriate decisions and be responsible for their choices. The four main skills of focus are mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness, emotion regulation, and distress tolerance. There reportedly are reentry services and release planning for patients who will discharge or be paroled from this unit.
The monitoring team is told that the unit operates with the following staffing, all of which is filled except for one MHP out on family leave: 1 Educator, 2 Unit Directors, 3 MHPs, 4 BHTs, 1 Recreation Therapist, 1 RN, 8 Correctional Treatment Officers and 1 supervisor, and 1 Clinical Counselor.
This BTP is designed ultimately to serve 98 patients in two dorms. As mentioned, 28 beds are currently filled in one dorm. IDOC intends to open a second dorm in August 2019.
These steps are far short of treating the number of people needing behavior management treatment, and were taken significantly later than the Settlement Agreement deadline. However, this a critical treatment resource for IDOC, and all steps represent improvement. The Monitor urges IDOC to prioritize the scaling up of this initial effort. This would both meet essential treatment needs and help ameliorate staffing issues, as highly disproportionate staff time is spent on these patients in outpatient settings not equipped for them; properly placing these patients in a BTP would preserve precious staff time for other treatment and compliance responsibilities and could improve staff retention.
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
Summary: IDOC is found in substantial compliance with both provisions of this section.
(XXVI)(a): Specific requirement: IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), section II (E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility throughout IDOC.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section.
- 100 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 101 of 102
XXVI(b): Specific requirement: The statewide CQI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with the requirements of this section.
XXVII: MONITORING Only three specific requirements of this section will be discussed in detail.
XXVII(d): Specific requirement: Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
Findings: I remain on the record requesting an increase in the hourly rate allocated to members of the monitoring team. I request, at a minimum, a letter from IDOC leadership explaining why the monitoring team’s hourly rate has not been increased in three years.
XXVII(f)(iv): Specific requirement: The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation.
Findings: This has been occurring throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. XXVII(f)(v): Specific requirement: The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced onsite tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel. Findings: IDOC is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING Summary: IDOC has consistently met this requirement.
- 101 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2661 Page 102 of 102

Specific requirement: Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement.

CONCLUSION

Staffing remains a major impediment for the Department to achieve full compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the Department has continued challenges in meeting the requirements involving Mental Health Evaluations and Referrals, Treatment Planning, Medication, Segregation, Confidentiality, Use of Force and Discipline. I look forward to continued cooperation from both parties as we move into year four.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Pablo Stewart, M.D.

Dated: 5/24/19

Pablo Stewart, MD

- 102 -

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 1 of 63

E-FILED
Tuesday, 23 April, 2019 10:09:31 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

3

PEORIA DIVISION

4

5 ASHOOR RASHO, et al.,

)

6

)

7

Plaintiff,

)

8

)

9

v.

)

No. 07-1298

10

)

11 ROGER E. WALKER, et al.,

)

12

)

13

Defendants.

)

14

15

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER

16

17

This Permanent Injunction Order is intended to memorialize this Court’s Orders dated

18 October 30, 2018, December 20, 2018, and February 26, 2019, into a single document stating the

19 reasons for the injunction, the terms of the injunction, and the acts the Defendants must perform

20 as required under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

OVERVIEW OF THE ACTION

22

This case is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth

23 Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

24 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (ECF No. 711-1 at 1). Plaintiffs

25 challenge the adequacy of the delivery of mental health services to mentally ill prisoners in the

26 physical custody and control of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC” or “Department”).

27 Id.

28

On August 14, 2015, this Court certified a class in this case for purposes of litigation, and

29 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:

30

Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections

31

(“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental

32

health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current

33

edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 2 of 63

34

American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction,

35

developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render

36

an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition.

37

38 (ECF No. 252 at 7). As of June 21, 2018, there were approximately 40,237 inmates in the custody

39 of the IDOC, of whom more than 12,228 are believed to be mentally ill. (ECF No. 2286 at 2; see

40 also ECF No. 1758 at 50, testimony of Defendant Dr. Melvin Hinton (“Dr. Hinton”)).

41 Approximately 5,112 of these inmates are considered “seriously mentally ill (“SMI”).” (Id.; ECF

42 No. 1758 at 51, testimony of Dr. Hinton; see also ECF No. 1966-1 at 2, Plaintiffs place the number

43 at 4,843). As of June 30, 2018, 9,576 of the inmates were on the IDOC psychiatric caseload. (ECF

44 No. 2286 at 2). As of July 2018, 913 inmates on the IDOC mental health caseload were housed in

45 segregation. Id. Ashoor Rasho, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Keith Walker, Otis Arrington,

46 Donald Collins, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Fredricka Lyles, Clara Plair,

47 Desiree Hollis, and Crystal Stoneburner serve as the class representatives.

48

The Defendants are John Baldwin, the Acting Director of the IDOC, and Dr. Hinton, the

49 Department’s Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction Recovery Services.

50

On December 17, 2015, the Parties announced they had entered into a comprehensive

51 settlement agreement resolving the action set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint,

52 the operative complaint in this matter. (See Minute Entry dated 12/17/2015; ECF No. 711-1; and

53 ECF No. 260). Notice of the Settlement was given to the class members and a fairness hearing

54 was held on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 289; Minute Entry dated 5/13/2016). During the hearing,

55 the Court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, over the voluminous objections that were

56 filed by various inmates1. Id. The executed Settlement Agreement can be found in this docket,

57 and is referred to herein as the “Settlement Agreement.” (ECF No. 711-1). The instant Motion is

1 All objections have been filed in this docket.
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 3 of 63

58 brought alleging violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Constitution. The procedural

59 history is sufficiently captured in this Court’s Order dated May 25, 2018, and will not be recited,

60 provided however, the Court will detail the additional history occurring after the entry of its

61 Preliminary Injunction Order. (ECF No. 2070 at 2-11).

62

On June 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Permanent Injunction requesting that the

63 Court hold a hearing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and upon making the necessary merits

64 determination, enter an order converting the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order to a permanent

65 injunction. (ECF No. 2112).

66

On June 8, 2018, Dr. Pablo Stewart’s Second Annual Report was docketed. (ECF No.

67 2122). In his Report, Dr. Stewart provides that “the Department is noncompliant with 18 of 25

68 [Settlement Agreement terms] and substantially compliant in only 3 [terms] (orientations, housing

69 assignments and training) [and] [a]s is explained more fully in the body of the report, these

70 noncompliance ratings are primarily due to inadequate staffing.” (ECF No. 2122 at 9). It should

71 also be noted that Dr. Stewart presented the Court with a Monitor Chart Review Report during the

72 permanent injunction hearing. (Pl. Ex. 53). In the report, Dr. Stewart provided his assessment of

73 the IDOC’s compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order. His assessment included

74 a review of mental health charts at several institutions. The general methodology used was to

75 assign a rating of “1, 2, or 3,” with 1 being non-compliance, 2 being partial compliance, and 3

76 indicating compliance. During his testimony, however, certain information regarding the

77 methodology was revealed that gave this Court pause in considering the data. Most notably, it

78 was revealed that one of the assistant monitors collecting the data used a different methodology in

79 her rating. Given that, the Court cannot give significant weight to the Monitor’s findings in that

80 regard.

3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 4 of 63

81

On July 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Order requesting that the Court enter an

82 order enforcing their right to the fees previously awarded, but deferred, pursuant to the Settlement

83 Agreement. (ECF No. 2233). On August 3, 2018, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion

84 for Order. (ECF No. 2276). The Defendants argued, among other things, the Court had not made,

85 by entry of the Preliminary Injunction Order, a finding of an actual violation of the Plaintiffs’

86 federal rights. (ECF No. 2276 at 2).

87

Between August 27, 2018, and September 7, 2018, testimony and evidence were taken and

88 arguments were made in support of the Parties’ respective positions on the Motion for Permanent

89 Injunction. The Parties were given the opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs in support of their

90 positions. (ECF Nos. 2405, 2406, and 2407).

91

On October 30, 2018, this Court entered its first Order addressing the Plaintiffs’ request

92 for permanent injunction. (ECF No. 2460). In the Order, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion

93 finding that permanent injunctive relief was necessary to address the constitutional deficiencies in

94 the Defendants’ care and treatment of mentally ill inmates. (ECF No. 2460 at 1). The Court

95 provide the Parties with an opportunity to brief the proposed remedy.

96

On December 20, 2018, after presented with briefs and argument, the Court entered an

97 Order providing for specific injunctive relief that was narrowly drawn, extends no further than

98 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

99 correct the violation of the Federal right. (ECF No. 2516).

100

On February 26, 2019, the Court, among other things, modified its Order dated December

101 20, 2018, after considering the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of

102 Injunction Orders. (ECF No. 2579). The Defendants appealed the Court’s Orders. (ECF No.

103 2583).

4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 5 of 63

104

On March 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Relief from Court Orders to Conform

105 Injunctive Relief Order to Rule 65. (ECF No. 2592). In their Motion, Plaintiffs informed the Court

106 that it made two inadvertent omissions or mistakes in its injunctive relief Orders. The Plaintiffs

107 specifically noted that the Court failed to revise the permanent injunction Order to incorporate the

108 modifications it made to the Order during the February 19, 2019, hearing and memorialized in the

109 Order dated February 26, 2019. (ECF No. 2579; see also Minute Entry dated 2/19/2019). The

110 Plaintiffs also state that the Court’s Order should have included the specific staffing requirements

111 of the Defendants’ 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan instead of referencing the document in its Order.

112 This Court agreed and entered an indicative ruling requesting that the Seventh Circuit Court of

113 Appeals remand the case for purposes of modifying the preliminary injunction Order(s) to conform

114 to the requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

115

On April 15, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded

116 the matter back to this Court for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to modify the

117 preliminary injunction Order to conform to the requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rule of

118 Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 2628).

119

This Order follows.

120

SUMMARY OF DECISION

121

Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates suffering from serious mental illnesses are entitled

122 to adequate medical care. To establish a constitutional violation, Plaintiffs must prove that

123 Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, specifically in this

124 case their mental health needs. “[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners

125 constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.”

126 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citations omitted). Having fully considered the

5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 6 of 63

127 evidence and testimony presented during the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings, the

128 Court finds that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs in

129 medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis

130 watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans within the meaning of the

131 Eighth Amendment. In this case, the overwhelming evidence establishes that at the time of the

132 preliminary injunction hearing, the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiffs’

133 medical needs. Most notably, the evidence showed that there were systemic and gross deficiencies

134 in staffing that effectively denied the Plaintiffs access to adequate medical care.

135

At the permanent injunction hearing, Defendants’ evidence emphasized the changes to the

136 delivery of mental health services that had been implemented by the IDOC after this Court’s Order

137 dated May 25, 2018. The Defendants have implemented policies and procedures that have created

138 improvements in the overall delivery of mental health services. However, the record still shows

139 there are systemic and gross deficiencies in the staffing of mental health providers that have a

140 serious detrimental effect on the overall delivery of medical services to the Plaintiffs. Moreover,

141 while there has been a decrease in the overall backlog of mental health contacts, the Defendants

142 have relied heavily on the use of overtime to achieve these results. The testimony of the

143 Defendants’ own witnesses reveals this practice is unsustainable and there is no Plan B.

144

This litigation has unfolded for over a decade. In that time, some changes have been made

145 to increase the quality of care for mentally ill inmates, but it is not enough. Despite the recent

146 serious efforts by the Defendants, the Court finds that a permanent injunction is necessary to force

147 the Defendants to adequately staff their institutions with the necessary mental health providers and

148 other personnel to provide the constitutionally required care.

149

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 7 of 63

150

On May 23, 2016, the last signature was acquired on the Settlement Agreement purportedly

151 resolving the decade long dispute between the Parties. (ECF No. 711-1 at 33). The Settlement

152 Agreement is a comprehensive document with the purpose of reaching an agreement that settled

153 the litigation in a manner that is “fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the interests of all

154 parties.” (ECF No. 711-1 at 2).

155

The Settlement Agreement allows for the Plaintiffs to seek relief from this Court if there is

156 a dispute as to whether or not the Defendants are in substantial compliance with the terms

157 contained therein. (ECF No. 711-1 at 29). The Settlement Agreement specifically provides:

158

f) If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a

159

provision or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order

160

consistent with equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is

161

designed to achieve compliance.

162

163

g) to permit enforcement of the terms of this Settlement Agreement in federal court,

164

the parties agree that, should it become necessary to seek the Court’s assistance as

165

to violations of this agreement, any order granting such relief must include a finding

166

that the relief sought is narrowly drawn, extends no further than is necessary to

167

correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing

168

so.

169

170 (ECF No. 711-1 at 30) (emphasis added).

171

The Court has previously found that a preliminary injunctive hearing was an appropriate

172 mechanism under the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and the Prison Litigation Reform

173 Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (“PLRA”). Defendants objected to that procedure arguing Plaintiffs would

174 never have the obligation of actually proving there had been a violation of federal law. (ECF No.

175 1709 at 2). The Court disagreed and noted that the Plaintiffs would ultimately need to seek

176 permanent relief at some point. That, of course, is what the Plaintiffs have done with the filing of

177 their Motion for Permanent Injunction.

7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 8 of 63

178

Moreover, the Plaintiffs specifically note they have not moved for enforcement of the

179 Preliminary Injunction Order under Section XXIX(i) of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No.

180 2424 at 2). Plaintiffs instead argue they are seeking relief under Section XXIX(d), (f), and (g).

181 The Parties appear to generally agree an action under Section XXIX(d), (f), and (g) would not

182 abrogate the Settlement Agreement. As for an action pursuant to Section XXIX(i), the answer

183 appears more questionable. Section XXIX(i) provides:

184

If Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with an order entered under

185

the preceding paragraphs, they may, after reasonable notice and meeting with

186

Defendants, move for further relief from the Court to obtain compliance with the

187

Court’s prior order. The Court may apply equitable principles and may use any

188

appropriate equitable or remedial power available to it. This may include returning

189

the case to the active docket and setting a trial date. The information gathered by

190

the Monitor during the life of this Settlement Agreement, the Monitor’s reports,

191

including all reports and material supplied by Defendants, may be used in Plaintiffs’

192

case at such a trial, along with the testimony of the Monitor, which may address

193

ultimate issues in this case.

194

195 (ECF No. 711-1 at 30). Plaintiffs’ current position is inconsistent with their previous position

196 wherein they specifically relied on Section XXIX(i) to support their position that the Monitor’s

197 Second Annual Report was admissible. (ECF No. 2264 at 2, “Section XXIX(i) of the Settlement

198 Agreement explicitly provides for the consideration of the Monitor’s report and testimony as

199 evidence during a trial in which Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with a court

200 order enforcing the Settlement Agreement.”) (Emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiffs have

201 asserted the position in their post-hearing brief that Defendants failed to adhere to the terms of this

202 Court’s May 25, 2018, Order, arguably invoking Section XXIX(i). (See e.g. ECF No. 2406 at 24).

203

Defendants, for their part, argue that “[o]nce the final judgment order is entered, that order

204 will supersede the Settlement Agreement and will provide [P]laintiffs the relief necessary to

205 protect their rights under federal law.” (ECF No. 2427 at 7). Defendants argue Plaintiffs have

8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 9 of 63

206 chosen to “reactivate” this case. Of course, the reality is, this case was limited to examining a

207 limited area of the Settlement Agreement.

208

First and foremost, the Court finds that this Order is entered pursuant to Section XXIX(g)

209 of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. This is the Order contemplated by the Parties under that

210 provision. Nonetheless, whether the Plaintiffs’ permanent injunction request is brought under

211 XXIX(g) or XXIX(i), the Court finds the Settlement Agreement remains intact. The language of

212 the Settlement Agreement does not address the status after either such hearing. Moreover, it has

213 been clear to both Parties that this hearing was limited to addressing five areas. This was not a

214 “full” trial on the merits on all of the claims; nor was it a situation where the Parties tore up the

215 Settlement Agreement to have this Court decide the outcome on all matters.

216

Additionally, to be clear, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant

217 to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is no dispute as to the Court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Parties

218 have specifically provided for a dispute resolution process under the terms of the Settlement

219 Agreement. In order to find liability, the Court must find both a violation of the terms of the

220 Settlement Agreement AND a violation of federal law. (ECF No. 711-1 at 29-30).

221

In that regard, as part of their preliminary injunction request, the Plaintiffs identified five

222 areas where they challenged the adequacy of the mental health treatment and conditions for

223 prisoners required under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the U.S. Constitution. The

224 five areas included: Mental Health Evaluations (ECF No. 711-1 at 8-9, Section V), Treatment

225 Planning (ECF No. 711-1 at 9-10, Section VII), Medication Management (ECF No. 711-1 at 15-

226 16, Section XII), Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation (ECF No. 711-1 at

227 16-21, XV), and Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch (see e.g. ECF No. 711-1 at 3). Plaintiffs

228 seek their permanent injunction based on violations of these same areas. (ECF No. 2286 at 2).

9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 10 of 63

229

In this Court’s previous Order, it found that the Plaintiffs had established all of the

230 necessary requirements for a preliminary injunction to be issued. (ECF No. 2070). The record at

231 that time contained ample evidence to meet the preliminary injunction standard that inmates with

232 mental illness were receiving constitutionally inadequate treatment in the areas of Mental Health

233 Evaluations, Treatment Planning, Medication Management, Mental Health Treatment in

234 Restricted Housing/Segregation, and Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch. The Court

235 specifically concluded that the testimony of almost all of the medical doctors at the preliminary

236 injunction hearing established that, in one form or another, the system in place to treat mentally ill

237 inmates at the IDOC was in a state of emergency. (ECF No. 2070 at 6). The Parties have agreed

238 that all of the evidence presented in the preliminary injunction hearing is incorporated into the trial

239 record for determination in this matter. (ECF No. 2286 at 2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2).

240

Now Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order converting the Court’s Preliminary

241 Injunction Order to a permanent injunction. (ECF No. 2112). In determining whether a permanent

242 injunction should issue, the analysis generally requires a court to consider: (1) whether the plaintiff

243 has suffered or will suffer irreparable injury, (2) whether there are inadequate remedies available

244 at law to compensate for the injury, (3) the balance of hardships, and (4) the public interest. Sierra

245 Club v. Franklin Cty. Power of Illinois, LLC, 546 F.3d 918, 935 (7th Cir. 2008) citing eBay Inc. v.

246 MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006); e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594,

247 604 (7th Cir. 2007). This Court must also consider the parameters of the Parties’ Settlement

248 Agreement as noted above. In sum, in order for the Plaintiffs to establish that they suffered (or

249 will suffer) irreparable injury, the Court finds that it must determine whether, by a preponderance

250 of the evidence, the Plaintiffs have proven that the violations of the Settlement Agreement have

10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 11 of 63

251 occurred, and that these violations of the Settlement Agreement establish a constitutional (or other

252 federal right) violation.

253

On October 30, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’2 Motion for Permanent injunction and

254 entered an Order finding Defendants John Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of

255 Corrections (“IDOC”), and Dr. Melvin Hinton, Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction

256 Recovery Services of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Baldwin and Dr. Hinton are referred

257 to herein as “Defendants”), have been deliberately indifferent to the mental health needs of

258 mentally ill inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections in violation of the

259 Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 2460). The Court deferred

260 entering specific injunctive relief, instead allowing Defendants an opportunity to submit a proposal

261 to address their constitutional deficiencies. Id. On November 13, 2018, Defendants submitted

262 their proposed remedy order. (ECF No. 2473). On November 20, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted their

263 memorandum in support of their proposed remedy order. (ECF No. 2481). On December 4, 2018,

264 Defendants submitted their Reply. (ECF No. 2496, Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Proposed

265 Injunctive Relief).

266

DISCUSSION

267

All parties and the Monitor recognize the immensity of the challenges facing the

268

IDOC in providing constitutionally adequate mental health care.

269

270 (Pl. Ex. 9, IDOC’s Proposed Remedial Plan dated April 17, 2014).

271

272 Reasons for the Injunction

273

2 Plaintiffs have been defined as “[p]ersons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) [who] are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC’s mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorder, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition.” (ECF No. 252 at 7).
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 12 of 63

274

As noted above, the Plaintiffs argue the Defendants are not in compliance with the

275 Settlement Agreement in the areas of Mental Health Evaluations, Treatment Planning, Medication

276 Management, Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation, and Mental Health

277 Treatment on Crisis Watch. After the preliminary injunction hearing, the Defendants generally

278 acknowledged they had not fully complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No.

279 1965 at 5). At that point, the Defendants instead argued the evidence at the hearing was insufficient

280 for this Court to make a finding that there has been a systemic lack of substantial compliance.

281 (ECF No. 1965 at 5, Defendants argued “although the Court finds the Department has not fully

282 complied with all aspects of the Settlement Agreement, a finding of a systemic lack of substantial

283 compliance is not supported by the record.”).

284

During the permanent injunction hearing, the Defendants primarily focused on what had

285 changed between the preliminary injunction hearing and the permanent injunction hearing. It

286 should be noted that after the permanent injunction hearing, Defendants again acknowledge they

287 are not in full compliance with all of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. However, they argued

288 that “the IDOC now has the leadership, staffing, facilities, and procedures and policies in place to

289 ensure that mentally ill prisoners are reasonably protected against significant harm of

290 decompensation, and are receiving the ‘minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities’ that are

291 required to meet ‘contemporary standards of decency’ required to provide constitutionally

292 adequate care. (ECF No. 2405 at 3).

293

In support of their case, Defendants offered the testimony of: (1) Baldwin (ECF No. 2370);

294 (2) Jack Yen, M.D., Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2370); (3) Inna Mirsky, Ph.D. (ECF No.

295 2370); (4) Dr. Hinton (ECF Nos. 2371 and 2372); (5) William Puga, M.D. IDOC Chief of

296 Psychiatry (ECF No. 2372); (6) Amy Mercer, Illinois Regional Mental Health Quality Assurance

12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 13 of 63

297 Coordinator for Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2373); (7) Elaine Gedman; Executive Vice

298 President and Chief Administrative Officer at Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2373); (8)

299 William Elliott, Ph.D., Regional Mental Health Director for Illinois at Wexford Health Sources

300 (ECF Nos. 2373 and 2374); (9) Holly Andrilla, Defendants’ Expert Witness (ECF No. 2375; see

301 also Df. Ex. 62, CV of Andrilla); (10) Jeffrey Sim, Statewide Mental Health Quality Improvement

302 Manager, IDOC (ECF No. 2375); (11) Melissa Stromberger, Ph.D., Psychologist Administrator

303 for Hill Correctional Center (ECF No. 2376); (12) Kelly Ann Renzi, Ph.D., Psychologist

304 Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 2376); (13) Al Doyle, M.D., Staff

305 Psychiatrist at Dixon Correctional Center (ECF No. 2377); and (14) Cheri Laurent, Vice President

306 of Special Projects for Wexford Health Sources (ECF No. 2377).

307

In support of their position, Plaintiffs called: (1) Pablo Stewart, M.D., Court Monitor (ECF

308 No. 2374); (2) Joe Champ, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 2376); (3) Ralph

309 Kings, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 236); and (4) Anthony Gay, former inmate

310 within the IDOC (ECF No. 2376). In addition to the testimony taken during the permanent

311 injunction hearing, the Court has also considered the testimony taking during the preliminary

312 injunction hearing, including the testimony of: (1) Dr. Stewart (ECF Nos. 1757, 1758, 1903 and

313 1905); (2) Michael Dempsey, M.D., former staff psychiatrist for Wexford Health Sources from

314 January of 2013 until September 2015, located at Pontiac Correctional Center, former Acting Chief

315 of Health Services, Illinois Department of Corrections, and former Chief of Psychiatry, Illinois

316 Department of Corrections (ECF No. 1757; see also Pl. Ex. 28, CV of Dr. Dempsey); (3) Samuel

317 Span, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 1758); Dr. Hinton (ECF Nos. 1758 and

318 1906); Corrie Singleton, inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center (ECF No. 1758); Gedman (ECF

319 No. 1903); Gladyse Taylor, Assistant Director, IDOC (ECF No. 1904), Marcus Hardy, Executive

13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 14 of 63

320 Assistant to the Director of the IDOC (ECF No. 1904); Sandra Funk, Chief of Operations, IDOC

321 (ECF No. 1904), Sim (ECF No. 1904), Mercer (nee Cantorna) (ECF No. 1904); and Dr. Puga (ECF

322 No. 1905).

323 Inadequate Staffing

324

The Court will address the areas of Mental Health Evaluations, Treatment Planning,

325 Medication Management, Mental Health Treatment in Restricted Housing/Segregation, and

326 Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch in turn. However, the Court initially notes that, having

327 fully considered all of the testimony and evidence, it still concludes that the IDOC has failed to

328 maintain adequate staffing levels to provide adequate mental health treatment in compliance with

329 the Constitution. The Court further finds that the deficiencies in several of the areas identified

330 have greatly improved in certain locations within the IDOC. Indeed, Defendants also provide that,

331 particularly since the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the IDOC has continued to build and

332 enhance an entirely new mental health care system. (ECF No. 2405 at 4). In that regard, the

333 Defendants noted, and the Court acknowledges, the IDOC has invested more than $45 million to

334 build new facilities and rehabilitate existing facilities to provide mental health services to the

335 inmates. (ECF No. 1904 at 16). In addition, the IDOC notes that it has obtained funds to build a

336 new $150 million inpatient facility at Joliet. (ECF No. 2405 at 13; ECF No. 1904 at 16, 77). These

337 facilities will ultimately improve the care of mentally ill inmates, but, in and of itself, are

338 insufficient to address the deficiencies in mental health care.

339

The IDOC’s inability to properly staff the institutions with psychiatrists has been a

340 persistent problem. (ECF No. 1716, Pl. Ex. 23, providing summary staffing levels for Nov. 2015,

341 Sept. 2016, and June 2017). At the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that

342 the IDOC had only 29 psychiatrists available, with a system-wide need of 65 psychiatrists. (ECF

14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 15 of 63

343 No. 1758 at 48). That number has increased, and Dr. Hinton testified that Wexford is now

344 delivering between 50 to 55 psychiatrists for their use in the correctional centers. (ECF No. 2372

345 at 10). Dr. Hinton maintained that Wexford has made substantial improvements in the delivery of

346 full-time equivalents since the preliminary injunction hearing. (ECF No. 2372 at 10). Dr. Hinton

347 also noted that the IDOC has authorized the use of unlimited overtime, use of psychologists on

348 weekends, second shifts, telepsychiatry services at Dixon Correctional Center, and partnering with

349 Southern Illinois University to provide additional psychiatric services at Pontiac Correctional

350 Center and Logan Correctional Center. (ECF No. 2372 at 11, 35, 36, and 42-48). This Court

351 agrees some improvements have been made. Nonetheless, there is still a serious deficiency in the

352 delivery of mental health treatment, and the improvements are driven by an unsustainable use of

353 overtime. Again, the delivery of mental health services will be discussed in the five areas below.

354

To be clear, the Court finds that the record presented establishes by a preponderance of the

355 evidence, there was insufficient staffing at the IDOC at the time of the preliminary injunction. The

356 Defendants have not generally disputed the Court’s findings on this issue. The evidence was

357 detailed in this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order but reiterated here for the sake of

358 completeness.

359

First, when asked directly about the ability to provide psychiatric care with such a

360 deficiency in staffing, Dr. Hinton’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing was clear – the

361 IDOC cannot deliver the required level of care. Dr. Hinton testified as follows:

362

Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required

363

for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists?

364

365

A. Correct.

366

367 (ECF No. 1758 at 50).

15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 16 of 63

368

Dr. Hinton was also asked about the dangers the lack of appropriate staffing can have on

369 an individual who is taking psychotropic medicine. His testimony went as follows:

370

Q. And you’ve heard all the ills that can come if somebody is on psychotropic

371

medicine and it’s not being monitored, right?

372

373

A. Correct.

374

375

Q. And you know that’s dangerous, don’t you?

376

377

A. Correct.

378

379

Q. And you know that the 6,000 people are being endangered every day they’re

380

not seen correctly; isn’t that right?

381

382

A. Certainly is a concern, yes.

383

384

Q. It’s more than a concern. It’s your responsibility that they get that care; isn’t

385

that right?

386

387

A. Correct.

388

389

Q. And you know they’re not getting it?

390

391

A. Correct.

392

393 (ECF No. 1758 at 52-53).

394

395

Dr. Hinton’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing regarding inmates who are in

396 segregation was extremely troublesome. Dr. Hinton explained:

397

Q. [ ]. Why do you have so many mentally ill people in segregation and so few

398

regular population people in segregation?

399

400

A. I think, in general, the percentage of folks who are mentally ill tend to have more

401

behavioral issues, in part because of their mental illness.

402

403

Q. So, you've got so many of them in segregation because they do -- they don't

404

follow the rules well, right?

405

406

A. In part.

407

408

Q. And has anyone, to your knowledge, wondered whether or not putting mentally

409

ill people in segregation is good for them?

16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 17 of 63

410

411

A. Yes.

412

413

Q. Who's done that?

414

415

A. I have.

416

417

Q. And what's your view?

418

419

A. My view is there's nothing -- there's nothing that is a good thing about being in

420

segregation. We need to make sure that they have proper access to treatment.

421

422

Q. Now, I believe your testimony the last time I took it on that subject was it won't

423

hurt them if we treat them with the treatment they need, right?

424

425

A. Access to treatment, correct.

426

427

Q. But how do you know they're getting the treatment they need if they're in

428

segregation?

429

430

A. That's why we have to make sure that there are no barriers to the access to

431

treatment.

432

433

Q. But you don't have enough people?

434

435

A. Correct.

436

437

Q. So, you know they're not getting the right treatment?

438

439

A. We know that there's significant staffing shortages.

440

441

Q. They're not getting the right kind of psychiatric care, right?

442

443

A. We don't have -- correct, we don't have the right staffing requirements.

444

445

Q. They're not getting enough groups because you don't have enough people to run

446

the groups?

447

448

A. Correct.

449

450

Q. And you know from your own personal judgment that if you're not doing that

451

for people in segregation, they're going to get worse; isn't that right?

452

453

A. Across the board.

454

455 (ECF No. 1758 at 81-82) (emphasis added).

17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 18 of 63

456

Second, Dr. Michael Dempsey, M.D., staff psychiatrist for Wexford Health Sources from

457 January 2013, until September 2015, who was physically located at Pontiac Correctional Center,

458 also testified about the lack of psychiatric staffing at the IDOC in the following manner:

459

Yeah, we don’t have enough psychiatrists to treat the patients. We just don’t. If I

460

remember correctly, IDOC had projected that they needed 66-1/2 full-time-

461

equivalent psychiatrists to provide care for the population within the IDOC. I’m

462

not sure if we’ve reached 25 full-time-equivalents at this point since I haven’t been

463

working there for the last six months. I know it’s not 66.

464

465 (ECF No. 1757 at 197). Dr. Dempsey further explained the problems associated with the lack of

466 staffing are as follows:

467

I believe that we didn’t have enough psychiatrists with the kind of expertise that is

468

necessary to understand the correctional system.

469

470

Corrections is a unique environment. It takes into account the fact that a person

471

with a serious mental illness who is not in a natural environment is somehow

472

expected, without the kind of supports they need, to function adequately, to

473

understand the rules, the regulations.

474

475

And when you have patients who are seriously mentally ill, who may be psychotic,

476

who have impaired reality testing, and you put them in an environment where

477

they’re segregated, where they’re not treated to any appropriate degree or

478

subtherapeutically, and their options are limited, and they have to make important

479

decisions, I find it becomes an emergent situation.

480

481 (ECF No. 1757 at 199).

482

483

Finally, when discussing the psychiatric and mental health backlog (more fully discussed

484 below), Dr. Stewart explained during the preliminary injunction hearing:

485

Well, you know -- again, that backlog can't be taken in isolation. You gotta look at

486

the overall system. So, here we're talking about, you know, increased use of crisis

487

cells, increased use of restraints, increased use of force, people suffering because

488

of untreated mental illness. All of that has to -- is linked in some way with the fact

489

that patients aren't being seen frequently enough or seen at all.

490

491 (ECF No. 1757 at 260)(Emphasis added). In his Mid-Year Report, Dr. Stewart further explained:

492

IDOC leadership has been well aware of the problems related to the insufficient

493

amount of psychiatric services and yet has been unable to adequately solve this

18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 19 of 63

494

issue. At the time of the submission of this midyear report, however, the lack and

495

quality of psychiatric services continues to negatively impact all aspects of the

496

Settlement and contributes to IDOC being non-compliant in the vast majority of

497

areas of the Settlement. Of note, these deficiencies regarding psychiatric services

498

were reported in the First Annual Report. The Monitor personally met with Director

499

Baldwin on 6/26/17 to discuss this problem. To date, IDOC is yet to effectively

500

address this emergency.

501

502 (ECF No. 1646 at 9).

503

504

The record leaves no question there was constitutionally deficient care being provided by

505 the Defendants at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing. The Court also finds for reasons

506 stated herein, that despite the good efforts of the Defendants, constitutionally deficient care is still

507 being provided. The Court’s finding is based generally on the fact that there is insufficient mental

508 health staffing at the IDOC. Moreover, to the extent there have been improvements in the delivery

509 of mental health services, the record is clear those measures are unsustainable.

510

As noted above, Dr. Hinton testified at the preliminary injunction hearing as follows:

511

Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required

512

for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists?

513

514

A. Correct.

515

516 (ECF No. 1758 at 50). Dr. Hinton testified at the permanent injunction hearing that the IDOC is

517 now providing adequate care to mentally ill inmates. (ECF No. 2372 at 31). The Court does not

518 doubt the sincerity of Dr. Hinton’s current assessment. However, his current position is in stark

519 contrast with the evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing only three months

520 earlier, and therefore is viewed with considerable caution. (See ECF No. 2070, ad passim; see

521 also ECF No. 2070 at 16-18, Order capturing portions of Dr. Hinton’s testimony; supra, p. 13-17).

522 Importantly, it appears Dr. Hinton’s assessment is based largely on the fact that the IDOC has the

523 “proper procedures in place to provide adequate treatment,” and not based on the actual care being

524 given to inmates. (ECF No. 2375 at 5, Dr. Hinton, testifying in a deposition dated August 17,

19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 20 of 63

525 2018, avoided addressing whether inmates were being given adequate care, instead testifying “[i]t

526 is my testimony that we have the proper procedures in place to provide adequate treatment to all

527 of our population.”)(Emphasis added). Additionally, it should be noted that Defendants maintain

528 they now have the leadership, staffing, and procedures in place to provide the necessary

529 constitutional care. (ECF No. 2405 at 16). Dr. Hinton also explained that he did not have anything

530 to do with the certification from the IDOC that they were in compliance with the Court’s May 25,

531 2018, Order. (ECF No. 2372 at 18). Dr. Hinton specifically explained he was not at every prison

532 for the “day-to-day activit[ies].” Id. It is clear the IDOC is concerned with the staffing levels of

533 mental health providers. Baldwin testified that the IDOC continues to ask Wexford for additional

534 mental health staff. (See also ECF No. 2370 at 95, Baldwin acknowledges that he understood that

535 the staff Wexford is supposed to provide is the amount necessary to provide the required service).

536 Both Baldwin and Dr. Hinton testified about expanding the relationship with Southern Illinois

537 University and the University of Illinois to provide additional mentally health hours but at present

538 this is de minimis. Baldwin testified about the IDOC continuing to engage in recruitment fairs.

539

Like Dr. Hinton, Baldwin also maintains the opinion that the IDOC has enough staff on

540 board to provide adequate medical treatment to the mental ill inmates. (ECF NO. 2453 at 70).

541 However, Baldwin also lacks an adequate basis for his position as it is based on the fact that the

542 IDOC has made progress in its hiring, yet he acknowledges that he does not know to what level

543 the hiring has been made. Id. Additionally, Baldwin testified that he “believe[s] [ ] right now [the

544 IDOC] ha[s] an adequate number of psychiatrist[s], and as we get our whole structure in place,

545 [they will] need to increase staff [ ].” Id. The fact that the IDOC does not have all the necessary

546 structures in place further demonstrates the problems with the current care for mentally ill inmates.

547 Moreover, the current status of the structures suggests more staff is necessary to compensate for

20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 21 of 63

548 the current deficiencies. (See also ECF No. 2354 at 50, Baldwin acknowledging that buildings by

549 themselves do not treat the inmates).

550

Moreover, it is generally undisputed that adequate staffing is necessary to deliver adequate

551 care. In his Second Annual Report of Monitor, Dr. Stewart made it clear that non-compliance with

552 the Settlement Agreement is a direct result of inadequate staffing. (ECF No. 2122 at 9). Even

553 given his change in position, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that it takes the right number of people to

554 provide the required care. (EFC No. 2372 at 31). When pressed regarding the situation at Dixon,

555 Dr. Hinton’s position was most telling:

556

Q. So, psychiatrists, 1255, psychologist, 692, QMHPs, 1272, BHTs, 607. That

557

comes to roughly 3700 [hours].

558

559

You got more people vacant – oh, no. You managed to cut the vacancies from 3700

560

to 3000 hours. Is that adequate?

561

562

A. It’s an improvement.

563

564

Q. Is it adequate?

565

566

A. Well, I think – I can’t answer that yes or no, so –

567

568 (ECF No. 2372 at 49).

569

In July 2018, Defendants submitted their staffing plan. (Pl. Ex. 48A; Df. Ex. 55B).

570 Notably, Defendants’ staffing plan provides for the equivalent of 65.75 psychiatrists. (Pl. Ex. 48A;

571 Df. Ex. 55B). The actual number of on-staff psychiatrists sits somewhere between 50-55. See

572 supra, p. 13. It should also be noted that the staffing shortage is not limited to psychiatrists.

573 Defendants’ staffing of Mental Health Directors, Psychologists, Behavioral Health Technicians,

574 and other Mental Health Employees is also deficient. (Pl. Ex. 48A; see also Df. Ex. 6 and Df. Ex.

575 38; after the Settlement Agreement was signed in May 2016, the IDOC increased its mental health

576 staffing from 80 FTEs to 453.6 FTEs. In January 2018, the overall headcount was 364.).

21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 22 of 63

577

Again, the testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing clearly established that the

578 mentally ill inmates were receiving inadequate care. As noted above, Dr. Hinton, Dr. Dempsey,

579 and Dr. Stewart each testified about the deficiencies in mental health staff and the impact on the

580 inmates. Dr. Hinton acknowledged at the preliminary injunction hearing that given the

581 deficiencies in staffing, inmates in segregation were getting worse “across the board.” Dr. Stewart

582 called the situation an “emergency.” Even with the additional mental health staff hired after the

583 preliminary injunction hearing, the numbers associated with mental health providers are deficient

584 to provide the constitutionally required care. In fact, the June 2018 monthly facility performance

585 report showed Wexford had failed to supply more than 10,000 hours of required clinical staff for

586 that month. (Pl. Ex. 51; ECF No. 2376 at 290, Renzi’s testimony).

587

The Court has given little weight to the testimony of Holly Andrilla, Defendants’ expert,

588 who opined that, statistically, given the public in general, the IDOC has more than enough

589 psychiatrists to treat its mentally ill population. (ECF No. 2375 at 59, Andrilla concluded, among

590 other things, “[e]very facility except Vienna, the ratio of psychiatrists per seriously mentally ill

591 people exceeds the ratio of the general population [ ].”). Andrilla is a research scientist with the

592 WWAMI Rural Health Research Center and the Center for Health Workforce Studies in the

593 Department of Family Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine. (Df. Ex.

594 62). The Court takes no issue with the expert’s credentials or even her general methodology.

595 However, the Court finds the expert’s analysis is inapplicable because her analysis compares the

596 non-prison population with the prison population. (See ECF No. 2375 at 82-83, Andrilla explained

597 the source of her data). The doctors and medical providers in this case, on both sides, have

598 meticulously detailed the difficulties in treating the prison population with the current staff. The

599 use of overtime is pervasive, and to put it in terms of the witnesses, “unsustainable.” (See infra,

22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 23 of 63

600 pp. 23-24). It is impossible to believe there is adequate staff, even with overtime and other efforts,

601 given the significant number of inmates who are not being timely treated based on the Defendants’

602 own backlog assessment. Andrilla’s assessment is simply contrary to the testimony and

603 established facts in this case.

604

To fully appreciate the impact of the staffing deficiencies, one need not look much further

605 than the IDOC’s backlog. The term “backlog report” was used throughout the preliminary and

606 permanent injunction hearings. The backlog report contains data supplied by the correctional

607 center. Mercer, Illinois Regional Mental Health Quality Assurance Coordinator for Wexford

608 Health Sources, explained her role as quality assurance coordinator is to monitor, report, and

609 translate data related to the IDOC’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 2373

610 at 6). Mercer noted that, in the past, each facility would use a different mechanism to capture the

611 mental health treatment data. (ECF No. 2373 at 14). Mercer implemented the use of a database

612 template at every facility so that each facility’s database would look the same and the facilities

613 would collect the same data. (ECF No. 2373 at 15). Additionally, she focused on getting the

614 facilities to collect and record the appropriate data in the database. (ECF No. 2372 at 6). Mercer

615 explained that some of the data is automatically updated based on data that is manually inputted.

616 (ECF No. 2373 at 10, “[W]hen certain information is entered into the database, for example, the

617 date that an individual is identified as needing mental health services, the date that a person was

618 last seen, what - -the number of days that the provider has indicated that they want to see that

619 person again, the database automatically generates due dates and follow-ups due dates and, et

620 cetera.”). Mercer noted, however, that the failure to manually input certain information can cause

621 inflated numbers in the database. (ECF No. 2373 at 8). Ultimately, the backlog report (psychiatry)

622 represents the backlog in “New/Face to Face,” “Follow Up/Face to Face,” “New Telepsych,” and

23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 24 of 63

623 “Follow up/Telepsych.” (See Df. Ex. 1F). The backlog is measured in increments of “1-14 day

624 backlogged,” 15-30 day backlogged,” “31-45 day backlogged,” “46-60 day backlogged,” and

625 “Greater than 60 day backlogged.” Id.

626

The numbers on the August 17, 2018, backlog report show an improvement from the

627 numbers presented during the preliminary injunction hearing. (Df. Ex. 1F). Defendants provide

628 that the psychiatric backlog has been reduced to a total of 908. (Df. Ex. 1D and 35B). Defendants

629 further provide that the backlog for new psychiatric appointments has been reduced to nearly zero.

630 (Df. Ex. 1F). Nonetheless, while the backlog number may have been reduced, it is still significant

631 in terms of the timing of the reductions, the current level of backlog, quality, and the methods

632 undertaken to reduce the backlog. The evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing

633 showed, as of October 2017, there were a total of 4,010 backlogged contacts. (ECF No. 1757 at

634 213). And as the Court noted in its previous Order, a significant reduction in the backlog only

635 came about at the same time or after the filing of the Plaintiffs’ initial Motion. (See id., see also

636 ECF No. 1559, filed on 10/10/2017). Additionally, Baldwin acknowledged that the backlog had

637 been reduced, at least in part, by overtime, a method he and others acknowledge is not a long-term

638 solution. (ECF No. 2370 at 129, “Not a log-term permanent [solution]. I see it as a short-term

639 [solution].”).

640

Confirming the inability to continue the current efforts and the inadequacies of staffing,

641 Renzi, Psychologist Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center, testified as follows:

642

Q. I notice in the charts and in your testimony that in terms of trying to deal with

643

the backlogs and provide adequate care, you’re trying to have people come from

644

other institutions and work there and also offer additional overtime, correct?

645

646

A. Yes.

647

648

Q. That doesn’t sound like a very good plan. I mean, is that sustainable in the

649

long term?

24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 25 of 63

650

651

A. In the long term, it would be difficult to sustain that.

652

653

Q. Yes.

654

655

A. However, the mentality – the idea that providing them some service is better

656

than providing them no service.

657

658

Q. Yes. So – but would it be fair to say that you acknowledge that you do need

659

more staff at Pontiac.

660

661

A. I would acknowledge that, yes.

662

663 (ECF No. 2376 at 356). Stromberger, Psychologist Administrator at Hill Correctional Center, also

664 affirmed this with her testimony as follows:

665

Q. Well, how does it all get done if you only have half the staff you’re supposed

666

to have?

667

668

A. We work very hard.

669

670

Q. You work overtime, right?

671

672

A. At times.

673

674

Q. And is there burnout because of the excess amount of work?

675

676

A. Yeah.

677

678

Q. And do you lose good people because they’re working too hard?

679

680

A. Yeah.

681

682

Q. And isn’t that a problem?

683

684

A. I would say.

685

686

--

687

688

Q. Well, do you have an understanding of whether there were deficiencies –

689

continued deficiencies in staffing of mental health people?

690

691

A. Continued deficiencies in terms of staffing. Yes, there’s been deficiencies for

692

quite some time for staffing.

693

25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 26 of 63

694 (ECF No. 2376 at 1433-34). In the Court’s view there is presently no “Plan B.”

695

696

At Dixon Correctional center, part of the plan to reduce the backlog was to have

697 psychologists work on the weekends, non-traditional hours, and second shift. (ECF No. 2372 at

698 43). The Court agrees with Baldwin that the use of overtime is not sustainable. As Dr. Stewart

699 testified, the overtime was putting a strain on employees. (ECF No. 2374 at 264, “Centralia has a

700 minimal backlog, but the staff out there is at wit’s end. They don’t have enough people.”). Dr.

701 Stromberger testified that working excessive overtime causes problems with retention because of

702 burnout. (ECF No. 2376 at 68). The Court has also considered the fact that in many cases the task

703 associated with the backlog had been outstanding in the “1-14 day backlogged” benchmark. (Df.

704 Ex. 1F). Nonetheless, even with the overtime, the backlog is still significant in certain facilities,

705 including Pontiac, Dixon, and Menard. (Df. Ex. 1F). It should be noted that the deficiencies in

706 staffing are not only related to psychiatrists. The deficiencies lie in all areas of mental health staff.

707 (Pl. Ex. 48A; Df. Ex. 55B). This is a real problem, and one that must be addressed now.

708

Both Parties utilize the processes implemented by Dr. Sim in support of their positions.

709 Defendants note that his work has resulted in a useful tool to allow the Defendants to focus on

710 problem areas. Plaintiffs assert the reports show serious deficiencies in the actual delivery of

711 services – and further demonstrate the difficulty with staffing. This Court finds both are correct.

712

Dr. Sim has been tasked with developing and implementing a mental health quality

713 assurance process. Dr. Sim’s process includes an audit tool and a mechanism to allow the

714 correctional centers to make corrective action. Dr. Sim described two different audit processes:

715 (1) internal audits, conducted by the psychologist administrator or a social worker at the facility;

716 and (2) external audits, conducted quarterly by regional administrators. Dr. Sim explained that his

717 audit identifies 315 “problem statements.” Problem statements are “verbiage” that came from the

26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 27 of 63

718 settlement agreement, standard operating procedures, or the administrative directives. (ECF No.

719 2375 at 125). These problem statements are then placed into four broad categories. (ECF No.

720 2375 at 126-128). The review uses these statements when conducting their audit as follows:

721

[ ] when the mental health authorities, the psych administrator or social worker for

722

when they conduct their audit, when they open up the documentation, the medical

723

charts, if they see that certain things are not being [done] – that is on this list, that

724

means it’s considered non-compliant.

725

726 (ECF No. 2375 at 126).

727

The internal audit in turn uses these compliance categories and the problem statements to

728 assess the Department’s compliance in the following ten areas: (1) Intake; (2) Crisis Writ and

729 Transfer; (3) Mental Health Follow-Up; (4) Mental Health Treatment Plan; (5) Crisis

730 Management, Intervention and Documentation; (6) Psychiatric Services; (7) Mental Health

731 Disciplinary Review/Restricted Housing; (8) Use of Restraints; (9) Mental Health Evaluations;

732 and (10) Supervision for Non-Clinical Licensed Mental Health Staff. (ECF No. 2375 at 130; Df.

733 Ex. 3D). The audits used to be conducted every month. (ECF No. 2375 at 132). Starting in July

734 2018, the audits were conducted every other month. Id. Dr. Sim explained this change was to

735 allow mental health staff more time to provide services to inmates. In addition, Sim explained this

736 would allow the auditors the ability to review the data and develop effective corrective action

737 plans. (ECF No. 2375 at 133). The correctional centers can use the results as a tool to take

738 corrective action. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing.

739

However, in July 2018, several of the institutions were performing below the 85%

740 threshold set by the IDOC. (ECF No. 2375 at 180). In some cases, significantly lower. That, in

741 and of itself, does not raise undue concern. But, an examination of the results further reveals the

742 difficulty the IDOC is having with staffing. The following discussion highlights this Court’s

743 concerns:

27

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 28 of 63

744

Q. For the corrective action plans for Pontiac marked July 18th, these would be the

745

corrective action plans to follow the audit that we just looked at, correct?

746

747

A. Yes.

748

749

Q. Okay. And we see the 20 -- for the first sheet is about mental health treatment

750

plans, and it has that compliance score of 20 percent at the top, correct?

751

752

A. Yes.

753

754

Q. Okay. And the first deficiency is, Mental health treatment plan was not filed in

755

the medical record, correct?

756

757

A. Correct.

758

759

Q. And that's a clerical? It's listed as a clerical error on Missing Information?

760

761

A. Yes.

762

763

Q. That's the category?

764

765

A. Yes.

766

767

Q. But we don't know from this whether the treatment plan just wasn't done or it

768

wasn't filed?

769

770

A. I don't know.

771

772

Q. Okay. But regardless, the action plan is for staff to use overtime to do treatment

773

plans, right?

774

775

A. Yes.

776

777

Q. Okay. And the deficiency number two also relating to treatment plans is that

778

there wasn't -- there was no monthly treatment plan updated for mental health

779

patient in restrictive housing for more than one month. Do you see that?

780

781

A. Deficiency number two.

782

783

Q. Deficiency number two, correct?

784

785

A. Yes.

786

787

Q. So, that would have been one of the top three most common deficiencies for

788

Pontiac in this audit?

789

28

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 29 of 63

790

A. Yes.

791

792

Q. And the corrective action plan here is for MHPs to use monthly one-to-one

793

sessions for treatment planning for seg offenders. Do you see that?

794

795

A. Yes.

796

797

Q. So, that means that they're going to take time from the prisoner's individual

798

counseling session to meet the treatment planning requirement, correct?

799

800

A. That's what it shows.

801

802 (ECF No. 2375 at 162-64). This colloquy between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Dr. Sim demonstrates

803 the ongoing shift by the Defendants of their limited staff resources from one area of concern to

804 another and the need to cover essential items by use of overtime. This is simply unsustainable.

805

The Court further finds the Defendants have been aware of these deficiencies for an

806 unreasonable period of time, and their failure to address these deficiencies amounts to deliberate

807 indifference. Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing Todaro v. Ward, 565

808 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977)) (“When systematic deficiencies in staffing, facilities or procedures

809 make unnecessary suffering inevitable, a court will not hesitate to use its injunctive powers.”).

810 There have undoubtedly been efforts on the part of the Defendants to address the staffing needs

811 regarding mental health; however, these efforts have been generally ineffective – and have gone

812 on far too long without any significant attempt to adapt or modify based on the knowledge gained

813 from their recruitment efforts. While some efforts have been successful, including the recent

814 expansion of the use of tele-psychiatry, the Defendants have failed to achieve a minimum level of

815 medical service to avoid the label of cruel and unusual punishment. Id.

816 Medication Management

817

Dr. Stewart explained that psychiatric conditions are brain illnesses. (ECF No. 1757 at

818 241). Dr. Stewart testified that psychotropic medications can have harsh side effects and require

819 constant monitoring. (ECF No. 1757 at 242, Dr. Stewart specifically explained “[s]ome of [the 29

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 30 of 63

820 medication] have some pretty harsh side effect profiles that require constant monitoring [and some

821 that] you need to follow-up with laboratory work; you need to follow-up with [ ]blood pressure

822 monitoring in certain cases [and] follow-up on the abnormal involuntary movement scale.”).

823 Additionally, the failure to properly monitor an inmate’s medication may result in poor medication

824 compliance, including the possibility that the inmate will cease taking medication. (ECF No. 1758

825 at 40, Dr. Stewart testified “where you have poor medication compliance because people are

826 experiencing side effects, and they don't get those addressed, so the medications are just stopped.”).

827 Dr. Stewart ultimately concluded at the preliminary injunction hearing that “[i]t's rare when

828 someone is being seen every 30 days [and he has] [f]ound examples of people being seen -- of

829 medications being routinely written for anywhere from two to six months.” (ECF No. 1757 at

830 243). The reason Dr. Stewart was given by prescribers, the nursing staff, and the clinical

831 administrators for medication being prescribed for longer periods of time was because “[the IDOC

832 doesn’t] have enough people to see people every 30 days so [they] write the meds longer so the

833 meds won't expire, and hopefully [they’ll] see them within a couple months or three months.”

834 (ECF No. 1757 at 243-44). Dr. Stewart also testified that class members were exhibiting severe

835 side-effects that were not charted in their records. (ECF No. 1757 at 251).

836

These conclusions went generally uncontested at the preliminary and permanent injunction

837 hearings. In fact, Dr. Hinton acknowledged at the preliminary injunction hearing that

838 understaffing is a significant problem regarding medication management, noting that thousands of

839 inmates who receive medication in the general population are placed in a dangerous situation by

840 not being seen by psychiatrists. (ECF No. at 319-20).

841

The danger was recognized by the Parties and several provisions were inserted into the

842 Settlement Agreement to insure proper medication management.

30

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 31 of 63

843

Sections XII(b) of the Settlement Agreement provides:

844

845

Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC

846

shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101,

847

§ II(F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new

848

prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer

849

than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on

850

the new medication(s).

851

852 (ECF No. 711-1 at 15). The referenced Administrative Directive provides:

853

854

Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a

855

psychiatrist at least every 30 days, with extensions on follow-up care for those who

856

psychiatrist have found and documented that the offender has reached stability

857

(outpatient level of care: Not to exceed 90 days; RTU level of care: not to exceed

858

60 days).

859

860 Additionally, the Settlement Agreement requires:

861

862

The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both

863

subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and

864

suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive, dyskinesia, high blood

865

pressure, and liver function decline [and]

866

867

Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects including client

868

interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluations [

869

].

870

871

(ECF No. 711-1 at 15).

872

In addition to the staffing issues discussed above, the evidence at the permanent injunction

873 hearing revealed the continuation of significant issues with the IDOC’s medication management.

874 First, the mental health staff at the correctional centers recognize there is an issue with follow-up

875 because the nursing staff who administer the medications do not notify them when inmates are

876 non-compliant. Dr. Renzi testified that a lot of the inmates will accept the medication from the

877 nurse, and then put the medication in their mouth as to appear as though they are taking it. (ECF

878 No. 2376 at 278). However, the inmates may “cheek” the medication or swallow it, and later

879 regurgitate it. Id. Dr. Renzi acknowledged that Pontiac continues to have difficulty in assuring

31

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 32 of 63

880 that offenders are actually taking their medication, but there have been educational efforts to train

881 staff. (ECF No. 2376 at 277-79). Dr. Stromberger testified that nursing staff are not fully aware

882 of referral protocol when class members refuse medications. (ECF No. 2376 at 48). Dr.

883 Stromberger, however, did note that there had been some educational follow-up on that issue.

884

This testimony is consistent with Dr. Stewart’s testimony during the preliminary injunction

885 hearing. Dr. Stewart testified that one major problem is that inmates are given their medications

886 but not monitored closely to ensure they have ingested the pills, especially in segregation. (ECF

887 No. 1757 at 123). Dr. Stewart testified one of the inmates he visited had numerous pills on his

888 person that he had not taken. (ECF No. 1757 at 254). It should be noted that Dr. Puga is certainly

889 aware of these issues and has been working on measures to assist in medication compliance. (ECF

890 No. 2372 at 136-37). Nonetheless, these issues again highlight the general staffing issues and the

891 need for additional measures to be considered.

892 Mental Health Treatment in Segregation

893

Segregation refers to an inmate’s confinement in his or her cell for a period of 22 to 23

894 hours a day. (ECF No. 1757 at 103). In the IDOC, over 80% of the inmates in the IDOC who are

895 in segregation are mentally ill. (Pl. Ex. 22, 897 out of 1105 inmates in segregation are mentally

896 ill). Dr. Hinton opined that the “percentage of [inmates] who are mentally ill tend to have more

897 behavioral issues, in part because of their mental illness.” (ECF No. 1758 at 81). Dr. Hinton

898 further opined that “there’s nothing that is a good thing about being in segregation.” Id.

899 Supporting such an opinion, Dr. Stewart testified “[a] person with a pre-existing mental illness

900 placed in segregation will have an exacerbation of their pre-existing mental illness.” (ECF No.

901 1757 at 109). Segregation can also cause a degradation of coping mechanisms and lead to

902 increases in self-harm and other acting-out behaviors. (ECF No. 1757 at 109-111). Dr. Renzi also

903 agreed that segregation can have a negative effect on mental illness. (ECF No. at 2376 at 295). 32

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 33 of 63

904 Inmates Champs, King, Span, and Singleton all testified about their negative experience in

905 segregation. (ECF No. 2376 at 91-112, 113-148; ECF No. 1758 at 271-287, 394-412). Given this,

906 it is clear mental health issues must be addressed for mentally ill inmates in segregation.

907

Under Sections XV(a)(iii), the Parties agreed that:

908

909

Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the

910

treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and

911

the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the

912

services required by their ITP.

913

914 (ECF No. 711-1 at 17). The Settlement Agreement places certain timeframes on MHP’s review

915 of, and updates to, the treatment plans for mentally ill offenders placed in segregation. Id. Dr.

916 Stewart explained the purpose of this requirement is simple – when you place an inmate “into a

917 segregation system, you need to review and update the treatment plan given the vastly different

918 environment the person is in.” 3 (ECF No. 1905 at 82).

919

During the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Stewart testified that the IDOC’s medication

920 management for those in segregation is worse than for Class Members elsewhere in the system.

921 (ECF No. 1757 at 123). Dr. Stewart specifically noted that there is a significant problem in the

922 failure to ensure that those in segregation who are prescribed psychotropic medication actually

923 take the medication. (ECF No. 1757 at 123). Additionally, there was testimony and evidence

924 during the preliminary injunction hearing regarding Defendants’ non-compliance with the out-of-

3 It should be noted that Dr. Stewart also explained that inmates in segregation are:
[ ] some of the sickest individuals psychiatrically that I've seen in my career, and I've only worked with seriously mentally ill. And these people are just suffering immensely.
And so -- you know, and they get nothing. Couple little things thrown at them. But they really don't get any sort of regular treatment.
And so this is a real serious issue, you know. I don't want to put a number on it. It's, it's -- it's as serious as I've seen.
(ECF No. 1905 at 182-83).
33

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 34 of 63

925 cell time required for mentally ill inmates placed in segregation. (ECF No. 1757 at 136; see also

926 ECF No. 711-1 at 20, Section XV(c) of the Settlement requires “mentally ill offenders in a Control

927 Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time.”)

928

Dr. Stewart explained at the preliminary injunction hearing that the consequences of this

929 failure are:

930

[ ] psychiatric decompensation. And then we run into that whole line, you know,

931

acting out, writing up, more segregation time and/or going to crisis, coming out. It's

932

-- the fact that (vi)(A), which is continuation of the initial treatment plan with

933

enhanced therapy, if necessary, to protect from decompensation that may be

934

associated with segregation, that's not being done. People are getting worse in

935

segregation.

936

937 (ECF No. 1905 at 174).

938

In addition to the above, during the permanent injunction hearing, there was additional

939 evidence presented regarding inmates’ out-of-cell time. In the record it is generally accepted that

940 out-of-cell time for mentally ill inmates in segregation is necessary to avoid a rapid decline in

941 mental health. Plaintiffs argue that the lack of adequate structured out-of-cell time is a continuation

942 of the Defendants’ failure to meet their obligation under Section XV(c) of the Settlement

943 Agreement. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants are not adequately addressing an inmate’s refusal

944 to participate in out-of-cell time.

945

As it relates to Menard, Pontiac, and Dixon, the “received” and “received minus refusal”

946 structured out-of-cell time by inmates during June 24, 2018, through June 30, 2018, was

947 summarized in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 45B, 45C, and 45D. Plaintiffs presented information regarding

948 these institutions because they have large segregation populations. (See ECF No. 2374 at 124, Dr.

949 Stewart testified that “I know Pontiac has a very large segregation population, but Menard also has

950 a large segregation population.”). The evidence showed inmates were receiving an average of 6.05

951 hours at Menard, 6.97 hours at Pontiac, and 9.3 hours at Dixon. (Pl. Ex. 45B, 45C, and 45D).

34

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 35 of 63

952 However, it was noted that “received” hours included those that were taken and offered but

953 refused. Id. The actual average out-of-cell time was 4.24 hours at Menard, 2.996 hours at Pontiac,

954 and 3.13 hours at Dixon. Id. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the majority of structured

955 out-of-cell time was by way of movies. (Pl. Ex. 45A; see also ECF No. 2374 at 1264).

956

The most significant issue raised by these numbers is the importance of staffing. Dr. Doyle

957 and Dr. Mirsky both testified that refusing group or other mental health services can be a potential

958 indicator of decompensation. (ECF No. 2377 at 48; ECF No. 2370 at 276). Nonetheless, the record

959 indicates a lack of concern or follow-up for those individuals refusing to participate in these

960 activities.

961 Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch

962

Like segregation, inmates who are on crisis watch are in isolation and additional care is

963 necessary to avoid exacerbating their mental health issues. Crisis refers to an acute exacerbation

964 of mental illness, such as worsening psychosis or mania, or acting out behaviorally, or when

965 someone is acutely suicidal or potentially violent. (ECF No. 1757 at 51-53). The purpose of crisis

966 cells or watches in correctional mental health systems is to, first, protect the individual from self-

967 harm or harming others, and second, to provide appropriate mental health assessment and

968 intervention, such as re-evaluating medication, re-evaluating the psychosocial treatment, and

969 addressing whatever issues precipitated the crisis (ECF No. 1757 at 219; see also at 38, Dr. Stewart

4 Dr. Stewart testified about the use of movies as a structured treatment activity: It certainly would -- it could contribute to lessening the decompensation, but I don't -- it's not a -necessarily a therapeutic activity, so I would question its validity for that purpose. I think it's a good thing to get people out of their cells and doing anything. I want to be real clear about that.
(ECF No. 2374 at 126).
35

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 36 of 63

970 explained that the crisis level of care is needed to assist “people that are presenting with acute

971 problems that need aggressive intervention to deal with a particular acute issue.”). During the

972 preliminary injunction hearing, Dr. Stewart testified that it is “imperative that their treatment is

973 reviewed, not just by one individual but for the entire treatment team that's involved with the case

974 [ ] [a]nd that's not happening.” (ECF No. 1757 at 52).

975

The Settlement Agreement provides certain requirements as it relates to crisis treatment.

976 First, the Settlement Agreement provides:

977

Beds that are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than

978

ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health

979

Professional or the Regional mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental

980

health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and

981

stabilized the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting, as

982

required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2).

983

984 (ECF No. 711-1 at 3).

985

986

Dr. Stewart testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that, based on his review, the

987 only treatment that regularly occurs on crisis watches is the daily contact by the MHP, which are

988 confidential sessions at some facilities but take place most often at the cell front. (ECF No. 1905

989 at 131). Dr. Stewart explained that:

990

But again, as I said, the only thing that occurs is being placed in the cell, having

991

certain property removed, and then getting these daily visits. And so there's no

992

specialized treatment that occurs for people in crisis.

993

994 (ECF No. 1903 at 198-99) (emphasis added).

995

996

The Settlement Agreement also provides:

997

998

For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working

999

day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s

1000

stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be

1001

performed at cell front, using a form which will be specifically designed for this

1002

purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor. This five-day assessment process

1003

will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for Crisis transition, which IDOC

1004

will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation

36

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 37 of 63

1005

of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar

1006

days of discontinuation from Crisis Watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at

1007

least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.

1008

1009 (ECF No. 711-1 at 10).

1010

1011

Dr. Stewart concluded that, at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants

1012 are only conducting the first suicide evaluation, but are not continuing to assess monthly for six

1013 months. (ECF No. 1757 at 232). Dr. Stewart also opined that the Defendants’ failure to conduct

1014 necessary evaluations and assessments of those who are discharged from crisis watches results in

1015 unnecessary harm and suffering, especially as those failures combine with inadequate treatment

1016 planning and psychopharmacology. (ECF No. 1757 at 231). There was no evidence to the contrary

1017 presented by the Defendants about the conditions at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing.

1018 Additionally, evidence regarding crisis watch was presented during the permanent injunction

1019 hearing. Most notably, Plaintiffs presented evidence of inmates who were kept on crisis watch

1020 longer than 10 days. In June 2018, there were 620 inmates placed on crisis watch, in July 2018,

1021 there were 486. (Pl. Ex. 53; Pl. Ex. 43). Of those inmates, 85 were kept on crisis watch longer

1022 than 10 days in June, and 121 inmates met that criteria in July. (ECF No. 2374 at 111-12; Pl. Ex.

1023 43; ECF No. 2376 at 314, Dr. Renzi’s Testimony). The IDOC’s Mental Health Procedures Manual

1024 provides that “patients who remain on crisis treatment level of care after ten consecutive days will

1025 be considered for a higher level of care.” (Df. Ex. 49, p. 31). The record reveals little compliance

1026 with this requirement.

1027

Moreover, Dr. Mirsky confirmed Dr. Stewart’s finding that inmates on crisis watch are

1028 getting between 15-20 minutes of time with qualified mental health profesisonals and little other

1029 time. Notably, Dr. Doyle explained:

37

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 38 of 63

1030

“[If the IDOC had additional staff] it would mean that we could spend more time.

1031

Some people, it takes them a few minutes just to get comfortable sitting with you

1032

as a psychiatrist. So we could establish better rapport.

1033

1034

Looking at the reverse as to what the damage is, I’m hoping that we’re not doing

1035

any damage, but I couldn’t say for sure if there isn’t some.”

1036

1037 (ECF No. 2377 at 81).

1038 Mental Health Evaluations

1039

As previously noted, there is no dispute the Defendants have failed to comply with Section

1040 V(f) of the Settlement Agreement. Section V(f) provides:

1041

Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be

1042

completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral (see IDOC

1043

Administrative Directives 04.04.100 § II(G)(2)(b) and 04.04.101 §II(F)(2)(c)).

1044

1045 (ECF No. 711-1 at 8).

1046

1047

There was much evidence regarding the significant backlog in psychiatric contacts with

1048 inmates. Contacts are activities that psychiatrists and mental health professionals are supposed to

1049 accomplish, including evaluations, treatment plans, and follow-up. (ECF No. 1757 at 212-13).

1050

The Defendants argue that the backlog has substantially declined, noting that there is now

1051 a backlog of 313 initial evaluations. (ECF No. 1894, Df. Ex. 1a; but see also ECF No. 1757 at

1052 213, where it was noted there was a backlog of 445 evaluations, 780 treatment planning contacts,

1053 and 2,785 follow-up visits; compare with Df. Ex. 1). The Defendants further note that a significant

1054 amount of these are only delayed 1-14 days. Finally, the Defendants suggest that the record does

1055 not identify the number of mentally ill prisoners at the various facilities, and thus, the Court is

1056 unable determine how the number of late evaluations at those four facilities compares to the

1057 number of mentally ill prisoners at those facilities. (ECF No. 1965 at 14). The Defendants’

1058 argument that the Court is unable to determine the extent of the problem based solely on the size

1059 of the backlog without additional information regarding the population is unpersuasive. Dr. Hinton

38

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 39 of 63

1060 testified as to the unacceptable nature of the backlog existing at the time of the preliminary

1061 injunction hearing. (ECF No. 1758 at 52, et seq.).

1062

As discussed before, while the backlog number may have been reduced, it is still significant

1063 in terms of timing of the reductions, the current level of backlog, quality, and the methods

1064 undertaken to reduce the backlog. Supra, p. 22-24. The current system’s reliance on overtime is

1065 not viable. Id.

1066 Mental Health Treatment Plans

1067

The treatment plan document plays a very important role in the delivery of mental health

1068 care – it guides the treatment of an inmate. (ECF No. 1906 at 106, 113, Dr. Hinton’s Testimony;

1069 see also 280, Dr. Mirsky acknowledging treatment plans are the most fundamental document in

1070 the whole mental health system). The plan is created for each inmate who is diagnosed with a

1071 mental illness or receiving mental health care services. (ECF No. 1906 at 112). The treatment

1072 plan should capture how treatment is ultimately delivered and the goals of treatment. (ECF No.

1073 1906 at 38). The IDOC utilizes the treatment plan to make sure that the inmate consents to the

1074 treatment. Id.

1075

The Settlement Agreement provides:

1076

As required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(F)(2)(c)(4), any

1077

offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health

1078

services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared

1079

collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.

1080

1081 (ECF No. 711-1 at 9).

1082

Plaintiffs have generally argued that the treatment plans are being done in a perfunctory

1083 manner that do not facilitate the delivery of mental health services. (ECF No. 1559 at 14; see also

1084 ECF No. 2406 at 78, “The treatment plans in IDOC are not helpful and do not facilitate the

39

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 40 of 63

1085 provision of mental health care; the forms are completed more as an administrative requirement

1086 and not true treatment planning.”).

1087

This Court’s May 25, 2018, Order required that “[a]ll class members shall have a treatment

1088 plan that is individualized and particularized based on the patient’s specific need, including long

1089 and short term objectives, updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest

1090 extent possible.” (ECF No. 2070 at 41).

1091

The evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing makes it clear that the lack of adequate

1092 staffing significantly impacts treatment planning. Defendants argue the full record shows the

1093 IDOC has made substantial improvements with respect to treatment planning. This includes the

1094 use of a revised treatment plan document reviewed and approved by Dr. Stewart. (Df. Ex. 13).

1095 The problem arises, however, in the actual completion of the treatment plans. The mental health

1096 providers are so overworked that the treatment plans often become perfunctory.

1097

Plaintiffs presented the Court with treatment plans from inmates at Pontiac Correctional

1098 Center. (ECF No. 2374 at 180). These treatment plans contained identical, or nearly identical,

1099 language describing the therapeutic focus, problems, and activity. (See Pl. Ex. 55C, 55G, 55I, and

1100 55M). Dr. Stewart opined:

1101

What I – what I glean from this, in all seriousness, is this is a reflection of how

1102

overworked the mental health professionals are, where they are basically cutting

1103

and pasting these things because it’s just one more requirement they have because

1104

they’re stretched way too thin. That’s how I read this.

1105

1106

These treatment plans are identical. They’re basically all worthless. They may

1107

apply to one of these people, and there may be some overlap, but come on, the same

1108

wording on four different patients?

1109

1110

So, that’s why I see this as the mental health professionals – and this confirms, you

1111

know, my walking around Pontiac. These people are just really – they’re hurting

1112

out there, the mental health professionals, because they have so much work, and

1113

there’s not enough.

1114

40

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 41 of 63

1115 (2374 at 188).

1116 Deliberate Indifference

1117

The above demonstrates the Defendants have breached the Settlement Agreement in the

1118 five areas advanced by the Plaintiffs. In order to warrant action by this Court, the Court must also

1119 find there is a violation of federal law.

1120

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants have

1121 been deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, and in this case, their mental health

1122 needs. “[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary

1123 and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104

1124 (citations omitted).

1125

An inadequate medical care claim requires a plaintiff to fulfill two elements: (1) the

1126 plaintiff “suffered an objectively serious harm that presented a substantial risk to his safety,” and

1127 (2) “the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk.” Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824,

1128 831 (7th Cir. 2010). The objective element requires that the plaintiff’s medical need to be

1129 “sufficiently serious.” Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). The subjective

1130 element requires that the “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

1131 drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer

1132 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

1133

To meet the objective prong, the medical need must be one that has been diagnosed by a

1134 physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily

1135 recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Gutierrez, 111 F.3d at 1373. A medical condition

1136 “need not be life-threatening to be serious; rather, it could be a condition that would result in

1137 further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated.” Gayton v.

41

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 42 of 63

1138 McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit has agreed with other courts in

1139 concluding that the “[t]reatment of the mental disorders of mentally disturbed inmates is a “serious

1140 medical need.” Wellman, 715 F.2d at 272 (citing Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir.

1141 1980)); Inmates v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47

1142 (4th Cir. 1977).

1143

The subjective component requires a plaintiff to “provide evidence that an official actually

1144 knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm.” Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir.

1145 2016); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. In order to establish deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff does not

1146 need to show that the official intended harm or believed that harm would occur.” Id., (citing

1147 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). However, medical malpractice, negligence, or even gross negligence

1148 do not equate to deliberate indifference. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006).

1149 See also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th Cir. 2013).

1150

The Seventh Circuit has recognized claims of systemic deficiencies in a prison’s health

1151 care facility as a second category of deliberate indifference claims. Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche,

1152 881 F.2d 427, 430–31 (7th Cir. 1989). In case of alleged systemic deficiencies, deliberate

1153 indifference can be demonstrated by “proving there are such systemic and gross deficiencies in

1154 staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures that the inmate population is effectively denied access

1155 to adequate medical care.” Wellman, 715 F.2d. at 272 (citing Ramos, 639 F.2d at 575); Phillips v.

1156 Sheriff of Cook Cty., 828 F.3d 541, 554 (7th Cir. 2016), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc

1157 denied (Aug. 3, 2016) (Claims of “systemic deficiencies at the prison's health care facility rendered

1158 the medical treatment constitutionally inadequate for all inmates, [ ]” plaintiffs must demonstrate

1159 that “there are such systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing, facilities, equipment, or procedures

1160 that the inmate population is effectively denied access to adequate medical care.”)). The Seventh

42

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 43 of 63

1161 Circuit has concluded “that a clear consensus had been reached indicating that a prison official's

1162 failure to remedy systemic deficiencies in medical services akin to those alleged in the present case

1163 constituted deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs.” Cleveland-Perdue, 881 F.2d at

1164 431. See Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974), (affirming a district court decision

1165 finding that systemic deficiencies in the Alabama prisons including inadequate staffing, treatment

1166 by unqualified personnel, incomplete medical records, and lack of written procedures establishing

1167 the duties and responsibilities of the medical personnel.).

1168

There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs suffer from serious medical conditions. (See supra,

1169 p. 2, definition of class). The Court has also found above that the Defendants have failed to provide

1170 medical treatment as required by the Settlement Agreement in the five areas advanced by the

1171 Plaintiffs. The Court also finds that the failure to provide treatment in the above areas puts the

1172 Plaintiffs at a significant risk for further injury and severe unnecessary pain and suffering. At the

1173 time of the preliminary injunction hearing, this fact was firmly established. Dr. Hinton, Dr.

1174 Dempsey, and Dr. Stewart all testified that the conditions in the IDOC, particularly the deficiencies

1175 in staffing, created a substantial risk of harm for mentally ill inmates. Supra, p. 13-17. These

1176 doctors used terms such as “dangerous,” “emergent,” and “emergency,” to describe the situation.

1177 Given this evidence, and considering the standard outlined in Wellman, this Court finds the

1178 Defendants’ inadequate staffing levels creates a systemic problem that has effectively denied the

1179 mentally ill inmates access to adequate and constitutionally required care.

1180

It should be noted that Defendants maintain the position that the law requires this Court to

1181 limit its decision to the care currently being provided by the Defendants. (ECF No. 2368 at 1).

1182 The Defendants further maintain any issues concerning the care the IDOC provided in the past are

1183 moot and irrelevant to a claim seeking forward-looking injunctive relief. Id. In support of their

43

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 44 of 63

1184 positions, Defendants note that the Supreme Court has explained that “deliberate indifference,

1185 should be determined in light of the prison authorities' current attitudes and conduct [ ].” (ECF

1186 No. 2368 at 3); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). Defendants further note that a

1187 plaintiff pursuing a permanent injunction must demonstrate a continuing need for the injunction

1188 “during the remainder of the litigation and into the future,” and even if prison officials “had a

1189 subjectively culpable state of mind when the lawsuit was filed,” they “could prevent issuance of

1190 an injunction by proving, during the litigation, that they were no longer unreasonably disregarding

1191 an objectively intolerable risk of harm and that they would not revert to their obduracy upon

1192 cessation of the litigation.” Id.; Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 846 and n. 9 (1970).

1193

In Helling, the Plaintiff complained that he was exposed to unreasonably high levels of

1194 environmental tobacco smoke due to his cellmate’s smoking habits. Id. The Supreme Court found

1195 Plaintiff stated a claim, but cautioned that he may have difficulty in proving the objective and

1196 subjective factors of a deliberate indifference claim because he had since been moved to a new

1197 prison, no longer had a cellmate who smoked, and the state had enacted new policies in effect

1198 regarding smoking. Id. Here, much of this case surrounds the Defendants’ most recent actions –

1199 or actions since the preliminary injunction was issued – to correct significant deficiencies in the

1200 delivery of mental health treatment. The Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent require

1201 this Court to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the condition as described at the

1202 preliminary injunction hearing, the chances of these conditions reoccurring, as well as the current

1203 attitude of the Defendants, in considering whether or not a permanent injunction should issue.

1204 Additionally, the Court has relied on the fact that the Defendants’ actions frequently occur in

1205 response to the Court’s intervention. See Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1311 (E.D. Cal.

1206 1995) (The Court in granting a permanent injunction cited the defendants’ history of refusing “to

44

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 45 of 63

1207 address the serious issues underlying the preliminary injunction until forced to do so under

1208 pressure of this litigation.”).

1209

Defendants also argue that the problem is no longer systemic but only one that affects a

1210 few of the institutions. The Defendants specifically note the weekly backlog report shows that as

1211 of August 17, 2018, twelve facilities had no backlog with respect to treatment plans, six facilities

1212 had only ten or fewer total backlogs in treatment plans, while another seven institutions had fewer

1213 than 40 backlogged treatment plans. (Df. Ex. 1D and DX 1I). There is no doubt the Defendants

1214 have been able to reduce the backlogs generally and even substantially at certain institutions.

1215 However, the backlog remains a real issue within the IDOC given the significant problems with

1216 documentation as well as the widespread use of overtime to handle most of the staffing needs to

1217 address the backlog. Moreover, the ability to minimize the backlog at certain locations comes at

1218 the cost of providing care in other areas. The Defendants have failed to put forth any long-term

1219 sustainable solution to address their staffing needs.

1220

The record also establishes the Defendants knew of, and disregarded, a substantial risk of

1221 harm to the Plaintiffs. While the record shows the Defendants have made efforts to address many

1222 of the problems associated with the delivery of adequate mental health care, particularly recently,

1223 the Court remains concerned with the overall lack of a sense of urgency. As previously noted in

1224 this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, the issues associated with the staffing deficiencies

1225 began as far back as 2014 when the Defendants created their own 2014 remedial plan, and at this

1226 time, the Defendants have yet to fulfill any of their own staffing requirements. A significant

1227 problem with the Defendants’ approach is the reliance on Wexford to provide the necessary

1228 staffing to fulfill their constitutional obligation. This record demonstrates Wexford has been

1229 unable to handle this job, a job the Defendants are unable to delegate to evade their constitutional

45

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 46 of 63

1230 duties. (See Pl. Ex. 7, p. 2, Wexford long recognized the need to amplify its recruitment efforts).

1231 High level officials in the Governor’s office have written Wexford “encouraging” them to fill the

1232 required positions, yet the staff necessary to provide constitutional care has yet to be hired; nor

1233 have the Defendants generally sought to take a different approach. (ECF No. 2354 at 72; Pl. Ex.

1234 59, p. 3; see also ECF No. 2354 at 76, Baldwin testified that they depend on their partners for

1235 filling the vacancies.). The Court recognizes that the changes needed in the IDOC have been

1236 monumental. The Parties also recognized this and entered into a comprehensive Settlement

1237 Agreement providing deadlines and budget contingencies. However, the Defendants have failed

1238 to meet many of the terms. It is clear mentally ill inmates continue to suffer as they wait for the

1239 IDOC to do what it said it was going to do. (See supra, fn. 2). The Court cannot allow this to

1240 continue. The Court further finds that there is no adequate remedy at law. The Defendants must

1241 provide adequate and constitutionally required care for mentally ill inmates.

1242

Defendants argue the balancing of harms weighs in their favor as Plaintiffs have not met

1243 their burden of proof to show the class members are currently facing a sufficiently identified harm

1244 in the absence of granting additional prospective relief. The Court disagrees with Defendants’

1245 assessment for the reasons stated herein. The Defendants also argue that compliance with a Court

1246 imposed order taxes an already over-worked mental health staff. This argument further

1247 demonstrates the need for additional staff.

1248

Given all of this, the Court finds that a permanent injunction must issue in order to ensure

1249 the constitutionally required care will be given to the mentally ill inmates in the custody of the

1250 Defendants.

1251

In sum, the Court finds that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the medical

1252 needs of the Plaintiffs in medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental

46

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 47 of 63

1253 health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans

1254 within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

1255

The Court further finds the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence

1256 that a permanent injunction is appropriate and necessary. The Court specifically finds that the

1257 Plaintiffs have suffered or will suffer irreparable injury if a permanent injunction is not issued.

1258 There are significant deficiencies in the delivery of mental health services within the IDOC. The

1259 evidence establishes that there are systemic and gross deficiencies in staffing that effectively

1260 denied the Plaintiffs access to adequate medical care. The Plaintiffs are at a significant risk of

1261 harm. The Court further finds that there are no adequate remedies available at law to compensate

1262 for these injuries. Plaintiffs are mentally ill inmates incarcerated within the IDOC, and Defendants

1263 are required to provide adequate care. The balance of hardships weighs heavily in favor of the

1264 Plaintiffs. While appropriately staffing the IDOC with mental health providers is a significant

1265 task, it is one that can, and must, be done. The public interest also weighs heavily in favor of the

1266 Plaintiffs.

1267

In considering the appropriate remedy, Defendants correctly provide that the Court issued

1268 its Order as contemplated under §XXIX(g) of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. (See ECF No.

1269 2460 at 8; ECF No. 711-1, Settlement Agreement). Section XXIX(g) of the Settlement Agreement

1270 provides:

1271

If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with a provision

1272

or provisions of this Settlement Agreement, it may enter an order consistent with

1273

equitable and legal principles, but not an order of contempt, that is designed to

1274

achieve compliance.

1275

1276 (ECF No. 711-1 at 30). This Court also recognizes the restraints for injunctive relief specifically

1277 enumerated in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). In that regard, the PLRA provides:

47

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 48 of 63

1278

The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds

1279

that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

1280

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct

1281

the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any

1282

adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused

1283

by the relief.

1284

1285 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). This Court is also fully aware that “judicial restraint is especially

1286 called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Rogers

1287 v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982). Defendants suggest the Seventh Circuit requires

1288 the Court “to order IDOC officials to do so in general terms and to verify that the plan they submit

1289 satisfies the relevant constitutional standards.” See Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir.

1290 2012). In Westefer, the Seventh Circuit reviewed a district court’s injunctive order addressing the

1291 IDOC’s procedures when assigning inmates to the supermax prison. The district court

1292 incorporated the supermax-transfer regime used in Ohio. In vacating the district court’s order, the

1293 Seventh Circuit explained:

1294

The district court's injunction goes well beyond this, locking in highly specific

1295

formal requirements controlling the timing and content of the notice and hearing

1296

that each transferred inmate must receive, and even going so far as to impose a right

1297

to appeal. An injunction of this scope and specificity is inconsistent with the

1298

“informal, nonadversary” model set forth in Wilkinson,

1299

Hewitt, and Greenholtz, and cannot be reconciled with the PLRA's requirement that

1300

injunctions in prison-conditions cases must be narrowly drawn and use the least

1301

intrusive means of correcting the violation of the federal right.

1302

1303 Id. at 684. Defendants’ reliance on Westefer is misplaced for two reasons. First, the record here

1304 demonstrates a long history of the Defendants’ non-compliance with various terms they had agreed

1305 upon. Second, given this history of non-compliance, Defendants’ proposal is wholly deficient in

1306 addressing their constitutional violations.

1307

The Settlement Agreement was the result of significant negotiations between the Parties

1308 over a period of years. Indeed, in October of 2010, the Parties announced in open court that they

48

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 49 of 63

1309 were working toward a class settlement. The Parties worked with a panel of experts to assist in

1310 their settlement efforts. (ECF No. 117, Joint Status Report dated May 7, 2012). A comprehensive

1311 settlement conference was held between April 16, 2013, and April 18, 2013. An Agreed Order

1312 that provided additional working structure resulted from the settlement efforts. (See ECF No. 132).

1313 After additional unsuccessful settlement efforts by the Parties, on March 20, 2015, the matter was

1314 set for trial. (Minute Entry dated 3/20/2015; see also Minute Entry dated 9/17/2015). On

1315 December 17, 2015, the Parties again announced to the Court that a settlement agreement had been

1316 reached. (Minute Entry dated 12/17/2015). On May 23, 2016, the last signature was acquired on

1317 the Settlement Agreement resolving the decade-long dispute between the Parties. (ECF No. 711-

1318 1 at 33).

1319

Since the agreement was finalized, Defendants have failed to comply with many of its

1320 material terms. (See e.g. ECF No. 1373, First Annual Report dated May 22, 2017; ECF No. 1646,

1321 Mid-Year Report dated November 22, 2017; ECF No. 2122, Second Annual Report dated June 8,

1322 2018). While the Monitor has memorialized Defendants’ non-compliance, the Defendants

1323 themselves have recognized their deficiencies. During the preliminary injunction hearing, Dr.

1324 Hinton testified that a significant number of mentally ill inmates were in dangerous situations

1325 because there was inadequate staffing at the IDOC. (ECF No. 1758 at 53). The danger associated

1326 with the inadequate staffing applied to every aspect of mental health treatment examined during

1327 the preliminary and permanent injunction hearing. (See e.g. ECF No. 1758 at 319-20, Dr. Hinton

1328 acknowledged that it is dangerous to not monitor an individual on psychotropic medication.). In

1329 its Orders, this Court specifically found that the Defendants’ efforts to comply with the Settlement

1330 Agreement (or its own general directives) only came at the time of, or after, the filing of the

49

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 50 of 63

1331 Plaintiffs’ initial Motion. (See id., see also ECF No. 1559, filed on 10/10/2017). Simply put, the

1332 Defendants’ actions have been largely reactionary.

1333

Additionally, based on this Court’s review, Defendants’ proposal falls far short of

1334 addressing their constitutional violations. The record is clear that the Defendants know what needs

1335 to be done. When presented with yet another opportunity to establish a reasonable proposal to

1336 address their constitutional deficiencies, they instead provided a document containing simple

1337 generalities. (See ECF No. 2473-1). The Defendants’ most egregious attempt to cure their

1338 constitutional deficiencies is set forth in their proposal regarding mental health staffing.

1339 Defendants propose adopting the vague requirement that they have “a staffing plan and achieve a

1340 level of staffing that provides sufficient number of mental health staff of varying types to provide

1341 class members with adequate and timely evaluations, treatment and follow-up consistent with

1342 contemporary standards of care.” (ECF No. 2473-1 at 4). Yet, Defendants know they are

1343 understaffed, and they also know the staffing levels which are necessary to provide adequate care.

1344 In fact, Defendants are fully aware of all these deficiencies, as they have both acknowledged the

1345 staffing problems at the IDOC.

1346

Moreover, the record contains ample evidence to demonstrate the IDOC is understaffed.

1347 (ECF No. 2460 at 13-28). The following exchange at the preliminary injunction hearing puts it

1348 in simplest terms:

1349

Q. You know today you can’t deliver the care—the psychiatric care that is required

1350

for the 12,000 patients because you don’t have enough psychiatrists?

1351

1352

A. [Dr. Hinton] Correct.

1353

1354 (ECF No. 1758 at 50). For his part, Baldwin testified that the IDOC continues to ask Wexford for

1355 additional staff. (ECF No. 2354 at 9). Despite the Defendants’ recognition of their staffing

1356 shortage, not enough is being done. As fully detailed in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018,

50

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 51 of 63

1357 the Defendants’ failure to adequately staff their facilities has led to a number of areas where they

1358 have failed to meet the constitutional requirements with respect to the mental health needs of the

1359 inmates.

1360

When there is a “concrete showing of a valid claim and constitutionally mandated

1361 directives for relief,” a court should and must act. Rogers, 676 F.2d at 1214; see also Hutto v.

1362 Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687, n. 9 (1978). “A federal court is required to tailor ‘the scope of the

1363 remedy’ to fit ‘the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.’” Dayton Bd. of Educ. v.

1364 Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420 (1977). Here, it is clear constitutional violations have already

1365 occurred (see ECF No. 2460, ad passim), and given the general history of Defendants’ non-

1366 compliance with the Settlement Agreement, their own directives, and the law, their constitutional

1367 violations will continue unless this Court acts.

1368

TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION

1369

The Court FINDS for the reasons stated herein that the following relief is narrowly drawn,

1370 extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

1371 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

1372

The Defendants John Baldwin, the Acting Director of the IDOC, and Dr. Hinton, the

1373 Department’s Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction Recovery Services must:

1374

1. Staffing requirements at the Illinois Department of Corrections

1375

1376

a. Within 90 days of this order, Defendants must employ the additional staff necessary

1377

to have the following system-wide levels in the following positions: 7 Site Mental

1378

Health Service Directors; 12 Mental Health Unit Directors; sixteen Staff

1379

Psychologists; 142.5 Qualified Mental Health Professionals; 102 Behavioral Health

1380

Technicians; 54.5 Registered Nurses – Mental Health; 24 Staff Assistants; 85.5

1381

Psychiatric Providers; 1 Director of Nursing – Psychiatric; 5 Recreational

1382

Therapists.

1383

1384

i. In order to provide additional clarity on the staffing requirements, the

1385

following describes some of the above positions:

51

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 52 of 63

1386

1387

1. Site Mental Health Directors will provide guidance, direction,

1388

training and clinical supervision to all MHPs, except for

1389

psychiatrists within a given facility;

1390

2. Mental Health Unit Directors will function as lead member of a

1391

multidisciplinary team, directing and supervising program

1392

psychologists and mental health staff, and providing clinical

1393

direction, structure and support for the specified unit;

1394

3. Behavioral Health Technicians will assist staff with transporting

1395

offenders to group meetings and therapy appointments, oversees

1396

some groups, leads community meetings, and participates in activity

1397

therapy sessions under the direction of activity therapists. They will

1398

also be involved in additional duties as assigned by licensed MHPs.

1399

BHTs will be Bachelor level, unlicensed, employees.

1400

4. Mental Health Training Coordinators will be responsible for

1401

developing and managing graduate-level students and pre-doctoral

1402

and post-doctoral interns.

1403

5. Qualified Mental Health Professional are Licensed Social Workers,

1404

Licensed Clinical Social Workers, Licensed Professional

1405

Counselors, and Licensed Clinical Professional Counselors; and

1406

6. Psychiatric providers may include the use of mid-level professionals

1407

and medical doctors.

1408

1409

b. Within 120 days of this order, Defendants shall evaluate whether their staffing plan

1410

is sufficient to provide mental health treatment consistent with constitutional law

1411

in the areas of treatment planning, medication management, mental health care on

1412

crisis watches, mental health care in segregation, and mental health evaluations;

1413

1414

c. Within 180 days of this order, Defendants shall report their findings and submit a

1415

proposed amended staffing plan to the Court, the monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel;

1416

and

1417

1418

d. After the report, the Court will consider if any modification to the Defendants’

1419

staffing is necessary.

1420

1421

The Court specifically notes that the record is clear additional staffing is needed to provide

1422 the constitutionally required mental health services at the Illinois Department of Corrections.

1423 Almost universally, every witness who appeared during the hearings, at some point during their

1424 testimony, stated that there was insufficient staff to provide the needed mental health care for

1425 inmates. (See e.g. ECF No. 1757 at 139, Dr. Stewart testified about the reason for lack of group

1426 activities; ECF No. 1757 at 197, Dr. Michael Dempsey testified that there were not enough

52

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 53 of 63

1427 psychiatrists to treat patients; ECF No. 1758 at 82, Dr. Hinton explained the IDOC did not have

1428 the right staffing requirements; ECF No. 2354 at 71-76, Baldwin acknowledged that the IDOC

1429 needed to work on staffing; ECF No. 2376 at 356, Kelly Ann Renzi, Ph.D., Psychologist

1430 Administrator at Pontiac Correctional Center; ECF No. Dr. Melissa Stromberger, Psychologist

1431 Administrator at Hill Correctional Center; but see ECF No. 2373 at 822, Dr. William Elliott,

1432 Wexford Health Sources’ Regional Mental Health Director for Illinois, who testified that Wexford

1433 had the right staffing requirements).

1434

The Court recognizes the amount of staff necessary may not ever be identified with exact

1435 precision. Nonetheless, the Court finds that immediate action must be taken by the Defendants to

1436 address the dangerous situation that exists in the correctional facilities. The Court finds the 2014

1437 Remedial Staffing Plan is the valuable piece in analyzing the staffing deficiencies within the

1438 IDOC. Parenthetically, the Defendants have argued that the 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan is not

1439 contained in the record. To the contrary, this document is in evidence. (ECF No. 2362 at 1; ECF

1440 No. 1757 at 19; and ECF No. 1716 at 2, Transcript wherein the document was entered into evidence

1441 without objection). The IDOC found the staffing contained within the document was sufficient to

1442 satisfy its constitutional violations. (ECF No. 1716, Exhibit and Witness List, Ex. 9, IDOC

1443 Proposed Remedial Plan dated April 17, 2014, “Pursuant to its September 20, 2013 Facility and

1444 Staffing Plan, the Illinois Department of Corrections (“Department” or “IDOC”) is pleased to

1445 present this proposal for staffing levels and bed and treatment space allocations that satisfy its

1446 constitutional duty to provide mental health care to seriously mentally ill (“SMI”) offenders.”).

1447 Nonetheless, the Plan was provided by the IDOC as part of its self-review to determine what

1448 needed to be done to “satisfy its constitutional duty to provide mental health care to seriously

1449 mentally ill (“SMI”) offenders.” (Pl. Ex. 9, p. 1). Couple with the testimony at the hearings

53

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 54 of 63

1450 referenced in this Order, this Court is convinced the staffing requirements contained therein are,

1451 at a minimum, necessary to correct the Constitutional deficiencies currently existing in the IDOC.

1452 The Court also recognizes Defendants have increased staffing efforts since the creation of the

1453 document leaving the most recent shortfall at: 8 Mental Health Unit Directors; 2.97 Staff

1454 Psychologists; 27.5 Qualified Mental Health Professionals; 38 Behavioral Health Technicians;

1455 34.5 Registered Nurses – Mental Health; 35.89 Psychiatric Providers. (See Df. Ex. 5b). Finally,

1456 the Court has provided the staffing requirements in the aggregate recognizing that the specific

1457 geographical area of need may change, and Defendants must have flexibility to deploy their

1458 staffing resources to the appropriate areas.

1459

The Court recognizes this staffing mandate may not be enough. (See ECF No. 2122 at 10,

1460 Second Annual Report of Monitor, Pablo Stewart, MD, “It has become painfully clear to the

1461 monitoring team over the first two years of the Settlement Agreement that the staffing levels of

1462 the Approved Remedial Plan are totally inadequate to meet the mental health and psychiatric needs

1463 of the mentally ill offender population of the Department.” See also ECF No. 1373 at 35, First

1464 Annual Report of the Monitor Pablo Stewart, MD, “Understaffing is very evident at all but one

1465 IDOC facility monitored and this was identified as a key reason a number of other Settlement

1466 provisions have not been met. Turnover is reported as high.”). As such, the Court also directs

1467 Defendants to evaluate whether their current staffing plan meets their constitutional obligation.

1468 This action, in conjunction with the requirement to immediately increase staff, will allow the

1469 Defendants the opportunity to assess their staffing needs while immediately addressing the glaring

1470 staffing deficiencies that currently place the class members in danger.

54

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 55 of 63

1471

The Court finds that this directive, based on the evidence, is narrowly drawn, extends no

1472 further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means

1473 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

1474

2. Class members who are placed on mental health crisis watch:

1475

1476

a. Crisis watches should only be used for patients exhibiting behavior dangerous to

1477

self or others as a result of mental illness and may only be ordered upon a finding

1478

by an appropriately trained and licensed mental health professional that no other

1479

less restrictive treatment is appropriate. When used, crisis watches are to be

1480

employed for the shortest duration possible;

1481

1482

b. IDOC shall provide appropriate mental health treatment to stabilize the symptoms

1483

and protect against decompensation;

1484

1485

c. Reevaluations of treatment and medication will occur as needed and mental health

1486

treatment shall be determined and any necessary interventions to stabilize

1487

individuals shall occur;

1488

1489

d. Daily assessment in a confidential setting of the patient's progress to determine if

1490

the patient is moving towards stability, whether other or additional treatments are

1491

indicated, or if transfer to a higher level of care is required;

1492

1493

e. No later than at the time of discharge from crisis watch, an appropriate mental

1494

health professional (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan

1495

which will apply after discharge from crisis watch. The updated treatment plan will

1496

address causes which led to the deterioration and the plan for risk management to

1497

prevent relapse;

1498

1499

f. For anyone who does not stabilize sufficiently to be discharged from crisis watch,

1500

the treatment team must establish a plan to provide a higher level of care, which

1501

may include transfer to a higher level of care facility, or explain in writing why

1502

establishing such a plan is not appropriate; and

1503

1504

g. Out of cell time for confidential counseling and groups, psychiatric care,

1505

therapeutic activities, and recreational or leisure activities unless clinically contra-

1506

indicted.

1507

1508

In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, given the

1509 Defendants’ general failure to address their deficiencies in the care of mentally ill inmates on crisis

1510 watch, it is necessary to require the above action. The record demonstrates that crisis watch is

55

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 56 of 63

1511 often being used in a manner that is detrimental to the inmates. Inmates are initially screened for

1512 suicidal tendencies but are not always re-accessed thereafter. (ECF No. 1757 at 232; ECF No.

1513 1903 at 198-99, Dr. Stewart testifying that “there's no specialized treatment that occurs for people

1514 in crisis.”). As such, Dr. Hinton acknowledged that “the primary focus [of crisis watch] is ensuring

1515 [inmates’] safety, ensuring that [inmates] are okay and getting [them] off of a state of crisis [ ].”

1516 (ECF No. 2371 at 34). Dr. Hinton’s own testimony highlights the requirement that crisis watch

1517 should be used for the shortest duration possible.

1518

Dr. Stewart also opined that the Defendants’ failure to conduct necessary evaluations and

1519 assessments of inmates who are discharged from crisis watch results in unnecessary harm and

1520 suffering, especially as those failures combine with inadequate treatment planning and

1521 psychopharmacology. (ECF No. 1757 at 231). The Court finds that the directives related to

1522 inmates on crisis watch are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

1523 violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation

1524 of the Federal right. The Court has fashioned these requirements being mindful to allow as much

1525 operational discretion and flexibility to prison administrators as possible given the record in this

1526 case.

1527

3. Class members who are placed in segregation5

1528

5 Dr. Stewart has explained that inmates in segregation are:
[S]ome of the sickest individuals psychiatrically that I've seen in my career, and I've only worked with seriously mentally ill. And these people are just suffering immensely.
And so -- you know, and they get nothing. Couple little things thrown at them. But they really don't get any sort of regular treatment.
And so this is a real serious issue, you know. I don't want to put a number on it. It's, it's -- it's as serious as I've seen.
(ECF No. 1905 at 182-83).
56

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 57 of 63

1529

a. Promptly after placement into segregation, a mental health professional shall assess

1530

the class member to establish a baseline against which any future decompensation

1531

can be measured. Such review shall be documented in the patient’s mental health

1532

records in a manner that facilitates access and review by subsequent treatment staff;

1533

1534

b. A mental health professional shall review and recommend any clinically necessary

1535

modifications to the prisoner’s individual treatment plan;

1536

1537

c. Rounds shall be conducted by appropriate mental health staff, which may include

1538

behavioral health technicians;

1539

1540

d. Class members who are in a Control Unit for periods of sixteen days or more shall

1541

receive care that includes, at a minimum:

1542

1543

i. Continuation of their mental health treatment plan with such treatment as

1544

necessary to protect from any decompensation;

1545

1546

ii. Rounds in every section of each Control Unit at least every seven days by

1547

appropriate mental health staff;

1548

1549

iii. Pharmacological treatment (if applicable);

1550

1551

iv. Meeting with MHP or multidisciplinary team meetings to the extent

1552

necessary;

1553

1554

v. MHP or mental health treatment team recommendations to post-segregation

1555

housing; and

1556

1557

vi. Structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect against

1558

decompensation. Structured out of cell time includes therapeutic,

1559

educational and recreational activities that involve active engagement by

1560

their participants for the duration of the activity.

1561

1562

e. Class members in any Control Unit for periods longer than sixty days shall be

1563

provided with structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect

1564

against decompensation unless clinically contraindicated. If an inmate refuses out

1565

of cell time, a MHP shall follow-up with the inmate to determine whether or not

1566

there is a risk of further decompensation;

1567

1568

f. Mental health staff shall assess class members in Control Units to determine if a

1569

higher level of care is necessary and if so, to make proper recommendations to

1570

facility authority; and

1571

1572

g. Continued treatment by mental health professional and/or psychiatric provider to

1573

the extent clinically indicated.

1574

57

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 58 of 63

1575

In addition to the reasons outlined in the Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, Defendants

1576 themselves have recognized that some of the aforementioned directives are necessary. (See ECF

1577 NO. 2473-1 at 3-4). In addition, three critical points were made during the hearings. First, Dr.

1578 Hinton testified that the requirements related to inmates who are in segregation are not being met.

1579 Dr. Hinton also testified that, in his view, “there’s nothing that is a good thing about being in

1580 segregation.” (ECF No. 1758 at 82). Second, Dr. Stewart testified that the IDOC’s medication

1581 management for those in segregation is worse than for Class Members elsewhere in the system.

1582 Dr. Stewart specifically noted there is a significant problem in ensuring those in segregation who

1583 are prescribed psychotropic medication actually take the medication. (ECF No. 1757 at 123). And

1584 third, Dr. Stewart explained the consequences of failing to allow mentally ill inmates out of cell

1585 time as follows:

1586

[ ] psychiatric decompensation. And then we run into that whole line, you know,

1587

acting out, writing up, more segregation time and/or going to crisis, coming out. It's

1588

-- the fact that (vi)(A), which is continuation of the initial treatment plan with

1589

enhanced therapy, if necessary, to protect from decompensation that may be

1590

associated with segregation, that's not being done. People are getting worse in

1591

segregation.

1592

1593 (ECF No. 1905 at 174). Given the testimony at the hearing, the Court finds that its directives

1594 related to inmates in segregation are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct

1595 the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation

1596 of the Federal right. The Court has fashioned the requirements being mindful to allow the most

1597 operational discretion and flexibility to prison administrators as possible given the record in this

1598 case.

1599

4. Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication

1600

1601

a. Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by

1602

a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards;

1603

58

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 59 of 63

1604

b. IDOC shall accomplish the following in psychiatric services:

1605

1606

i. Administer medications to all class members in a manner that provides

1607

reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually

1608

being delivered to, and taken by, the offenders as prescribed;

1609

1610

ii. The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects;

1611

1612

iii. Take necessary steps to ascertain side effects;

1613

1614

iv. The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely

1615

reporting on results;

1616

1617

v. The class members for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive

1618

timely explanations from appropriate medical staff about what the

1619

medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and

1620

what in general are the side effects of the medication; and have an

1621

opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking

1622

the medication; and

1623

1624

vi. That class members, including offenders in a Control Unit who experience

1625

medication noncompliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If,

1626

after discussing the reasons for the offender's medication noncompliance

1627

said noncompliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender

1628

to a psychiatric provider.

1629

1630

In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Court

1631 notes that the danger of prescribed psychotropic medications was detailed during the hearings.

1632 Some of the medication used to treat psychiatric conditions have harsh side effects. (ECF No.

1633 1757 at 241). Because of these side effects, monitoring is required. Id. One of the biggest

1634 revelations in the hearings was Dr. Stewart’s testimony that “[i]t's rare when someone [on

1635 psychiatric medication] is being seen every 30 days [I’ve] [f]ound examples of people being seen

1636 -- of medications being routinely written for anywhere from two to six months.” (ECF No. 1757

1637 at 243). This is a significant problem and one that must be addressed immediately. Given the

1638 testimony at the hearing, the Court finds that the directives related to inmates on psychiatric

1639 medication are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the

59

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 60 of 63

1640 Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

1641 right.

1642

5. Treatment plans

1643

1644

a. All class members shall have a treatment plan that is individualized and

1645

particularized based on the patient's specific needs, including long and short term

1646

objectives, updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest

1647

extent possible.

1648

1649

b. Mental health evaluations shall be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that

1650

individuals in need of treatment, or re-evaluation of existing treatment, are

1651

evaluated without undue delay.

1652

1653

c. Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically

1654

necessary to assess the progress of the documented treatment goal and update the

1655

plan accordingly.

1656

1657

In addition to the reasons outlined in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Court

1658 emphasizes that it found the Defendants failed, in a systemic way, to properly create, update, and

1659 monitor the treatment plans. (ECF No. 2460 at 37-38; ECF No. 1905 at 80, Dr. Stewart found that

1660 in a majority of medical files he reviewed, the treatment plan used boilerplate language and did

1661 “not address the treatment needs of a particular mentally ill offender.”). Again, this problem has

1662 been caused, in large part, by the Defendants’ failure to address its staffing needs. The record is

1663 clear that treatment plans and evaluations are critical to the mental health care of inmates. As such,

1664 the Court finds that the directives related to treatment plans and evaluations are narrowly drawn,

1665 extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and are the least

1666 intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

1667

6. Compliance Requirements

1668

1669

a. A quarterly report created by IDOC shall certify each facility's compliance with the

1670

above requirements.

1671

1672

b. On a regular basis (no less than every 90 days), Defendants shall provide the results

1673

of their own quality assurance audit. These results shall include an accompanying

60

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 61 of 63

1674

certification of Defendants’ CQI Manager of whether compliance has been reached

1675

with Defendants’ quality assurance audit requirements.

1676

1677

c. The appointed independent monitor, Dr. Pablo Stewart, will monitor the

1678

Defendants’ compliance with this Order consistent with the monitor’s existing

1679

duties and functions.

1680

1681

d. Nothing in this Order relieves the Defendants of their obligations under the

1682

Settlement Agreement.

1683

1684

7. Timing

1685

1686

The terms of this permanent injunction shall remain in place for a period of two years from

1687 the date of this Order. See supra p. 16; see also e.g. 711-1 at 30.

1688

FINAL COMMENTS ON REMEDY

1689

1690

During the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants did not generally dispute their

1691 deficiencies in mental health care to inmates. (See ECF Nos. 2070, Order dated 5/25/2018, see

1692 also ECF Nos. 1757, 1758, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, transcripts of preliminary injunction

1693 hearing). During the permanent injunction proceeding, Defendants’ evidence was focused on

1694 changes that had occurred between the issuance of this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order and

1695 the permanent injunction hearing. (See ECF No. 2460, Order dated 10/30/2018; ECF Nos. 2370,

1696 2371, 2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, and 2378, transcripts of the permanent injunction

1697 hearing). However, Defendants also assert they are doing the best they can considering the market

1698 for mental health professionals. These positions are contradictory and problematic. The former

1699 highlights the fact that Defendants fail to act urgently without the Court’s intervention. As noted

1700 in this Court’s Order dated October 30, 2018, the Defendants have made some strides since the

1701 preliminary injunction hearing. In fact, during the permanent injunction hearing, Baldwin boasted

1702 about new avenues for staffing, including working with universities. Yet, exploring these

1703 opportunities has only recently occurred. The latter is a problem because the Defendants have far

61

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 62 of 63

1704 too often relied on their outside vendor for their staffing needs. Baldwin made this point clear

1705 during the hearing when he testified:

1706

Q. And so in January you knew that you were not providing the level of care

1707

desperately needed and to which these people are entitled?

1708

1709

A. We knew we had a problem, and we were working on a broad front to help

1710

address it. And we still are and will continue.

1711

1712

Q. But you can't tell me how it came to be that you had such a terrible problem in

1713

January of 2018 when you had made promises in May of '16 that, if they had been

1714

kept, wouldn't let you be in that situation, right?

1715

1716

A. Yes. We need to do -- we depended on our partner for filling vacancies.

1717

1718

Q. You depended on your partner -- Wexford -- to deliver care that you had

1719

promised? Is that what you're saying?

1720

1721

A. That's part of it. We also trained staff. We also hired our own behavioral

1722

health people in good numbers. And we have made, in my opinion, a reasonable

1723

effort to comply in most areas of the treatment for the mentally ill under our care.

1724

1725 (ECF No. 2354 at 76-77) (emphasis added).

1726

In the end, it was the Defendants’ decision to rely on Wexford to solve their problem. As

1727 this Court noted previously, the Defendants cannot shirk their constitutional obligations by

1728 delegating them to another. (ECF No. 2460 at 44). And now the Court must impose the directives

1729 above to avoid the continuance of the constitutional violations.

1730

Parenthetically, several times in their briefs and associated oral arguments, Defendants

1731 have noted that this Court has left the Settlement Agreement in place. While it is true the Court

1732 has found the Settlement Agreement remains, the reason for such is simple - the Parties agreed to

1733 do so. (See e.g. 711-1 at 30, “If the Court determines that Defendants are not in substantial

1734 compliance, with any provision of this Settlement Agreement at any time during the three (3) year

1735 period of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to such provision shall

1736 continue for the remainder of the three (3) year period or for a period to be ordered by the Court

62

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2633 Page 63 of 63

1737 of not more than two (2) years from the date of the Court’s finding that Defendants are not in

1738 substantial compliance.”). The Parties agreed to litigate certain portions of their dispute if

1739 compliance with the agreement did not occur – and only those portions were litigated. With respect

1740 to those areas, the Court has found Defendants were not in substantial compliance. The

1741 requirements imposed herein are those the Court finds are narrowly drawn, extend no further than

1742 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and are the least intrusive means necessary

1743 to correct the violation of the Federal right.

1744

1745

So ordered, this 22nd day of April 2019.

1746

1747

s/ Michael M. Mihm

1748

Michael M. Mihm

1749

U.S. District Court Judge

63

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 1 of 105

E-FILED
Monday, 03 December, 2018 02:50:50 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH

)

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.

)

Hawley

)

)

)

MIDYEAR REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 2 of 105
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………………… 4 METHODOLOGY/MONITORING ACTIVITIES ……………………………………… 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………. 9 DETAILED FINDINGS ………………………………………………………………….. 15 IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING ……………… 16 V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS ……………………………20 VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION ………………………………….. 24 VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW …………………………….. 25 VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS. 31 IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF………………………………………….33 X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE ………………………………………………………….. 35 XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING ………………………………………………….… 44 XII: MEDICATION.………………………………………………………………………. 46 XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION ………………………………………… 50 XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS ……………………………………………………….. 54 XV: SEGREGATION …………………………………………………………………….. 55 XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION …………………………………………………………... 67 XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES ……………... 75 XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS ……………………………………………………………. 79 XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY ………………………………………………………………. 81 XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION …………………………………………………84 XXI: STAFF TRAINING …………………………………………………………………. 85
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 3 of 105 XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS …………………………………….. 84 XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY …………………………………………….. 86 XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE ……………………………………….. 87 XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS ………………...95 XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM …………………….. 103 XXVII: MONITORING …………………………………………………………………... 104 XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING ………………………………………. 104 CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………….105
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 4 of 105
BACKGROUND
IDOC: IDOC consists of 29 adult correctional facilities. Among these are four maximum security facilities (including a facility for women), and two additional facilities for women. Four of the facilities have Reception and Classification units where inmates are received into IDOC. Three of the facilities, Logan, Joliet and Dixon, have Residential Treatment Units. The Joliet Treatment Center began receiving offenders on October 4, 2017 and as of November 24, 2018 has a census of 106. The Amended Settlement Agreement states that the Joliet Treatment Center’s census should be “at least 360”1 as of October 6, 2018. The RTU at Pontiac is not operating as of the submission of this report. The Amended Settlement Agreement states that the RTU at Pontiac is to open no later than July 6, 2018 with a census of 1692. All facilities have crisis care beds as well as having some form of segregation, including administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, and investigative status.
Settlement: The original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The Amended Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) was approved May 23, 2016. It covers a range of practices affecting inmates with mental illness or serious mental illness:
• Policies and procedures • Intake screening • Medication continuity on arrival • Referrals • Mental health evaluations • Crisis Intervention Team • Licensure • Inmate orientation • Treatment plans and updates • Psychiatric evaluations • Follow-up after discharge from specialized treatment settings • Staffing plans and hiring • Bed, programming, and office space for residential treatment units, inpatient
facilities, and crisis beds • Administrative staffing • Medication administration, documentation, evaluations, lab work, side effects
monitoring, informed consent, non-compliance follow-up • Enforced medication • Housing assignment notice and recommendations • Treatment, housing conditions, and out-of-cell time in segregation and
investigative status • Review of segregation terms length • Suicide prevention • Restraints for mental health purposes • Mental health care records and forms
1 Amended Settlement Agreement, page 12, section X(b)ii(C). 2 Id page 12, section X(b)ii(B)
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 5 of 105

• Confidentiality • Change of Seriously Mentally Ill designation • Staff training • Nondiscrimination in program participation • Records and medication continuity on inter-facility transfers • Use of force and verbal abuse • Mental health input into discipline • Continuous quality improvement • Terms of monitoring this Settlement • IDOC reporting
Deadlines: Deadlines in the Settlement range from immediate to the year 2020; this report calculates many deadlines from the Amended Settlement Agreement approval date of May 23, 2016. A number of deadlines on critical issues were contingent upon, and calculated from, the state budget approval date of July 6, 2017. The team reviewed each provision of the Settlement per the specific deadlines identified in the Settlement. Of note, there are many provisions for which the deadline is “as agreed upon” between the parties but for which the monitoring team did not receive a schedule of specific agreed-upon dates. For these particular issues, the assigned compliance ratings reflect the current status of the issues.
The following table lists the requirements in order of their deadlines to be accomplished. Of the 38 items with deadlines on or before November 22, 2018, 22 have reached Substantial Compliance. Ratings are also indicated for those items to be accomplished “in a reasonable time,” in the event that it is determined that a reasonable time is now at hand. A more detailed summary of the compliance status of all Settlement Agreement provisions can be found in the body of the report.

Amended Settlement Agreement provision

Timeline

Crisis Beds are to be outside Control Units (except Pontiac) Regional Director hires State employee at each facility to supervise State clinical staff, monitor and approve vendor staff Architectural plans to Monitor 12 Mental Health Forms in use Treating mental health professionals3 disclose information to patient Medical Records and medication transferred with patient Intergovernmental Agreement with Department of Health Services

May 2016
June 2016 June 2016
July 2016 July 2016 July 2016
August 2016 August 2016

Substantial Compliance?
No
Yes No
Yes Yes Yes
No Yes

3 Referred to throughout the Settlement Agreement and this report as MHP
- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 6 of 105

Medication delivery, recording, side effects monitoring, lab work, patient informed, non-compliance follow-up Propose any amendment to Staffing Plan Any objections to proposed amended Staffing Plan All policies/procedures/ADs specified in Settlement Agreement – drafts to Plaintiffs and Monitor
Confidentiality: records, mental health information, policies and training Behavior Treatment Program pilot Quality Improvement Manager hire Review Committees for SMI Disciplinary Segregation terms Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 8 hours out of cell time weekly Inmate Orientation policy and procedure Crisis beds at Pontiac moved to protective custody Suicide Prevention measures Physical Restraints measures Staff Training plan and program developed Discipline: policies related to self-injury Mental health staff Training plan and program developed Transfers: consults and notification Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 12 hours out of cell time weekly Staffing: quarterly hiring reports, meeting targets
Mental health referrals and evaluations Staffing to run RTU at Joliet Central office staff hires for policies and recordkeeping RTU Programming and Office Space Staffing hires – Dixon, Pontiac, Logan
RTU Bed Space
Inpatient Bed Space construction
Screening conducted with sound privacy Training for all State and vendor staff with inmate contact Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 16 hours out of cell time weekly MHP review within 48 hours after Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement placement Inpatient Facility – transfer ownership and expand, policies

August 2016
August 2016 October 2016 November 2016 (unless otherwise specified) November 2016

Not consistently No finding No finding No
No

November 2016 No February 2017 Yes February 2017 Yes

May 2016-May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017 May 2017-May 2018 Quarterly from October 2017 on November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 January 2018 January-July 2018 January-October 2018 JanuaryNovember 2018 May 2018 May 2018 June 2018-May 2019 July 2018

No
Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Not consistently No
No No No No No
No
Yes
Yes Yes No
No

November 2018 No

- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 7 of 105

Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 20 hours out of cell time weekly
Segregation and Temporary Confinement for mentally ill: housing decisions, MHP review, treatment and out-of-cell requirements Develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations Screening on arrival at reception Psychotropic medications continued on arrival, reviewed, and related documentation Inmate Orientation Treatment Plans Psychiatry Review frequency Follow-up after Specialized Treatment Settings Enforced Medication SMI Housing Assignment information and consultation Change of SMI designation only by treatment team (or treating MHP before teams are operating) Mental illness does not prevent access to prison programs Use of Force and Verbal Abuse
Discipline system conforms to AD 05.12.103 Discipline in RTU or inpatient is carried out in a mental health treatment context Quality Improvement Program implemented

June 2019-May 2020
May 2020
After IGA is signed Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time

Target date has not arrived Target date has not arrived Yes
Yes Not consistently Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes
No finding Some institutions No Yes
Yes

METHODOLOGY / MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This report was prepared and submitted by Pablo Stewart, MD, Virginia Morrison, JD, Reena Kapoor, MD, and Miranda Gibson, MA.
To accomplish the monitoring obligations, the monitoring team sought information in a variety of ways. The monitoring team conducted 18 site visits of 14 different IDOC facilities, where interviews of administrators, staff, and offenders were conducted. While on site, the monitoring team would meet with the administrative and clinical leadership of the facility and then tour the facility. The tour would include observing general population units, segregated housing units, crisis care units, infirmary areas including medical records and restraint rooms, working spaces for the clinical staff, group therapy areas (if present), as well as any other area associated with the provision of mental health services. The monitoring team also toured the Residential Treatment Units at Logan and Joliet. The Monitor personally inspected the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac on four separate occasions.

- 7 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 8 of 105

During the monitoring period, the Monitor was called as a witness by counsel for the plaintiffs during an Evidentiary Hearing before Judge Mihm and testified on August 30, 2018. The Court had issued a Temporary Injunction on May 25, 2018 regarding the provision of mental health care in the following five areas: Mental Health Crisis Watch, Control Unit Housing, Psychotropic Medication, Psychiatric Services and Treatment Plans. The Monitoring Team made a concerted effort to focus on these issues prior to the Evidentiary Hearing and to prepare a separate report detailing its findings. In fact, the Monitoring Team made 11 facility visits consisting of a total of 15 days between June 12 and August 8, 2018. On October 30, 2018, the Court issued a Permanent Injunction regarding the following areas: Medication Management, Mental Health Treatment in Segregation, Mental Health Treatment on Crisis Watch, Mental Health Evaluations and Mental Health Treatment Plans. The Department was further ordered to submit to the Court an action proposal to address these deficiencies.
During the course of the most recent Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitor observed the testimony of the Director, the Chiefs of Mental Health & Psychiatry, Amy Mercer-Elaine GedmanWilliam Elliot from Wexford Health, Stateville Mental Health Authority Dr. Mirsky and Jack Yen, M.D., Telepsychiatrist. Various aspects of their testimonies will be referenced in this midyear report. The Monitor also met with counsel for the plaintiffs on several occasions. The Monitor received and considered reports prepared by counsel for the plaintiffs regarding IDOC’s response to the Settlement Agreement, as well as receiving and considering reports prepared by counsel for the defendants. The Monitor personally reviewed numerous court filings by various class members as well as attempting to interview these individuals. Of note, over the course of the monitoring period, the various members of the monitoring team interviewed and reviewed the medical records of several hundred offenders. This number of offenders evaluated represents a sufficiently robust sample of the mental health population of the IDOC. Therefore, the opinions presented in this monitoring report are based on a substantial-sized clinical sample of offenders.
In advance of the site visits, a variety of materials were requested. These materials included policies, procedures, training materials, a variety of clinical data, internal audits and reports, inmate grievances, incident reports, various logs, and other materials. IDOC was responsive to the requests of the Monitoring Team. The Monitoring Team has made every effort to include the most up to date data in this report.
Monitoring began immediately following the submission of the Second Annual Report on May 27, 2018. The monitoring team, once again, was purposefully kept small in consideration of the budgetary issues facing Illinois in general and IDOC in particular. The rates of compensation were also purposely kept in the lower range.
The monitoring team made the following site visits during the current reporting period:

Centralia

Graham

Illinois River

Joliet

7/20 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

7/16-7/17 Ms. Morrison

7/23 Dr. Kapoor

10/22 Dr. Kapoor

Lawrence

Logan

Menard

Pinckneyville

- 8 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 9 of 105

7/19 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson
Shawnee

6/27 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson
Stateville

6/25 and 10/17 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson Vienna

10/16 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson
Western

7/23 Ms. Gibson

6/25-6/26 (proper) Dr. Kapoor

8/6-8/8 Ms. Morrison

7/18-7/20 Ms. Morrison

10/11-10/12 (NRC) Ms. Morrison
Pontiac 6/26 and 10/18 Dr. Stewart 6/12, 9/11, 9/12 Dr. Stewart and Ms. Gibson

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As noted above, there has been a tremendous amount of litigation during this reporting period. The Monitoring Team found that IDOC was not meeting the requirements of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction of May 25, 2018. The findings of the Monitoring Team regarding these areas will be provided in the appropriate subsections of this report. The findings of the Monitoring Team regarding other areas of the Amended Settlement Agreement will also be detailed below. I refer the reader to the various subsections of this report for a comprehensive description of IDOC progress, or lack thereof, towards achieving compliance with the requirements of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
The Department is critically understaffed. This includes both clinical an custody staff. This lack of staff is the main contributing factor to the poor quality of the mental health care4 provided to the mentally ill offenders within IDOC. There are isolated areas of the mental health care system that are better than others, such as the Joliet Treatment Center (JTC), the STC at Dixon and the trauma-informed/gender specific treatment programs at Logan. Although the quality of the care provided at JTC generally meets the requirements of the Amended Settlement Agreement, the census of this unit is well under a third of what is currently required. That is, the census as of November 24th is 106 and not the 360 that is required. In discussions with IDOC leadership why the census at the JTC is so low, the response is that the staff of JTC needs “protection” (from having to take on a larger census) or words to that effect. I suspect the actual reason is a lack of staff. This unacceptably low census at the JTC coupled with a male census of only 10 at Elgin and the absence of a functional RTU at Pontiac result in the various facilities including, but not limited to, Menard, Pontiac, Pinckneyville, and Stateville Proper having to house and attempt to treat exceedingly mentally ill offenders at their facilities. The treatment needs of this particular group of mentally ill offenders surpass what can be safely provided at these facilities. This is an exceptionally dangerous situation which puts staff and offenders at life-threatening risk. The Monitor shared this same concern with the Director on June 26, 2017. The fact that the census at the JTC is only 106, almost 18 months after my discussion with the Director, is emblematic of the
4 I use this term to encompass the entirety of services provided to the mentally ill offenders currently housed in IDOC.
- 9 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 10 of 105
difficulties that IDOC has had in meeting its responsibilities under the Amended Settlement Agreement.
The fact that IDOC is currently capable of only providing a small cohort of seriously mentally ill offenders with the care they require has a ripple effect throughout the Department. That is, it contributes to self-injurious behaviors, staff assaults, use of force incidents, administration of involuntary medication, restraint use and excessively long stays in Crisis where mentally ill offenders do not receive adequate emergency care. Also, the Monitoring Team has found that these seriously mentally ill offenders are often just left unattended in segregated housing units, where they are allowed to “refuse” to participate in out-of-cell activities.5 The net result of all of this is that the Department, by not providing an appropriate level of care to a large number of seriously mentally ill offenders, is creating a large cohort of offenders with worsening mental health symptoms and acting out behaviors. That is, the Department is creating its own problems which it is currently incapable of addressing. This downward spiral can only be addressed by a large infusion of clinical and custody staff, the opening of the RTU at Pontiac and bringing JTC and Elgin up to full capacity.
Finally, as noted above, the Department demonstrates an inability to provide the majority of seriously mentally ill offenders an appropriate level of mental health care. That is, seriously mentally ill offenders are routinely held at facilities that lack the ability to adequately care for them. The Monitor has regularly observed that this situation contributes to an “us versus them” mentality. The “us” being custody staff, and at times the mental health staff, and the “them” being the seriously mentally ill offenders. This phenomenon is most readily observable at Pontiac. Throughout the first 2 ½ years of the Amended Settlement Agreement, Pontiac has consistently led the Department in use of force incidents, restraint use, crisis stays and court filings documenting the regular physical abuse of mentally ill offenders. The Monitor has personally observed this throughout his tenure.
As Monitor, I have gained a much deeper appreciation for some of the underlying reasons for the culture of abuse and retaliation that exists at Pontiac. This appreciation includes the fact that the custody staff at Pontiac work in a very stressful environment. This constant stress leads to custody staff suffering from vicarious and secondary trauma.6 These medically recognized conditions result in acting out behavior on the part of the custody officer toward the offenders as well as contributing to health, marital and substance-related problems. This appreciation, however, does not excuse the culture of abuse and retaliation that exists at Pontiac. During the reporting period, I have had several communications with Chief Lindsay regarding this issue. She has repeatedly stated that “the Department takes allegations of abuse seriously.” I sincerely believe that her statement accurately reflects her earnest viewpoint. I firmly believe, however, that Chief Lindsay and other high ranking Departmental Officials7 do not possess an accurate grasp of the depth of the culture of abuse and retaliation that currently exists at Pontiac. The current leadership
5 An Administrative Review was completed by Jamie Chess, Psy.D. on 9/20/18 of a suicide that occurred at Dixon during the reporting period. Dr. Chess noted “While the offender routinely refused programming, he may have decided to participate if more diverse programming was offered.” 6 It remains my recommendation that the staff at Pontiac receive treatment directed at their trauma-related disorders. 7 Director Baldwin testified at the most recent Evidentiary Hearing “I disagree without reservation of his (Dr. Stewart’s) opinion of Pontiac. I thought that was inappropriate.” Transcript of the testimony of John Baldwin, August 27, 2018, page 112, lines 12 &13.
- 10 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 11 of 105

at Pontiac, including the Deputy Director of the Central District, have not been able to correct this situation. This situation cannot be solved until such time as Department Leadership admits that there is a problem. This starts with Director Baldwin. I am available at any time to meet with the Director to discuss this issue. I also respectfully invite Director Baldwin to tour Pontiac with me so he can observe this situation from my perspective.
Unless this situation is addressed in an expeditious manner, there will continue to exist a considerable risk of serious injury and death to both mentally ill offenders and staff at Pontiac and other facilities. This includes all facilities that are forced to maintain mentally ill offenders whose treatment needs exceed that which can be safely provided.
A summary of compliance findings follows:

Requirement
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
(IV)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (IV)(f) (IV)(g)
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
(V)(a) (V)(b), (c) (V)(d) (V)(e) (V)(f), (g) (V)(h), (i) (V)(j)

Compliance Status
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance No rating Substantial compliance Non-compliant Non-compliant
Overall: Non-compliant Subfindings supporting overall finding: Non-compliant Substantial compliance No rating Substantial compliance Non-compliant Substantial compliance Non-compliant

VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
(VI)(a), (b)

Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance

VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW

Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:

- 11 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 12 of 105

Requirement (VII)(a), (b), (c), (d)
(e)

Compliance Status Non-compliance Substantial compliance

VIII: TRANSITION FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
(VIII)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii)

Overall: No rating Subfindings supporting overall finding: No rating

IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
(IX)(a), (b) (IX)(c) (IX)(d), (e) (IX)(f)

Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Non-compliance No rating Substantial compliance No rating

X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
(X)(a) (X)(b)(i), (ii) (X)(c)(i), (ii) (X)(d), (e), (f), (g) (X)(h) (X)(i)
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
(XI)(a), (b) (XI)(c), (XI)(d)
XII: MEDICATION
(XII)(a) (XII)(b)

Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Target date not arrived Substantial compliance
Overall: Non compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Non compliance Substantial compliance
Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Non-compliance

- 12 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 13 of 105

Requirement (XII)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
(v), (vi) XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
(XIV)(a), (b), (c)
XV: SEGREGATION
(XV)(a)(i) (XV)(a)(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi), (vi)(sic) (XV)(a)(vii) (XV)(b)(i),(ii), (iii), (iv) (v), (vi) (XV)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) (XV)(c)(v) (XV)(c)(sic) (XV)(d)

Compliance Status Non-compliance Substantial compliance
Finding: Previous findings of substantial compliance remain for 15 institutions No finding for 14 institutions
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Non-compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Non-compliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance Target date not arrived

XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION (XVI)(a), (b)

Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Non-compliance

XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL Overall: No rating

HEALTH PURPOSES

Subfindings supporting overall

finding:

(XVII)(a) (XVII)(b),(c) (XVII)(d)

Insufficient data to arrive at a rating Substantial compliance No rating

XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS (XVIII)(a)

Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Non-compliance

- 13 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 14 of 105

Requirement (XVIII)(b)
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
(XIX)(a) (XIX)(b) (XIX)(c),(d)
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION XXI: STAFF TRAINING
(XXI)(a), (b), (c)
XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS

Compliance Status No rating
Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: No rating Non-compliance Non-compliance
Finding: Substantial compliance
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance
Finding: Substantial compliance

XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
(XXIII)(a), (b), (c)
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE

Overall: No rating Subfindings supporting overall finding: No rating
Finding: Non-compliance

XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
(XXV)(a),(b) (XXV)(c) (XXV)(d)
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(XXVI)(a), (b)

Overall: Non-compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Non-compliance Substantial compliance Non-compliance
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance

- 14 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 15 of 105

Requirement XXVII: MONITORING

Compliance Status Finding: Non-compliance

XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING Finding: Substantial compliance

DETAILED FINDINGS
This Section details the Monitor’s findings for each provision of the Settlement.
Overall structure: This Section is organized along the same structure as the Settlement; each major section below corresponds with a substantive section of the Settlement. That said, the Settlement includes provisions that appear multiple times across different sections. The Monitor attempts in this report to address each substantive requirement in that section of the Settlement where it appears.
Compliance with specific provisions of policies or law incorporated by reference: Unlike the Settlement itself, the report lays out the specific provisions of the various Administrative Directives (“ADs”), administrative code (“Code”), or the Mental Health Standard Operating Protocol Manual (“Manual” or “SOP Manual”) that are incorporated by reference in the Settlement. This significantly lengthens the report, but it is critical that the monitoring team evaluates these substantive requirements, especially given that many of them are central to providing the kind of treatment, out-of-cell opportunities, conditions, and protection from harm contemplated in the Settlement. For example, it is in the ADs and the Manual that one finds detailed requirements on suicide prevention, including crisis placement, crisis intervention teams, and suicide reviews. However, the team will apply the compliance/non-compliance rating only to the provision of the Settlement, not to individual provisions of ADs or the Manual or Code incorporated by reference. In this way, IDOC may be out of compliance with one or two provisions of the cited AD, for example, but, depending on the severity (including the importance of the particular provision of the AD) or how widespread that non-compliance is, nonetheless may be in substantial compliance with the provision of the Settlement.
Compliance ratings: As discussed above, the team institutes the “Substantial Compliance” and “Non-compliance” ratings for each provision, as specified in the Settlement. In actual fact, these may mask true performance. In practice, IDOC has made limited progress on a number of requirements. These possibly could be more accurately described as “partially compliant,” but by the terms of the Settlement, those provisions must be found in Non-compliance.
Section II (t) of the Amended Settlement Agreement defines “Substantial Compliance” as follows: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances
- 15 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 16 of 105
in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOCwide or at specific facilities. For the purposes of this report, most compliance ratings will be IDOCwide. This was done because the changes to the mental health delivery system contemplated in the Settlement represent a major shift in both the clinical care provided to the offenders and the overall culture of the IDOC. As the monitor of this seismic shift for IDOC, to date, I felt it more appropriate to consider system-wide compliance prior to evaluating the compliance of specific facilities. Two years of reviews have yielded enough data to assess certain practices, and specific facilities have begun to reach substantial compliance for some requirements. Most Settlement Agreement provisions are complex with many factors to fulfill, so the substantial compliance findings are few, but this is an important step forward.
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
Based on previous reviews of all reception centers, and a recent review of the site that handles the great majority of intakes, IDOC is in substantial compliance with most components of the Screening requirements. There is a good infrastructure in place to screen offenders on the date of arrival. Screenings take place in private offices, employ the required form covering the required topics, and include records review when available. All screeners reportedly have clinical licenses or are supervised by the regional administrator.
NRC psychiatrists tend to go beyond the requirements and conduct a full evaluation on the day of arrival for patients with documented psychotropic medication orders. For those patients, orders to continue medication are written timely and all observed modifications were clinically appropriate with clinical notes about discussing with patients the necessary facts. Some orders were filled timely, while a few patients experienced a three-day delay in receiving their medication.
These medication practices have been uneven in the reception centers in the recent past, so more of a track record is needed to establish substantial compliance with this subsection.
Other areas of concern are some screeners appearing to omit some screening questions, the absence of many records from jails or previous IDOC incarcerations, and the time to psychiatry review where patients report a recent history of medication but do not have documentation. While some of these go beyond the letter of the Settlement, the monitoring team encourages improved practice as a matter of patient safety and good clinical care.
(IV)(a): Specific requirement: All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at pg. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual
- 16 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 17 of 105
(incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101(II)(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100 (II)(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
Findings: While IDOC operates four reception centers, fully 74% of the intakes take place at Stateville Northern Reception Center (“NRC”).8 The monitoring team has reviewed all reception centers in past reporting periods; during this term, the team concentrated on NRC. NRC staff described the systems to ensure that screenings take place on the date of arrival; have designed an extensive, efficient physical plant layout to facilitate that; and dedicate the vast majority of their MHP resources to this responsibility. The monitoring team observed three different MHPs conducting screenings concurrently and they followed the system, although it was of concern that two screeners omitted some of the questions. In the monitoring team’s chart reviews, each file contained the standard screening and it appeared that they were all timely. The amount of recorded detail varied significantly, but was adequate or better in most cases.
(IV)(b): Specific requirement: The mental health screening conducted upon admission to IDOC shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional [MHP]9 and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement.
Findings: The monitoring team has observed at all reception centers that the individuals conducting screening are MHPs and they consistently use the required form. During the current monitoring period, two of the five MHPs at NRC reportedly do not have clinical licenses and had been working prior to this Settlement Agreement. The regional administrator, a psychologist, indicated that he supervises them weekly.
(IV)(c): Specific requirement: Offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
Findings: The monitoring team did not review this requirement during the monitoring period. In previous periods, the team has observed good practice at a number of IDOC facilities.
(IV)(d): Specific requirements: In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
Findings: The monitoring team previously determined that all reception centers conduct
8 Data provided by IDOC legal counsel indicate there were 8,987 intakes to IDOC from June through October 2018 and that 6,636 of those were processed at NRC. 9 The Settlement uses MHP to indicate Mental Health Professional. This report adopts that convention as well.
- 17 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 18 of 105
screenings with sound confidentiality. By observation of three mental health staff conducting screenings in offices with the doors closed and no other persons present in the rooms, the team reconfirmed that this practice continues at NRC.
(IV)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
Findings: In the October 2018 Quarterly Report the Department correctly states that they are in compliance with this requirement due to their having policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
(IV)(f): Specific requirement: Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
Findings: As noted, IDOC does have this policy in place. NRC psychiatrists have an office in the same area where other screening functions take place, and psychiatrists review many offenders on the day of arrival. Reportedly, it is common for psychiatrists to conduct their full evaluation then, and the monitoring team’s chart review results were consistent with this.
Among the charts reviewed, about one-third of the caseload patients arrived with a current psychotropic prescription. Orders to continue medication were issued timely. About half of the medication orders remained the same. The other half were modified in a clinically appropriate way, in the view of the Monitor, and the psychiatrists documented the rationale and having discussed with the patient the items described in this requirement. For some patients, the medications were also delivered timely, while a few patients experienced a three-day delay before receiving the medication.
This is a strong showing by NRC. Since the monitoring team has observed noncompliance at NRC and other reception centers up through the Second Annual Report, this report will note NRC’s progress but this does not yet reach the level of a substantial compliance finding. This is an area where “partially compliant,” would be the most accurate description, but given the findings options in the Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team must find performance on this requirement noncompliant.
While this requirement is limited to patients arriving with a current prescription, it is also common that patients self-report a recent history of psychotropic medication but do not have documentation. In this situation, some patients at NRC see psychiatrists quickly and have their medications restarted, while others in the team’s chart reviews were not seen for four to six weeks.
- 18 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 19 of 105
The monitoring team encourages IDOC to consider means to shorten this time to psychiatric review.
(IV)(g): Specific requirement: Screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). The screening process shall also include review of the records which accompany the offender.
Findings: The monitoring team has previously verified these components of the screening. Observed practice at NRC was consistent with past findings.
By observation during this and previous monitoring periods, mental health staff do review, as part of the screening, the records that accompany the offenders. Significant problems, however, continue to negatively affect the Department’s ability to fully comply with this requirement. As described in previous Monitors’ reports, it is problematic that a substantial number of offenders arrive without records. For example, in the Assistant Monitor’s chart sample in October, 65% did not include previous records. NRC and regional staff report significant improvement in the frequency with which Cook County—one of the largest sources of intakes—now provides health records. A number of other counties are less successful. When offenders return on a parole violation, their IDOC records remain at the last facility at which they were housed. While there is no current practice to seek or transfer those records for reception center staff’s use, IDOC staff began problem-solving conversations with the monitoring team on point, and IDOC’s quarterly reports notes internal discussion of options as well.
The absence of records is problematic not only for screening but because a large proportion of the mental health caseload remains onsite long enough to need treatment. During the week of the monitoring visit, for example, 40% of the patients had been on the caseload longer than 30 days,10 the minimum point for psychiatric follow-up
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
Summary: The Department has reduced its backlog of mental health evaluations to 231 from over 500 at the time of the 2nd Annual Report. This current number remains unacceptably elevated. Self-referrals as well as referrals from staff and “credible outside sources” are occurring although the required record keeping is not being consistently accomplished. Mental health evaluations are generally not being performed at NRC, most likely due to staffing problems. There is very credible evidence that custody staff continue to insert themselves between the mentally ill offenders and the Crisis Intervention Team.
10 These patients, of course, had been onsite longer than that.
- 19 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 20 of 105
(V)(a): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.
Findings: In the October 2018 Quarterly Report the Department correctly states that the existence of a backlog of mental health evaluations is better reported in subsection V(f). Due to the tremendous backlog noted at the time of the 2nd Annual Report, however, it was also reported in this subsection. The backlog at the time of the 2nd Annual Report was over 500 cases. In the opinion of the Monitor, this number was indicative of inadequate “mental health evaluation or response in case of an emergency shall be timely provided.(emphasis added)” The Department has made great strides in reducing the backlog to 231 as of November 16, 2018. Although 231 is unacceptable, this smaller backlog suggests that the Department’s timeliness has improved but not enough to warrant a rating of substantial compliance. This backlog, along with a number of others, was reduced through use of overtime. This is a commendable short-term effort that puts tasks on a better footing; it is not indicative, however, that conditions have significantly changed and would support timely practice in the future.
(V)(b): Specific requirement: Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
Findings: The monitoring team did not perform an analysis of self- and staff referrals during this reporting period, apart from staff referrals generated by reception center screening. In previous monitoring, the team has found that patients and staff are making referrals and employ these forms. A rating of substantial compliance will be assigned based on this past performance coupled with the reception center data.
(V)(c): Specific requirement: IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
Section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) provide:
Referrals for mental health services may be initiated through staff, credible outside sources such as family members, other offenders or self-reporting.
(a) To ensure proper handling of requests from credible outside sources, the Department shall ensure mail room staff and facility operators, gatehouse staff and other staff who may come in contact with family members, visitors or other interested persons are aware of procedures for receiving and addressing inquiries regarding referrals for mental health services. Additionally, the contact information and procedures by which outside sources may refer offenders for mental health services shall be provided on the Department’s website.
(b)The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall ensure a procedure for referring offenders for mental health services is established.
(1) Referrals from staff shall:
- 20 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 21 of 105
(a) Be initiated on the Mental Health Services Referral, DOC 0387; (b) Be submitted to the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management through the chain of command; and (c) Include a copy of the Incident Report, DOC 0434, if applicable.
(2) The facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in the offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others, if not treated immediately.
(c) Procedures for self-referrals by offenders for mental health services shall be provided in the offender handbook. The offender will be encouraged to submit their requests on the Offender Request, DOC 0286.
Findings: The Department has the required referrals procedures. As reported in the 2nd Annual Report, as well as prior reports, the aspects that have been monitored are being properly implemented.
(V)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
Findings: The charts reviewed at NRC this monitoring period contained examples of people with a record of mental health treatment as well as those who self-reported a history but it was not documented. A referral was issued for each man; the monitoring team did not encounter examples where referrals were not made.11 The services provided did not include the Mental Health Evaluation conducted by an MHP. All men were seen by a psychiatrist, who completed either a full psychiatric evaluation or a detailed progress note. There were, however, timeliness issues that will be discussed in subsection (f), below.
Additionally, the Monitoring Team exclusively reviews the records of offenders on the mental health case load. Due to this fact, the Monitoring Team is unable to accurately report on this subsection. This would require a comprehensive review of offenders not on the mental health case load to determine if individuals with a “known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation or referral.” Given the records that the Monitoring Team has reviewed, this requirement is generally being met. However, the data obtained from a review of only those offenders on the mental health case load is inadequate to correctly answer the question posed by this subsection. The Department will not receive a rating for this subsection at this time.
(V)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an
11 As described below, however, this is the nature of the charts reviewed; the sampling did not intentionally select charts to determine whether any referrals were overlooked.
- 21 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 22 of 105
offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests, which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
Findings: As reported in the 2nd Annual Report, the Department has developed this policy and procedure and the monitoring team has observed it being implemented to some extent. A number of IDOC facilities apparently do not have, or consistently use, a record-keeping mechanism.
(V)(f): Specific requirement: Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral.
Findings: Referrals for evaluation can be created at any institution. A substantial portion of those, of course, occur at reception centers, so the monitoring team concentrated this period’s review at NRC. The psychiatric caseload database maintained by staff showed that, at best, on the date of review, only 12% of patients due for a Mental Health Evaluation had received one.12 This was consistent with the team’s chart review; the team pulled only charts of men onsite one month or longer, and none contained this type of evaluation. Staff did prioritize more acute cases, and showed a much higher compliance rate with patients they found to need RTU level of care or to qualify as SMI. These results are not surprising given the staffing levels at this institution. With almost half of the MHP positions vacant, staff is taking sensible measures to prioritize, but this is a clear illustration that it is impossible to meet the mandates with the amount of staffing available.
All men in the chart sample were seen by a psychiatrist, who completed either a full psychiatric evaluation or a detailed progress note. A significant number were seen quickly, but 60% of the sampled patients were not seen until four to seven weeks after the referral.
The Wexford-produced backlog data for the full IDOC system, reporting later, in the week of November 16, 2018, is 231 for Mental Health Evaluations. Although the majority of the backlog, 136, is in the 1-14 day category, this remains a serious deficiency.
(V)(g): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.
Findings:
“IDOC 04.04.100 has been updated, with the approval of the Monitor since the original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The pertinent section of AD 04.04.100 which applies to this requirement is II (G)(4)(b)(3). It states “The facility Crisis Intervention Team shall (emphasis added) be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or
12 This is a very conservative reading of the data. The date of referral is not captured in the database, so this is measured not from the date of referral, but from the date the patient was put on the caseload (which could be the date of referral or a point substantially later than the referral). On the first date of the monitoring visit, 264 patients had been on the caseload for more than 14 days and only 31 are shown as having evaluations. The monitoring team spoke with several staff about the possibility of paper trail or data entry delays, but staff most knowledgeable about those aspects thought the database was an accurate reflection of practice.
- 22 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 23 of 105

urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior that may endanger themselves, if not treated immediately.”13
During the current monitoring period, the monitoring team has continued to receive complaints from plaintiffs’ counsel and from numerous offenders at a variety of facilities that custody staff act as gatekeepers for the Crisis Intervention Team. A particular egregious example occurred at Pontiac on September 12, 2018, when a mentally ill offender asked to speak with a member of the crisis intervention team who was evaluating someone on the same tier. The crisis intervention team member ignored the offender’s request and walked away. The offender then asked custody staff to have this person return because the offender wanted to hurt himself. The custody staff refused and the offender then cut his left arm and began banging his head which resulted in a serious laceration above his left eye. A Lieutenant and Major were eventually called and the offender was evaluated and placed on a crisis watch.
These complaints have been present throughout the duration of the Settlement Agreement. As Monitor, my opinion is that these complaints of gatekeeping by the custody staff are compelling. I once again request that Departmental Leadership address this very serious issue.
(V)(h): Specific requirement: The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(3).
Findings: This requirement is being met at all of the facilities monitored.
(V)(i): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by mental health professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D./Psy.D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.
Findings: The Monitor Team has found that this requirement is being met at all of the facilities monitored.
(V)(j): Specific requirements: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The deadline for fully implementing the requirements of this section of the Amended Settlement Agreement was November 22, 2017. The Department has made progress in meeting these requirements but remains short of this goal due in large part to the backlog of mental health evaluations present at the time of this report.

13 2nd Annual Report, pages 23 & 24.

- 23 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 24 of 105
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
Summary: As previously reported, IDOC continues to fulfill the requirements of this section of the Settlement. The required policy has been in place since at least 2013. Each facility has produced its own orientation manual which satisfy this requirement. A comprehensive orientation program was present at each facility monitored.
(VI)(a): Specific requirement: In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, § II (G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.
Findings: IDOC does not utilize a department-wide orientation manual. Each facility has produced its own orientation manual. The Monitor has previously reviewed the orientation manual from each facility and found them to fulfill the requirements of this section.
(VI)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: AD 04.01.105, Facility Orientation, effective 7/1/13, governs facility orientation. This AD states “The Department shall establish a comprehensive orientation program for incoming offenders at all correctional facilities that shall include the distribution of an orientation manual prepared in a format consistent throughout the Department.” A comprehensive orientation was present at each facility monitored.
VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
Summary: The Department is not meeting its requirements regarding treatment planning for outpatient, crisis watch or segregation status offenders. Even at the JTC, the practice is for the psychiatrist to complete the initial treatment plan with the monthly updates completed by the multidisciplinary treatment team. Treatment planning forms are not being completely filled out.
The Department is also not meeting its requirements regarding the timely follow up of mentally ill offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications except at the JTC. Telepsychiatry is not being utilized in an evidence-based manner. Additionally, Telepsychiatric providers are not operating under a protocol or an Administrative Directive.
After 30 months of the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Department still clings to an erroneous notion regarding the meaning of the word “collectively.”
(VII)(a): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section
- 24 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 25 of 105
(II)(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.
Findings: The monitoring team, in preparation of the August 2018 Evidentiary Hearing, reviewed over 100 treatment plans of class members and found that these plans were often completed by a MHP or a psychiatric provider. The plans prepared by psychiatric providers typically only addressed medication. Similarly, those plans prepared by the MHP did not incorporate the offenders’ psychotropic medication needs.
Subsequent to the Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitoring team conducted numerous site visits and found:
• Pontiac: Little to no evidence of treatment plans being prepared “collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.” For example, plans were prepared by a MHP with the psychiatric provider signing off on these plans days to over a month later.
• Menard: None of the treatment plans reviewed showed evidence of multidisciplinary collaboration. Either the MHP or psychiatric provider completed the plan. In those cases where the psychiatric provider did sign off on the plans created by a MHP, it was accomplished several days after initial completion.
• Pinckneyville: Similar to Menard, treatment plans did not demonstrate evidence of multidisciplinary collaboration. Again, they were completed by either a MHP or a psychiatric provider.
• Stateville-NRC: initial crisis watch plans were created solely by MHPs, while general population plans were created solely by psychiatry; the disciplines did not sign off on each other’s plans. On the other hand, a slight majority of plans were reasonably welltailored to the individual, an improvement over the trend of generic plans seen in the system.
The Wexford-produced data from the week of November 16, 2018 found that there was a backlog of 390 treatment plans throughout the Department. Almost half of the total backlogged treatment plans is at Pontiac with 188.
A large part of the discussion regarding this subsection found in the October 2018 Quarterly Report revolves around the meaning of the word “collectively.” Throughout my tenure as Monitor, I have made it exceedingly clear that “collectively” means that all of the staff involved with the mental health care of a given offender meet together to discuss the treatment needs of the offender in question. As I reported in the 2nd Annual Report, my opinion regarding why the Department continues to fight this universally accepted meaning of the word “collectively” as it applies to treatment planning is due to the high volume of mentally ill offenders and severely inadequate numbers of staff to treat them. The Court in its Permanent Injunction Order of October 30, 2018 stated in part: “The evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing makes it clear that the lack of adequate staffing significantly impacts treatment planning.”14
14 Permanent Injunction Order, October 30, 2018, page 38.
- 25 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 26 of 105
There is no shortcut to mental health treatment planning. I have tried to work constructively with the Department on this issue by going on the record to say that the psychiatric provider may be present at these meetings via telepsychiatry. Based on the totality of the data presented above, the Department is not in compliance with this subsection.
(VII)(b): Specific requirement: The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on form 0284 or its equivalent.
Findings: Page 27 of the 2nd Annual Report states “it is also too early to determine if this new form15 will satisfy the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.” This was due to the fact that the Monitoring Team only had approximately four months to evaluate the implementation of this new form by the time of the submission of the 2nd Annual Report.
By late July, the Monitoring Team had reviewed over 100 treatment plans and found that nearly half were incomplete, not individualized, contained generic boiler plate language and were of overall poor quality. From August through October, treatment plans reviewed during site visits began to show improvement. While IDOC has further to go to satisfy this requirement, the observed progress is welcome.
The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states on page seven “There is no question Form 0284 requires entry of each of the areas in this subsection16 and IDOC is, therefore, in compliance with this subsection.” The Monitoring Team’s review found that this form is not always fully completed, or contains information of little value to that patient, so the mere presence of the various requirements of this subsection on a form does not equate with compliance if those fields are not populated with meaningful information.
(VII)(c): Specific requirement: Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes).
Findings: The Department was found to be noncompliant with this subsection on the 2nd Annual Report. During site visit reviews in this reporting period, 72% of charts met this requirement. In a number of cases, plans were updated multiple times during a year; Western Illinois was particularly strong in this regard.
Specific requirement: Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: The Monitoring Team did not review any treatment plans for offenders at the inpatient level of care for this report.
15 Modification to Form 0284 as approved by the Monitor and effective February 1, 2018. 16 Subsection VII(b).
- 26 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 27 of 105
The Department began creating treatment plans for offenders in Crisis status in February 2018 by utilizing a new form17 that had been approved by the Monitor. The 2nd annual report noted that it was too early to determine if, by using this new form, the Department was in compliance with the requirements of this subsection. Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing in August 2018, the Monitoring Team reviewed 89 medical records of offenders who had recently been placed on Crisis status to determine if treatment plans were reviewed and updated upon entrance to Crisis. Treatment plans were only found in 32 of the medical records reviewed. Of those that were completed, the majority were only completed by a MHP. Psychiatry was only involved in 13 of the Crisis watch treatment plans.
Again, prior to the August 2018 Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitoring Team conducted a slightly different chart review to determine if treatment plans were being updated at the recommended intervals. This review of 124 medical records found, among other things, that treatment plans were not generally being updated upon discharge from crisis watch.
This chart reviewed didn’t exclusively look at offenders on crisis watch status, so the Monitoring Team conducted several site visits subsequent to the August 2018 Evidentiary Hearing to look more specifically at this issue:
• Pinckneyville: Initial crisis watch treatment plans were created by MHPs with the psychiatrist not involved in this planning process. In one case of an offender being on crisis watch for more than a week, his treatment plan was not updated.
• Menard: Initial crisis watch treatment plans were created but without evidence of multidisciplinary involvement. Only one offender had been on crisis for more than a week and his treatment plan had not been updated.
• Pontiac: Initial crisis watch treatment plans were created but without any psychiatric involvement. These plans were not being updated on a weekly basis.
• Stateville-NRC: In the Stateville-NRC sample, initial plans were still completed by either an MHP or a psychiatrist but there was no indication of collaboration. The content was of reasonable quality. It appeared there was one exception where no initial plan was generated. Discharge plans were much improved from the system norm; about half were generated in a multidisciplinary team meeting, while the other half seemed to reflect serial review of the plan. The content in almost half of the reviewed discharge plans was tailored to addressing root causes that could lead to readmission, and it appeared the plan was discussed with the patient in every case.
The monitoring team also conducted a systemwide study of crisis watch discharge treatment plans. This study compared practice at two points in time: the first month of the monitoring round and the most recent month for which data was available.18 While practice appeared poor in June, by September there were definite signs of improvement.
17 DOC0377 18 The team asked IDOC to provide a sample of discharge treatment plans, with the selection method specified, or all discharge treatment plans in institutions where the crisis watch census is typically low. It is not entirely clear that the selection method was followed, but IDOC did provide a substantial number of records. This analysis reviews the materials provided for June and September admissions.
- 27 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 28 of 105

Key aspects of good clinical practice are captured in the court’s injunctions and were used to assess these treatment plans: (a) presence of a treatment plan at or near discharge, which is updated to address the causes of admission for that patient and to prevent recurrence, (b) the plan is created by a multidisciplinary team, and (c) the plan is discussed with the patient.

In both months studied, there were records available from 24 IDOC institutions; the small number of remaining facilities indicated they did not have crisis watches during the month. In June, only a minority of records included a discharge-related plan; only 36% of the provided cases included such a plan, so a much smaller data set was analyzed. This issue occurred much less frequently in the September data, and was concentrated at three institutions. This suggests that discharge plans are being created more often, though the degree of improvement is unclear.19

Whether treatment plans contain meaningful treatment information has been a source of

concern throughout the monitoring. While such plans are still in the minority on crisis watch

discharge, incremental improvement is evident.

June

September20

Plans tailored to the patient’s reasons for 28%

31%

crisis watch and preventing recurrence

Plans partially reflecting the above;

28%

32%

largely these are boilerplate but with some

bearing on this patient

Inadequate plan

44%

27%

The best practice in creating well-done discharge treatment plans occurred at Hill, Illinois River, Jacksonville, Logan, Vienna and Western Illinois.

The largest improvement occurred with staff undertaking to create a plan in multidisciplinary teams. Where, in June, this clearly occurred as a joint enterprise in only 14% of the records, this practice was demonstrated in 47% of the records provided in September. This, of course, is still a minority and further improvement is needed, but this significant progress is commendable. The best practices in joint treatment planning were evident at Dixon, East Moline, Illinois River, Logan, Stateville and Stateville NRC, Vandalia, and Western Illinois.

19 In June, IDOC provided records responsive to this request for 118 crisis watches, but only 43 of them contained discharge treatment plans. It is unclear how much this reflects a failure to create plans and how much is explained by misunderstanding the data request, patient records being unavailable, crisis watch being current as of the data request and therefore it is premature for discharge plans, etc.
In September, IDOC provided records related to 143 crisis watches, 125 of which included discharge treatment planning in the expected form or in detailed progress notes. Again, it is unclear which of the foregoing reasons may explain the missing plans. Only Graham had a consistent pattern of demonstrating that both disciplines were involved in the discharge decision but no demonstration of any revised treatment plan. Joliet and Pontiac also showed a significant number of plans and a significant number of apparently missing plans. For these and other reasons, the monitoring team acknowledges that a substantial number of discharge plans are being created—more than the team has observed in previous monitoring periods—but the team did not analyze whether plans are being created for all crisis watch discharges. 20 Analysis omits records where a plan was missing, so does not total 100%
- 28 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 29 of 105
Additionally, IDOC encourages a practice whereby either an MHP or psychiatry provider produces the plan and the other reviews it and provides input later. The largest percentage of records in this study were handled this way in June; the practice continued in September but was greatly reduced in favor of direct team meetings in person or by phone or video conference.21 The Monitor strongly believes serial reviews are not good clinical practice and do not satisfy the requirement, but this practice does reflect a step in the direction of multidisciplinary treatment planning.
Finally, it does appear to be the norm for clinicians to discuss these treatment plans with the patients. Based on the patient’s signature on the plan, and/or a progress note describing the content of the patient-provider conversation, it appears patients were informed in at least 81% of the June records and 68% of the September records.22
Among those that were noncompliant, a few updated plans were untimely, though by a short period. In other cases, the patient had a number of crisis watches or other clinical changes that should have led to a treatment plan update but did not. This sample was limited, however, so it is unclear the extent to which it may be generalizable.23
Specific requirement: For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: Dr. Kapoor’s tour of the JTC revealed that monthly treatment plans were being completed. The treatment planning for the RTUs at Logan and Dixon were not reviewed during the current reporting period.
Specific requirement: For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: As noted above, the Monitoring Team reviewed 124 medical records to determine if treatment plans were being updated at the recommended intervals. Very few of these records demonstrated that treatment plans were “being reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status.” This review was not specifically directed at the treatment
21 In June, this appeared to be the practice in 60% of the treatment plans. In September, it appeared serial reviews occurred in 19%. The percentage of plans created solely by one discipline stayed steady. Therefore, the reduction in serial reviews shifted to an increase in multidisciplinary, real-time reviews. 22 In the remaining cases, there is no related documentation. It is unclear whether, and in what proportions, this reflects a practice issue or a documentation issue. Also, these signatures or progress notes are a good proxy for determining whether patients are informed but are not definitive; it is, of course, possible, that signatures are obtained without much discussion. It is unclear whether the lower percentage of documentation in September represents fewer compliant discussions or is explained by other reasons.
23 Among 75 charts reviewed at Graham, Stateville-NRC, Vienna, and Western Illinois, many belonged to patients who had been on the caseload less than one year since the last treatment plan. Thus, this analysis draws on 25 relevant charts.
- 29 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 30 of 105
planning in segregated housing units so the Monitoring Team looked explicitly at this issue during a number of site visits. The results obtained from the various site visits confirmed this overall finding:
• Pontiac: Treatment plans were not being completed within one week of placement on segregation status nor are they being reviewed and updated monthly.
• Pinckneyville: There was some evidence of treatment plans being reviewed and updated upon segregation placement but only by the MHP. These plans were not being reviewed and updated monthly.
• Menard: Treatment plans were not being reviewed and updated upon segregation placement or monthly thereafter.
• Stateville-NRC: Among the charts reviewed, only one contained a treatment plan within a week after placement, and that plan was fully generic without reference to the particular patient’s needs or the restrictive housing setting. A small minority of the reviewed patients had been in segregation more than five weeks, and they did not have updated plans.
• Also, a treatment planning backlog of 390 with 188 of them found at Pontiac, one of the Department’s primary segregation facilities, was reported on November 16, 2018.
(VII)(d): Specific requirement: Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:
(i) For offenders at the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.
(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.
(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days with no extension of the follow-up appointments.
Findings: The Department has had chronic difficulties satisfying the requirements of this subsection. This was largely reflected in the tremendous backlog of psychiatric appointments, both initial evaluations and follow ups. At the time of the submission of the 2nd Annual Report, there was a backlog of 3397 psychiatric appointments. I am pleased to report that this backlog has been reduced to 734 as of November 16, 2018, although this represents an increase of 265 since October 26, 2018. This reduction has been accomplished by an increased use of psychiatric providers, including telepsych. The October 2018 Quarterly Report accurately describes that I have encouraged Wexford to increase the number of Telepsychiatric providers. What the Quarterly Report omits, however, is that I am consistently on the record stating that telepsychiatry should be limited to the stable outpatient population. The Department is currently utilizing telepsych to
- 30 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 31 of 105
address all levels of care including crisis. I have never authorized this use of telepsychiatry. The Department also does not have an evidence-based protocol or an Administrative Directive for the proper use of telepsych. Although I am sincerely pleased with the reduction of the backlog for psychiatric appointments, the Department will continue to receive a rating of noncompliance for this subsection until such time that an approved evidence-based protocol and Administrative Directive for telepsych are created and implemented.
Prior to the most recent Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitoring Team reviewed 142 medical records of offenders who were being prescribed psychotropic medication. Only 64 of the medical records reviewed had evidence of psychiatric evaluations being completed per the requirements of this subsection.
Subsequent to the Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitoring team conducted numerous site visits and found:
• Pontiac: Numerous instances of new medications being prescribed for 3 months and routine medication orders written for six months.
• Menard: Numerous instances of new medications being prescribed for 3 months and follow ups not occurring in a timely manner.
• Pinckneyville: Numerous instances of new medications being prescribed for 3 months without timely follow up.
• Stateville-NRC: In a small set of general population patients onsite longer than 30 days, 70% were seen by psychiatry at 30-day intervals or more often.
• Dr. Kapoor toured the JTC and found that offenders were typically being seen every 24 weeks by a psychiatrist or nurse practitioner depending on clinical need.
(VII)(e): Specific requirement: Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.
Findings: The Monitoring team has literally reviewed thousands of progress notes written by MHPs following a clinical contact with SMI offenders. As stated in previous reports, there is no way to determine if progress notes are in fact written after each clinical contact. Due to the large number of progress notes found in the medical records of SMI offenders, it appears that the Department is satisfying the requirements of this subsection.
VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
Summary: The Monitoring Team did not conduct an analysis of the data regarding this requirement. The Department will not receive a formal rating. A formal rating will be assigned in the 3rd Annual Report.
(VIII)(a): Specific requirement: SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population
- 31 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 32 of 105
from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team. The Settlement provides a definition of “Specialized Treatment Setting”: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
Findings: The Department continues to meet the requirements of this subsection. Although the Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement, it remains unclear to what extent multidisciplinary treatment teams are involved in this process.
(VIII)(b)(i): Specific requirement: For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form, which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor.
Findings: At the time of the 2nd Annual Report, the followings facilities were in compliance with this requirement: Logan, East Moline, Pinckneyville, Illinois River, Stateville Proper and Menard. Given the attention devoted by the Monitoring Team to the obligations of the preliminary injunction, this requirement was only partially reviewed. Dr. Kapoor reported that the JTC was fully meeting this requirement. The staff at Menard, Pinckneyville and Pontiac reported that they are meeting this requirement.
Specific requirement: This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from crisis watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
Findings: Again, given the attention devoted by the Monitoring Team to the obligations of the preliminary injunction, the monitoring team did not review this requirement during this monitoring period. Staff at Menard and Pontiac reported that this is occurring.
(VIII)(b)(ii): Specific requirement: Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within 30 days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (F)(2)(c)(4)(c).
Findings: This requirement was not reviewed for this report
- 32 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 33 of 105

IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
Summary: The Department is not meeting its staffing requirements for the RTUs at Dixon, Logan and Joliet. Of note, the deadline for the opening of the putative RTU at Pontiac was 7/6/18. This deadline has not been met. The current staffing at Pontiac is significantly below the requirements called for in the Amended Staffing Plan of May 2016.
The Department is submitting quarterly hiring reports to the Monitor.

(IX)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates: Dixon Correctional Center and Logan Correctional Center – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date; Pontiac Correctional Center – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date.

Findings: All staffing levels are current as of 11/23/2018:

• Dixon:

Vacancies as of 4/20/18

o Mental Health Training Director- 1.00 FTE vacant

0.00

o Mental Health Unit Director-

3.00 FTEs vacant

3.00

o Post-Doc psychologist-

1.00 FTE vacant

0.00

o Pre-Doc psychologist-

2.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

o Staff psychologist-

1.975 FTEs vacant

2.97

o QMHP-

0.00 FTE vacant

4.00

o Recreation therapist-

2.00 FTE vacant

0.00

o BHT-

3.00 FTE vacant

1.00

o Psychiatrist-

5.250 FTEs vacant

5.20

• Logan:

o Mental Health Unit Director-

3.00 FTEs vacant

3.00

o Post-Doc psychologist-

2.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

o Staff psychologist-

2.00 FTEs vacant

1.00

o QMHP-

7.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

o Recreation Therapist-

1.00 FTE vacant

1.00

o BHT-

2.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

o RN-Mental Health-

2.00 FTEs vacant

1.00

o Psychiatrist-

3.137 FTEs vacant

4.41

• Pontiac:

o Mental Health Unit Director-

3.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

o Post-Doc psychologist-

2.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

o Staff psychologist-

1.0 FTE vacant

0.00

o QMHP-

4.00 FTEs vacant

2.00

- 33 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 34 of 105

o BHTso Psychiatrist-

2.00 FTEs vacant

0.00

3.725 FTEs vacant

4.15

Dixon and Logan had deadlines for meeting their staffing requirements on February 6, 2018. Pontiac’s deadline was July 6, 2018. The Department is clearly not meeting its staffing responsibilities for these three facilities. A review of this six-month data demonstrates that overall, little actual progress has been made.

(IX)(b): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Findings: All staffing levels are current as of 11/23/18:

Vacancies as of 4/20/18

o Mental Health Unit Director-

1.00 FTE vacant

0.00

o Post-Doc psychologist-

1.00 FTE vacant

1.00

o BHT-

1.00 FTEs vacant

1.00

o RN-Mental Health-

2.00 FTEs vacant

11.0

o Staff assistant-

1.00 FTEs vacant

0.00

o Psychiatrist-

1.50 FTEs vacant

4.50

The Joliet Treatment Center remains non-compliant regarding its staffing responsibilities, although they have made good progress in hiring mental health nurses.

(IX)(c): Specific provision: Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.
Findings: As noted in previous reports, the Defendants did not opt to proposed a staffing plan amendment in the early months of Settlement Agreement implementation.
(IX)(d): Specific requirement: To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: To date, the monitoring team has not encountered any examples of MHPs being required to deliver work other than provision of mental health services.
(IX)(e): Specific requirement: In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII,

- 34 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 35 of 105
infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.
Findings: The Quarterly Reports prepared by the Department contain hiring progress reports.
(IX)(f): Specific requirement: In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX.
Findings: As of the staffing report of 11/23/18 prepared by Wexford, only Centralia, Illinois River, Sheridan, Taylorville and Vienna are fully staffed. Of note, the Monitoring Team continues to opine that given the various backlogs, overall non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement and staff stresses observed during the site visits, even a “fully staffed” facility is “understaffed.” Also, the Monitoring Team is not aware of any extensions of the various staffing deadlines agreed to by plaintiffs’ counsel.
X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
Summary: The required number of RTU beds for male offenders have been identified. The reported RTU bed count is 1070, although this counts 422 beds at Joliet where the census is only 107. So, the actual bed count is 755. The RTU at Pontiac is not functioning at the time of this report. There is only 80 RTU beds for females out of the required 108. There are 15 “pre-inpatient admission program” beds at Logan. The Monitoring team is not clear what these beds are and if they should be counted against the 108 bed, RTU total. An analysis of the crisis watch data clearly demonstrated that there is an inadequate number of crisis beds within the Department.
The Department is not meeting its requirement for providing at least 20 inpatient beds for both male and female offenders. The census for these units as of 11/1/18 was 12 female and 10 males.
12%, or 349 out of a total of 1237, crisis admissions during the months of May through September 2018 exceeded the 10-day maximum length of stay criteria.
(X)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.
- 35 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 36 of 105
Findings: The Department is in compliance with this requirement.
(X)(b): RTU beds for male offenders
(i): Specific requirement: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
Findings: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately 626 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;
(B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: Melissa Jennings provided the Monitor with the following numbers on November 26, 2018:
• Dixon-RTU bed count of 648 due to 28 of its 676 beds being designate as inoperable. The deadline for additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space is July 6, 2018.
• Pontiac-No number was provided for RTU beds at Pontiac. The deadline for this requirement was July 6, 2018. Based on the monitoring team’s visits to Pontiac, this unit won’t likely be functional until 2019.
• IYC-Joliet-The deadline for the 360 RTU beds and programing space is October 6, 2018. The RTU bed count is reported to be 422. The census on November 26, 2018 was 107.
(X)(c): RTU beds for female offenders
(i): Specific requirement: IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108 female offenders at Logan CC.
Findings: RTU bed count is reported to be 80. There are an additional 15 beds designated as PIAP, “pre-inpatient admission program.” This PIAP is reported to be a higher level of care than an RTU.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:
- 36 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 37 of 105
(A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings:
(A) The deadline for creating RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders was February 6, 2018. The requirement has been met.
(B) The deadline for creating RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders is July 6, 2018. This requirement has not been met. The Monitoring Team will need to receive very specific details on what this PIAP is and does it count against RTU beds or inpatient beds.
(X)(d): Specific requirements: The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains an RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
Findings: The Monitoring Team inspected the RTU at the JTC during this reporting period. This RTU is meeting these requirements. The RTUs at Dixon and Logan will be inspected for the 3rd annual report. Hopefully, the RTU at Pontiac will be operating soon during the next monitoring period. Until that occurs, the Department will receive a rating of non-compliance for this requirement.
A review of the following data demonstrated that there continues to be substantial need for beds at higher levels of care. Indications include:
§ At least 12% of the crisis watches systemwide exceeded 10 days. That is, 350 admissions exceeded the point at which policies expect a patient usually to need more than the shortterm crisis stabilization and therefore to need a higher level of care.24 The need may be for inpatient care or for RTU, depending on the nature of the patients’ illnesses.
24 Data was compiled from crisis watch logs provided by IDOC for every institution from May through September. It was not feasible for IDOC to provide October data in time for inclusion in this analysis.
Those logs show 2,937 crisis watches. The length of crisis watches spanning two months (that is, beginning in one month and ending in another) are not always recorded; the monitoring team matched such stays where it could be reasonably inferred, but lengths of stay could not be determined for 6% of admissions; the analysis treated those as being within expected timeframes. Thus, all numbers in this analysis are very likely conservative.
The 12% that exceeded 10 days breaks out as follows: 3% stayed only 1 to 2 days longer, while 9% stayed substantially longer. The longest stays were evident across half of IDOC’s facilities; they were most concerning at Dixon, Lawrence, Stateville and NRC, Pontiac, and Graham. There were no apparent patterns across time.
- 37 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 38 of 105

Particularly egregious among those admissions were the two men who had been in crisis watch for 9 months and more than 1 year, and the 11 patients who had each been in crisis watch for 2 to 3 months.
§ There were also 147 patients in this period who had problematic, multiple admissions to crisis watch suggestive of a need for higher levels of care. In these cases, patients stayed in crisis watch up to 11 times in a few months, their stays were independently lengthy and/or added up to large portions of that span of time, and/or a pattern of worsening was evident (admissions coming closer together and/or lengthening over time).25
Although these cases were evident at more than half of IDOC’s facilities, they occurred with highest frequency at Dixon, Pontiac, Logan, Lawrence, Stateville/Stateville-NRC, Pinckneyville, and Illinois River. Some of these institutions are tasked with providing mental health services to the most severely impaired offenders in the Department. Several of these institutions house higher custody level inmates. These facts provide objective evidence regarding the lack of a sufficient number of higher level treatment beds.
IDOC Mental Health staff increased their referrals to higher levels of care during this monitoring period. This is likely a positive development stemming from a greater appreciation of the expectation to refer, as well as staff being encouraged by the greater number of beds that have come online. Staff recorded referring 216 patients26 during the five months reviewed.27 Most institutions had patients needing higher level of care during that period; only seven did not show the need and/or did not make referrals.28
By almost a 2:1 margin, staff make more referrals for patients who have not shown extensive crisis than for those who have. Referrals are not yet used as often as one might expect for patients with prolonged or repeated crisis watch stays. While there were 311 patients for whom crisis watch exceeded ten days29 or where multiple admissions were a concern, only 79 of those patients were referred to a higher level of care.

Institution Big Muddy River

Patients with extended Of those, how or multiple30 admissions many referred

4

0

Other referrals
0

Total higher level of care referrals31
0

25 This included most patients with three stays or more but excluded some where stays were short and spaced out over time. 26 This number may be lower than actual referrals as Dixon does not report any RTU placements it may make from its own population. 27 Each IDOC institution provided monthly logs of referrals, or reported that no referrals were made, for the period spanning May through September. 28 The facilities that did not refer patients to higher level of care during this monitoring period were: Big Muddy River, Decatur, Kewanee, Lincoln, Murphysboro, Southwestern, and Taylorville. Elgin is not included in this analysis as it is the highest level of care. 29 Some of these patients experienced more than one admission longer than 10 days 30 Includes only those patients fitting the criteria described above 31 This includes patients who had extended or multiple crisis watches and those who did not but were referred for other reasons
- 38 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 39 of 105

Centralia

3

Danville

7

Dixon

57

East Moline

2

Graham

7

Hill

4

Illinois River

13

Jacksonville

1

Joliet

5

Lawrence

27

Logan

20

Menard

10

Pinckneyville

24

Pontiac

60

Robinson

3

Shawnee

6

Sheridan

4

Stateville and

37

Stateville-NRC

Vandalia

2

Vienna

1

Western

17

Decatur, Kewanee, 0 Lincoln, Southwestern, Taylorville

0

3

3

7

0

7

1

1

2

1

1

2

6

1

7

1

4

5

7

11

18

1

2

3

0

0

0

7

3

10

5

30

35

0

10

10

7

2

9

8

16

24

0

2

2

2

3

5

2

0

2

9

39

48

1

0

1

0

1

1

16

6

22

0

0

0

As the numbers of referrals increase, so do the lengths of time to transfer and rejections. Where rejections previously appeared rare, there were 30 during this monitoring period. Only a

- 39 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 40 of 105
subset of entries recorded time to transfer (or rejection);32 in that group, 44% waited between one month and six months.
Lengths of time to decision and to transfer certainly suggest the need for more beds at these levels of care. In other corrections systems, an increase in rejections typically reflects either (1) that staff need a period to become accustomed to judging which referrals are appropriate, or (2) that the increased referrals surface previously unidentified need, and decisionmakers become more selective as they manage the need exceeding the available beds. The monitoring team encourages IDOC administration to monitor referral decision practices for which of these reasons, or other reasons, may be driving extended decision timelines and higher rate of rejections. Reviewing these practices early can help the administration choose the right interventions to prevent this from escalating and becoming an entrenched problem. The availability of, and access to, RTU and inpatient beds is one of the linchpins for whether the rest of the mental health system can come into compliance with its obligations.
Dixon RTU: As reported in the 2nd Annual Report: “At the time of the midyear report, mentally ill offenders were being offered approximately 6 hours per week of structured time and 12 hours per week of unstructured time. IDOC began reporting structured and unstructured outof-cell time for mentally ill offenders in segregation in January 2018. They are not currently reporting these hours for mentally ill offenders assigned to an RTU. The Quarterly Report of April 25, 2018 is silent regarding the number of out-of-cell hours offered and/or completed for mentally ill offenders assigned to an RTU. Similar to the reporting requirements for mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation, the Monitor will request that IDOC maintain this data for mentally ill offenders assigned to an RTU.”33 The Monitoring Team did not inspect the Dixon RTU during the current reporting period. Also, the Quarterly Report of October 2018 is silent regarding the number of structured and unstructured out-of-cell hours the offenders housed in the Dixon RTU receive.
Pontiac Mental Health Unit: The Monitor has received a variety of completion dates for the construction of the RTU at Pontiac. The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states “The construction at Pontiac and Dixon is nearly complete as of October 5, 2018. Substantial completion is expected by the end of November for both sites.” As stated above, the Monitoring Team did not inspect the Dixon RTU during the current reporting period. I personally visited Pontiac on 10/18/18. I observed the state of the construction of the RTU. The RTU still has a long way to go until completion. Regardless of when it is finally completed, there is currently no operating RTU at Pontiac.
Logan RTU: As reported in the 2nd Annual Report: “Documenting the out-of-cell time for the mentally ill offenders assigned to RTU level of care is similar to Dixon. That is, the out-of-cell time is reported as “offered” and not the actual number of hours of participation. The number of hours offered, however, does exceed the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement
32 Analysis was conducted on 104 referrals, as the majority of referrals did not contain all relevant dates. 33 2nd Annual Report, page 40.
- 40 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 41 of 105
Agreement.”34 The Monitoring Team inspected Logan on 6/27/18 but did not monitor this particular metric.
Joliet RTU: The offenders housed on the Joliet Treatment Center are receiving the prescribed amount of structured and unstructured out-of-cell time.
(X)(e): Inpatient beds
Specific requirement: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (‘IGA’) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget approval contingent date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
Findings:
• The deadline to make at least (emphasis added) 22 beds available for female offenders was 4/6/18. As of 11/1/18, there is a census of 14 females offenders in these beds.
• The deadline to make at least (emphasis added) 22 beds available for male offenders was 11/6/18. As of 11/1/18, there is a census of 10 male offenders in these beds.
The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states “Elgin is gradually increasing it population as appropriate and as allowed in the Agreement.” There is nothing in the Amended Settlement Agreement that allows the Department to drag its feet in meeting these 22 bed minimum requirements.
(X)(f): Crisis beds
Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement,
34 Ibid
- 41 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 42 of 105
offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
Findings: Certainly, IDOC facilities have established crisis beds. While the monitoring team previously has found good practice, with the exception of Pontiac, on the requirement to house crisis patients outside control units, there was a surprising uptick in the use of segregation cells for these patients. The logs of six institutions35 showed this practice, where previously the team has seen it at only two or three locations. Some of those facilities had only one to four such admissions—minimal in relation to their total admissions. Few recorded whether the patients were moved out of such cells within 72 hours. Absent that information, the team cannot definitively determine that those institutions remain in substantial compliance despite this minimal use of control unit cells, but it appears unlikely.
Others, however, were more concerning:
§ Pontiac had 62% of its crisis watches in North House, the segregation unit, and the monthly number increased over time. This affected 262 admissions.
§ Stateville proper housed 35% of its crisis watches in control units, affecting 27 admissions. § Robinson, similarly, housed 33% of its crisis watches in control units, albeit based on a
smaller crisis watch population. § Lincoln continued to find medical patient competition for the cells also needed for crisis
watch, so that 75% of its crisis watches were initiated in control units. These men were moved within the 72-hour window. § There is credible evidence that offenders on crisis watch were being housed in the segregation unit and moved to a non-segregation unit the day prior to Dr. Kapoor’s visit to the JTC. The Monitor has also received credible information that offenders on a crisis watch in North House at Pontiac, a segregation unit, would be moved to the infirmary on the day prior to monitoring visits.
When the need for overflow cells happens this frequently—and, in the case of Pontiac, Stateville, and Lincoln, for more than one year—this cannot be said to be exigent circumstances. This is especially true of the tricks the staff at the JTC tried to pull on Dr. Kapoor.
This illustrates many endemic challenges that the Department faces (including but not limited to): 1) there is an increase in the number of mentally ill offenders who require such services; 2) the current system of care is unable to properly identify and intervene with those mentally ill offenders prior to their requiring placement on crisis watch; 3) mentally ill offenders on a crisis watch receive insufficient and inadequate mental health care; 4) mentally ill offenders on a crisis watch are not able to be transferred to a higher level of care in timely manner; and, 5)
35 Big Muddy River, Illinois River, Lincoln, Pontiac, Robinson, Stateville-NRC / Stateville proper. Another 13 institutions did not record cell location data in a way that it could be analyzed; for a few of those, crisis watch placement is extremely rare—likelihood of control unit use is even lower—but that is not the case for all 13 institutions. The monitoring team has observed good practice at some of those institutions, and the team has not visited others. The Monitor is not making a finding as to those facilities, but given what appears to be backsliding on this requirement elsewhere, it is more difficult to be confident in facility practice without data.
- 42 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 43 of 105
there is an inadequate number of crisis cells within the Department.
Specific requirement: Section II (e) of the Settlement Agreement states in part: Crisis beds are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.
Findings: As noted in subsection X(D), during the months of May through September 2018, there were 1237 crisis watch admissions. 12% or 349 admissions exceeded 10 days. The Monitoring Team documented that:
• There is an absence of “aggressive mental health interventions.” • An inability to transfer mentally ill offenders to higher levels of care on a timely basis.
(X)(g): Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own ADs, forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement at Joliet and Logan. The Department will continue to receive a non-compliance rating for this requirement until such time as all of the construction at Dixon and Pontiac is completed.
(X)(h): Specific requirement: The treatment and other space required by subsections (d)(g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.
Findings: The deadlines for this requirement have not arrived.
(X)(i): Specific requirement: Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.
Findings: As previously reported, the Monitor received the required floor plans within the time frame specified in the Settlement. These floor plans are consistent with the requirements of the Remedial Plan.
- 43 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 44 of 105
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
Summary: The Department currently has three regional directors, a statewide quality improvement manager, a chief of psychiatry, three training staff and three office support staff.
There are currently three facilities without mental health authorities: Danville, Jacksonville and Shawnee.
(XI)(a): Regional Directors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.
Findings: As reported previously, IDOC filled these positions within the required time frame. They are all licensed psychologists:
• Dr. Patrick Horn, northern regional director, hired March 2014; • Dr. Luke Fairless, who replaced Dr. Sim, became the full-time central regional
director in January 2018; • Dr. Shane Reister, southern regional director, hired December 2014.
(XI)(b): Statewide Quality Improvement Manager
Specific requirement: IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This position was filled on 2/16/17, eight days before the deadline, by Dr. Sim. For the first 11 months he held this position, Dr. Sim was only devoting 0.25 FTE to the duties of Statewide Quality Improvement Manager. He began working full-time in this position on 1/16/18.
(XI)(c): Clinical supervisors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility
- 44 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 45 of 105
and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.
Findings: The October 2018 Quarterly Report states that Dixon, Hill, Joliet, Logan, Menard, Pinckneyville, Pontiac, Stateville and Western are filled by PSA-8Ks; Big Muddy, Centralia, Decatur, Elgin36, Graham, Illinois River, Lawrence, Lincoln, Murphysboro, Robinson, Sheridan, Southwestern, Taylorville, Vandalia and Vienna are filled by Social Worker IVs; East Moline, Elgin37, Kewanee and Stateville-NRC are also in compliance with appropriately licensed mental health professionals or psychologists in place.
The PSA-8K position at Danville remains vacant despite considerable efforts to hire; the Social Worker IV position at Jacksonville is also vacant despite efforts to hire; and, the Social Worker IV position at Shawnee is also vacant due to a recent departure. While the Stateville-NRC position is filled, the employee has given notice of retirement expected to take effect this month.
The seriousness of the lack of these mental health leaders in these three and potentially four facilities is more than enough for the Department to be found in non-compliance with section XI.
(XI)(d): Central office staff Specific requirement: IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facilityspecific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement. Findings: The October 2018 Quarterly Report describes the central office staff complement as the above-described regional directors and quality improvement manager, a chief of psychiatry, three training staff, and three office support staff, for a total of 11 people. It appears the Department is in substantial compliance with this requirement.
36 Elgin is reported twice; it appears there may be two types of state employees filling supervisory positions.
37
- 45 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 46 of 105
XII: MEDICATION
Summary: Medication administration is documented contemporaneously in the offenders’ medical records. The Department has a psychiatric backlog of 721 as of 11/16/18. Telepsychiatry is being used in a non-evidenced manner throughout the Department. This is a very serious situation that could lead to very critical problems for the mentally ill offenders.
Another serious issue is the manner in which some mentally ill offenders in segregation are being administered their medications. They are being brought out of their cells in cuffs and given their medications in front of their cells. Some offenders are even forced to kneel down during this maneuver. The Monitoring Team is available to work with the staff to develop a more humane and effective method of medication distribution.
(XII)(a): Specific requirement: In accordance with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
Findings: This requirement is currently being met by the Department.
(XII)(b): Specific requirement: Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5) provides: Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, subject to the following:
(a) For offenders in the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for the extension of follow-up appointments may be considered, with no follow up appointment to exceed 90 days.
(b) For offenders at a Special/Residential Treatment Unit level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments may be considered with no extension to exceed 60 days.
- 46 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 47 of 105

Findings: The most salient fact regarding this requirement is as of 11/16/18, there were

721 psychiatric follow-up appointments backlogged throughout the Department. This included a

backlog of 114 for offenders placed in a RTU. 19 out of the 29 facilities in the Department reported

a backlog. The largest backlogs were found at the following facilities:

• Pinckneyville

176

• Shawnee

115

• Big Muddy

70

• Pontiac

66

• East Moline

55

• Dixon

49

• Illinois River

45

• Hill

44

• Robinson

35

Although the backlog of 721 is a reduction from the backlog of 1182 reported on 5/18/18, it is still unacceptably elevated. The Quarterly report of October 2018 states “with regard to (b), the continued expansion of telepsychiatry will help with the medication review backlog.” I refer the reader to section VII(d), page 28, for a discussion about the lack of evidence-based use of Telepsychiatry within the Department.

In preparation for the Evidentiary Hearing in August 2018, the Monitoring Team reviewed 142 medical records of offenders who were prescribed psychotropic medication. This particular review evaluated if offenders prescribed psychotropic medication were being seen by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards. The particular standards used in this review were those specified in the Amended Settlement Agreement. Timely follow ups occurred in only 64 of the medical records reviewed, 45%. Other medical records in this review indicated extensive time between psychiatric visits and the medication orders without evidence of stability documented.

In a four-institution study of general population and restrictive housing patients, psychiatry follow-up was consistent with these standards in 59% of the cases, an unreasonably low compliance rate.38 In those compliant cases, psychiatry generally saw the patients every 30 days-or more often after a crisis watch or medication adjustment—or at longer intervals, up to 90 days, with reasonable assessments that those patients were stable.

The most common pattern in the noncompliant cases was a patient being judged to need 30-day follow-up but it not taking place for 45 to 60 days. In a few cases, there was not follow up after a new medication or indicia of instability, such as a crisis watch, or extended times of 3 to 4 months to appointment when a shorter interval was determined necessary.

(XII)(c): Specific requirement: In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:

38 For this analysis, the monitoring team reviewed charts at Graham, Stateville-NRC, Vienna, and Western Illinois. The sample included only patients on psychotropic medication, as per the requirement’s definition, and excluded any patients not onsite or on the caseload long enough for at least one 30-day follow-up.
- 47 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 48 of 105
(i): Specific requirement: The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
Findings: As Monitor, I have been very critical of the manner in which medication has been distributed in segregated housing units. That is, through the food slots, which allowed for cheeking and hoarding of medications. During the current reporting period, however, the Department has instituted an draconian policy for the distribution of medications in segregated housing units. That is, offenders are cuffed up and brought out of their cells to take their mediations. If an offender has a cellmate, then the cellmate is also cuffed up while this is going on. I have had reports from mental health staff at Pontiac that the offenders are even forced to kneel when they are administered their medications. The Quarterly report of October 2018 really tries to soft pedal this maneuver by stating “At Pontiac, for example, the Warden directed healthcare staff to remove any offender from his cell to observe medication delivery if mouth checks were not possible cell front.” I am also aware that this procedure is being utilized at Menard. I am unclear if this is occurring throughout the Department. It was brought to my attention by a mental health staff member at Pontiac who was appalled by this whole procedure.
There is no doubt that this procedure will decrease cheeking and hoarding of medications. This is also a very dangerous maneuver in that it will likely result in even poorer medication compliance, further worsening of offenders’ psychiatric disorders, greater acting out behavior such as staff assaults and self-injurious behaviors. So, by addressing the issue of cheeking and hoarding of medication in this manner, the Department is potentially creating more problems for itself. I am available to work closely with the Department to help develop a more humane and effective manner of distributing psychotropic medications.
(ii): Specific requirement: The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskinesia [sic], high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
Findings: A chart review conducted prior to the Evidentiary Hearing in August 2018 demonstrated that the Department is showing improvement in this aspect of care. For this review, 69 charts were reviewed with 38, 55%, were properly addressing this requirement. Although this 58% completion rate is very low and does not warrant a compliance rating, it is a major improvement over previous reviews.
(iii): Specific requirement: Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
Findings: As with (ii) above, the Department is showing improvement in this very important aspect of care. A review of 72 charts confirmed that 38 charts, 53%, were properly addressing this requirement. Again, 53% is a rather low completion rate and does not warrant a compliance rating, but it does demonstrate significant improvement over previous reviews.
(iv): Specific requirement: The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
- 48 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 49 of 105
Findings: The Department is also showing improvement in this clinical area. A chart review verified that 49% of the cases were fulfilling this requirement. Again, this 49% completion rate does not warrant a compliance rating but it absolutely shows improvement over previous reviews.
(v): Specific requirement: That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanation from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
Findings: The Monitoring Team found the Department in compliance with this requirement. It is important to note, however, that this compliance was based on a box being checked on the psychiatric progress note. Only a small number of the charts reviewed specifically noted that these topics were discussed and that mentally ill offenders were given written information pertaining to their prescriptions.
(vi): Specific requirement: That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
Findings: A review of 42 charts39 revealed that most cases of noncompliance were relayed to an MHP. An MHP would then visit the offender to discuss the reasons for the noncompliance. The timeliness of these visits, however, was inconsistent. In some cases, the MHP was not notified until several weeks after the missed dose. If noncompliance remained an issue, the MHP would refer the patient to a psychiatrist.
39 It was very difficult to find a sufficient number of charts to properly evaluate this issue of noncompliance. This was due to the fact that in most charts reviewed, compliance or noncompliance with medications was not documented.
- 49 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 50 of 105
XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION
Summary: The number of patients subject to enforced medication remains consistent with previous reporting in 2018, with 49 patients newly coming under these decisions during the monitoring period.
Previous reviews have noted an emerging pattern of following the required processes, though more demonstration is needed for about half of the IDOC facilities; 15 facilities were previously found in substantial compliance and maintain that status to date.
Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70. The cited provision of the Administrative Code is lengthy and includes numerous detailed provisions:
a) Administration of Psychotropic Medication 1) Psychotropic medication shall not be administered to any offender against his or her will or without the consent of the parent or guardian of a minor who is under the age of 18, unless: A) A psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that: i) The offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) The medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) The offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others; and B) The administration of such medication has been approved by the Treatment Review Committee after a hearing (see subsection (b) of this Section). However, no such approval or hearing shall be required when the medication is administered in an emergency situation. An emergency situation exists whenever the required determinations listed in subsection (a)(1)(A) of this Section have been made and a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that the offender poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm to self or others. In all emergency situations, the procedures set forth in subsection (e) of this Section shall be followed. 2) Whenever a physician orders the administration of psychotropic medication to an offender against the person’s will, the physician shall document in the offender’s medical file the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination that the standards in subsection (a)(1) of this Section have been met and: A) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be notified as soon as practicable; and B) Unless the medication was administered in an emergency situation, the Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee shall be notified in writing within three days.
b) Treatment Review Committee Procedures The Treatment Review Committee shall be comprised of two members appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer, both of whom shall be mental health
- 50 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 51 of 105
professionals and one of whom shall be a physician. One member shall serve as Chairperson of the Committee. Neither of the Committee members may be involved in the current decision to order the medication. The members of the Committee shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director.
1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall designate a member of the program staff not involved in the current decision to order medication to assist the offender. The staff assistant shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 2)The offender and staff assistant shall receive written notification of the time and place of the hearing at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The notification shall include the tentative diagnosis and the reasons why the medical staff believes the medication is necessary. The staff assistant shall meet with the offender prior to the hearing to discuss the procedural and mental health issues involved. 3) The offender shall have the right to attend the hearing unless the Committee determines that it is likely that the person’s attendance would subject the person to substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm or pose a threat to the safety of others. If such a determination is made, the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination shall be documented in the offender’s medical file. The staff assistant shall appear at the hearing whether or not the offender appears. 4) The documentation in the medical file referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this Section shall be reviewed by the Committee and the Committee may request the physician’s personal appearance at the hearing. 5) Prior to the hearing, witnesses identified by the offender and the staff assistant may be interviewed by the staff assistant after consultation with the offender as to appropriate questions to ask. Any such questions shall be asked by the staff assistant unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 6) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses be interviewed by the Committee and may submit written questions for witnesses to the Chairperson of the Committee. These questions shall be asked by the Committee unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. If any witness is not interviewed, a written reason shall be provided. 7) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses appear at the hearing. Any such request shall include an explanation of what the witnesses would state. Reasonable efforts shall be made to have such witnesses present at the hearing, unless their testimony or presence would be cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility, or for other reasons including, but not limited to, unavailability of the witness or matters relating to institutional order. In the event requested witnesses are unavailable to appear at the hearing but are otherwise available, they shall be interviewed by the Committee as provided for in subsections (b)(6) and (9) of this Section.
- 51 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 52 of 105
8) At the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may make statements and present documents that are relevant to the proceedings. The staff assistant may direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing. The offender may request that the staff assistant direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing and the staff assistant shall ask such questions unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 9) The Committee shall make such investigation as it deems necessary. The staff assistant shall be informed of any investigation conducted by the Committee and shall be permitted to direct relevant questions to any witnesses interviewed by the Committee. The staff assistant shall consult with the offender regarding any statements made by witnesses interviewed by the Committee and shall comply with requests by the offender to direct relevant questions to such witnesses unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 10) The Committee shall consider all relevant information and material that has been presented in deciding whether to approve administration of the medication. 11) A written decision shall be prepared and signed by all members of the Committee that contains a summary of the hearing and the reasons for approving or disapproving the administration of the medication. Copies of the decision shall be given to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Any decision by the Committee to approve involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be unanimous. The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Committee. 12) If the Committee approves administration of the medication, the offender shall be advised of the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Agency Medical Director by filing a written appeal with the Chairperson within five days after the offender's receipt of the written decision. c) Review by Agency Medical Director 1) If the offender appeals the Treatment Review Committee’s decision, staff shall continue to administer the medication as ordered by the physician and approved by the Committee while awaiting the Agency Medical Director’s decision on the appeal. 2) The Chairperson of the Committee shall promptly forward the written notice of appeal to the Agency Medical Director or a physician designated by the Agency Medical Director. 3) Within five working days after receipt of the written notice of appeal, the Agency Medical Director shall: A) Review the Committee’s decision, make such further investigation as deemed necessary, and submit a written decision to the Chief Administrative Officer; and B) Provide a copy of the written decision to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chairperson of the Committee. 4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Agency Medical Director. d) Periodic Review of Medication
- 52 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 53 of 105
1) Whenever any offender has been involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication continuously or on a regular basis for a period of six months, the administration of such medication shall, upon the offender’s written request, be reviewed by the Treatment Review Committee in accordance with the procedures enumerated in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section. Every six months thereafter, for so long as the involuntary medication continues on a regular basis, the offender shall have the right to a review hearing upon written request. 2) Every offender who is involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, and the psychiatrist shall document in the offender's medical file the basis for the decision to continue the medication. e) Emergency Procedures Subsequent to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in an emergency situation: 1) The basis for the decision to administer the medication shall be documented in the offender's medical file and a copy of the documentation shall be given to the offender and to the Agency Medical Director for review. 2) A mental health professional shall meet with the offender to discuss the reasons why the medication was administered and to give the offender an opportunity to express any concerns he or she may have regarding the medication. f) Copies of all notifications and written decisions shall be placed in the offender’s medical file. g) Grievances An offender may submit a grievance concerning the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication directly to the Administrative Review Board in accordance with 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Subpart F. In considering the grievance, the Board shall confer with the Agency Medical Director.
Findings: At 187, the number of patients subject to enforced medication decisions is consistent with that found at the time of the Monitor’s Second Annual Report. Logs indicate that 49 of those decisions were issued by Treatment Review Committees during this monitoring period. Fewer than half of IDOC institutions house such patients and, since more beds are opening at Joliet and Elgin, a significant number of these patients have shifted there, not surprisingly.
In previous monitoring, patterns of good practice were beginning to emerge for various process elements required to fairly and reasonably reach an enforced medication decision. There were enough exceptions that further monitoring is needed for 13 facilities, but IDOC is on a good path with this Settlement Agreement requirement. Fifteen institutions have previously been found in substantial compliance, and they remain in that status.
- 53 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 54 of 105
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS Summary: The finding for this requirement is unchanged from the 2nd Annual Report. The Department remains in substantial compliance. That is, MHPs are informed of housing changes by security staff. MHPs are also consulted about post-segregation housing recommendations. MHPs do not report that their housing recommendations are overridden by security staff.
(XIV)(a): Specific requirements: Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
Findings: This requirement is being met. (XIV)(b): Specific requirement: For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII (a)(v)(F), below. Findings: This requirement is being met. (XIV)(c): Specific requirement: If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation. Findings: This requirement is being met.
- 54 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 55 of 105
XV: SEGREGATION
Summary: After 30 months of attempting to the implement the requirements of the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Department remains very far from meeting its responsibilities regarding providing mental health care to the offenders in segregation. Critical aspects such as mentally ill offenders being evaluated within 48 hours of placement in segregation, update and review of treatment planning, and the provision of the required minimum number of hours of structured and unstructured out-of-cell time are not being met. There are many reasons for the Department’s failure with this section of the Amended Settlement Agreement. In the opinion of the Monitor, the two most striking reasons are the tremendous shortage of mental health and custody staff as well as the Department’s clinging to outdated custody notions regarding mentally ill offenders and segregation. If a mentally ill offender, due to their mental illness, has a behavioral problem that results in a disciplinary infraction, this offender should receive a greater amount of mental health care and not placed into segregation. Placement in segregation will result in a worsening of their underlying mental illness and a creation of new psychiatric pathology. It is the opinion of the Monitor that until the Department rethinks its use of segregation in general and with mentally ill offenders in particular, the requirements of this section will never be able to be fully achieved.
XV(a)(i): Specific requirement: Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
Of note, AD 05.03.107 provides: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility with segregation and protective custody units designed to double cell offenders shall develop a written policy that includes, but is not limited to, the following for routine segregation and protective custody placement:
• Segregation placement • PC placement • Documentation • Review of documentation and final determination • Compatibility contraindications • Review with other inmates • Upon determination to double-cell:
- 55 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 56 of 105
o Documentation o Suitability review following placement o Documentation upon release • Documentation and Reassessment for disciplinary report
Findings: The Department continues to meet the requirements of this subsection.
XV(a)(ii): Specific Requirement: Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670. Section 504.620 is detailed and covers a number of issues regarding conditions in segregation: double celling, secure fastening of the bed, clean bedding, running water, lighting, placement above ground with adequate heat and ventilation, food passage and visual observation, use of restraints inside the cell, cleaning materials, showers and shaves, toiletries, clothing and laundry, dentures, glasses and other hygienic items, property and commissary, food, visits, medical, chaplain and correctional counselor visits, programs, exercise, phone calls, mail privileges and reading materials. Section 504.630 provides for the same conditions and services in investigatory status as in segregation status. Section 504.670 addresses recreation, including requiring five hours of recreation for inmates who have spent 90 or more days in segregation, yard restrictions, and related documentation.
Findings: No real progress in regard to this requirement over the course of the Amended Settlement Agreement. That is, the Department continues to insist upon placing severely mentally ill offenders in these filthy, loud and completely countertherapeutic segregation units. The requirements of this subsection are not being met throughout the Department. The one exception is Logan, where their trauma-informed, gender specific approach to treatment results in their segregation units generally meeting these requirements.
It remains my firm recommendation that the Department rethink its use of segregated housing units in regard to mentally ill offenders. This is yet another area where the Department is contributing to its own problems. The placement of seriously mentally ill offenders in segregation exacerbates their pre-existing mental illness as well as causing the development of new forms of psychiatric pathology. It is imperative that the Department fully embraces the reality that it is the largest provider of mental health care in the state of Illinois. As such, outdated correctional notions about the use of segregation need to be completely rethought. I firmly believe that the Department will not be able to fully comply with the Amended Settlement Agreement or any future orders from the Court until it fully accepts its 21st century role of providing mental health treatment in a correctional environment.
XV(a)(iii): Specific requirement: Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
Findings: It is important to begin the discussion regarding this requirement reminding the reader that very little treatment is provided to mentally ill offenders within the Department. The
- 56 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 57 of 105
most that non-segregation offenders receive is one, 15-30 minute individual session per month40 and timely medication follow up if they are lucky. There are an extremely limited number of groups available to non-segregation offenders. So, a chart review of mentally ill offenders in segregation revealed that there was some evidence that pre-segregation treatment plans were continued while in segregation. The Department is making some effort to comply with this requirement but not enough to earn a compliance rating. Also, due to severe staffing shortages, the mentally ill offenders in segregation at Pontiac do not even have the option of receiving and individual session.
XV (a)(iv): Specific requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
Findings: During previous monitoring rounds, chart reviews have shown a low percentage of compliance on this important risk prevention measure. A review, conducted in June and July 2018, of 92 charts demonstrated a compliance rate of 27% regarding this requirement.
The Department’s most recent Quarterly Report describes a number of measures taken to facilitate this responsibility being accomplished—reconfiguring staff schedules; considering alternative staffing for the task; and incorporating this requirement in a major policy document, Departmental Rule 504, to reinforce its importance. The Department encourages the use of the Mental Health Evaluation form for this contact, which is a good approach, albeit almost two years late.41 The Department has also proposed a new form for this purpose, which is pending approval. Approval of any form to be used for this review is postponed until receipt of the exact wording from the Court on this issue.
Additional site visits demonstrated compliance percentages beginning to increase.42 By September, IDOC provided 115 screenings, drawn from 21 institutions, for SMI patients newly placed in restrictive housing that month as a sample demonstrating this practice. Where timeliness could be discerned, it was excellent.43 These are signs of progress, but not enough to warrant a rating of compliance.
XV (a)(v): Specific requirement: As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states “review and update treatment plans of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated. These provisions have been
40 MHPs at Pontiac confirm that no individual sessions occur due inadequate numbers of staff. 41 This “48-hour” requirement has been in effect since May 2016 but only began receiving attention from the Department after the issuance of the Preliminary Injunction on May 25, 2018. 42 This requirement was assessed at Graham, Vienna, Western Illinois, and Stateville-NRC. Practice was especially good at Vienna. 43 Because of differences in recording methods, timeliness could be calculated for just over half of the cases, but in that subset, 95% met the deadline.
- 57 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 58 of 105
implemented although, due to staffing issues, are not occurring at all required times.” This description is consistent with the findings of the Monitoring Team.
A four-institution study44 demonstrated what the monitoring team has consistently observed: institutions are not fulfilling this requirement. Vienna was the exception; impressively, staff created segregation-specific plans at the one-week point, tailored to the patient and often signed by psychiatry and MHPs (only one plan was missed). There were no one-week plans at any of the other institutions in this study. A smaller set of patients remains in segregation long enough to require treatment plan updates monthly thereafter, but nevertheless, the reviewer found only three updates total across all four institutions.
Additional site visits revealed that treatment plans are not being updated or reviewed within one week of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated. The facilities in question were Pontiac and Menard. The reasons given for not fulfilling this requirement is that there is too much work and not enough staff. The Monitor is in full agreement with this statement.
XV(a)(vi): Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings:
Continuation of ITP with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation: The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states “It is without dispute that treatment plans are continued if they previously had been prepared for offenders.” The Monitoring Team does not hold this same optimistic view of the Department’s response to this requirement, [Please see XV(a)(iii) above for details.] The Quarterly Report, however, is silent about the issue of “enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from
44 Patients with segregation placements at Graham, Stateville-NRC, Vienna, Western Illinois
- 58 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 59 of 105
decompensation.” As has been previously reported, the Monitoring Team has not encountered any evidence of enhanced therapy being provided to mentally ill offenders to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
Rounds: Rounds are well-established; during the monitoring team visits, all institutions have demonstrated that they have systems in place and designated staff to accomplish this. Nevertheless, interruptions to the system are not uncommon. In the four-institution review referenced previously, only 65% of segregation cases had rounds documented for the full length of the patient’s placement. The monitoring team does not encounter individual patients being missed entirely; rather, there are gaps in the rounds performance—either all patients missed for a week, or sporadic misses for individual patients. Additionally, an 87 count chart review prior to the August Evidentiary Hearing looking into this issue revealed rounds are completed and recorded inconsistently. For example, the Quarterly Report of October 2018 reports that rounds are only conducted every other week at the West House of Pontiac.
Pharmacological treatment: As of 11/16/18, the Department had a total backlog of psychiatric follow up visits of 721, 66 of which were at Pontiac. The Monitoring Team is well aware that pharmacological treatment does occur in these setting. Please refer to section XII(c)(i) for a discussion regarding the manner of medication distribution in segregated housing units.
Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP: In the monitoring team’s experience, counseling is rare in segregation. Most typically, MHP contacts occur in response to patient self-referrals or group therapy. The Department’s most recent quarterly report notes that efforts at improvement have been particularly concentrated at Pinckneyville, Menard, Logan, and Lawrence. Unfortunately, the large population of mentally ill in segregated housing at Pontiac do not receive any supportive counseling on an individual basis due to staffing problems.
Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established: The Quarterly Report of October 2018 very disingenuously addressed this requirement. The Department persists with its frankly incorrect interpretation of the word collectively. This means “as a group or as a whole”, not an Ad Seriatim definition of “one after another.” Ironically, the Department does employ multidisciplinary teams at Dixon’s STC and at the JTC. It would be to the Department’s advantage to state that they are unable to have multidisciplinary team meetings due to staffing issues. That way a plan could be developed to address this problem.
MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing: MHP recommendation for post-segregation housing is occurring throughout the Department.
Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record: Clinical contacts were routinely documented in all records reviewed by the monitoring team.
Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation: Mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation are offered weekly unstructured out-of-cell time. The Monitoring Team has found that the Department is inconsistently achieving the out-of-cell time goals established in the Amended Settlement Agreement. This is due to a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, out-of-cell time scheduled for the convenience of the staff and not the offenders, limited
- 59 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 60 of 105
toileting facilities, fear of assault, and inclement weather. To the Department’s credit, efforts have been made to ensure that the mentally ill offenders receive the appropriate amount of out-of-cell time. A serious problem exists at Pontiac, however, where some mentally ill offenders are withheld their allotted out-of-cell time. The occurs as an act of retaliation on the part of the custody staff because of acting out behavior by the mentally ill offender.
XV(a)(vi):45 Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-ofcell time in accordance with subsection (c) below.46
Findings: As of June 2018, mentally ill offenders housed in a control unit for longer than 60 days are required to receive at least 8 hours of structured and 8 hours of unstructured activities per week.
In preparation for the August 2018 Evidentiary Hearing, Assistant Monitor, Ms. Morrison, conducted an analysis of out-of-cell time in control units in the Department. This analysis consisted of looking at all of the Department’s facilities and all of the mentally ill offenders who were housed in a control unit for the month of June 2018. She eliminated from her analysis those mentally ill offenders who were housed in a control unit for less than 60 days. The following is a summary of her findings: • Only about a third of all facilities had stays 60 days or more. • On average, mentally ill offenders are being offered 15.3 hours per week. • 31% of this population were not being offered the required hours. • On average, 6.7 hours of structured activities was being offered. • Some facilities used large blocks of yard time, up to six hours per day, to satisfy their
unstructured hours component. • Due to the extremely high rate of refusals, the actual number of hours received was, on average:
o Total out-of-cell hours was 7.5 with the requirement being 16. o Total structured out-of-cell hours was 3.4 with the requirement being 8.
The issue of refusals has been a constant theme throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. The Department has taken a rather concrete view of the refusal issue. The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states in part on page 21 “IDOC cannot force offenders to participate in out-of-cell time…IDOC offers the required out-of-cell time at every facility…” As Monitor, I have never suggested that the Department force offenders to participate in out-of-cell activities. What I have said repeatedly is that refusal rates are linked to the psychiatric condition of the patient and the quality and accessibility of the out-of-cell activity. In any clinical setting, a certain treatment refusal rate is expected. When refusal rates as seen in the Department exist, it must be addressed as a clinical failure. As an initial matter, such high refusal rates are strong evidence that the mentally ill population is undertreated and subjected to inadequate mental health care as a whole. The medical literature uses the term ‘adherence to treatment” which suggests that the sicker
45 This numbering from the Settlement Agreement is in error but this report will continue to use it to remain consistent with the numbering in the Settlement Agreement. 46 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on page 20 of the Settlement Agreement
- 60 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 61 of 105
patients tend to have the most difficulty with treatment regimens. This means that for psychiatric patients, treatment refusals are correlated to higher levels of acuity. Given my intimate knowledge of the mental health treatment available to mentally ill offenders housed in the control units of the Department, I am certain that the high refusal rate for out-of-cell activities is due to a combination of the acuity of the offenders’ mental illness and lack of adequate mental health treatment.
XV(a)(vii): Specific requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP47 unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: The Department is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XV(b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
XV(b)(i): Specific requirements: IDOC will organize Review Committees (‘Committees’) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period. The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states that this reviews have occurred for SMI offenders and are complete at all facilities. The Department has been found in compliance on this requirement in the past. They will receive a rating of compliance for this reporting period. This requirement will be more closely monitored moving forward.
XV(b)(ii): Specific requirements: The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
Findings: The Department is in compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(iii): Specific requirements: With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
47 IDOC’s compliance with the portion of this provision regarding MHP recommendations for placement into crisis care is discussed elsewhere this report.
- 61 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 62 of 105
Findings: This requirement was not monitored during the current reporting period. The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states that this review was conducted within the allowable timeframes. The Department has been found in compliance on this requirement in the past. They will receive a rating of compliance for this reporting period. This requirement will be more closely monitored moving forward.
XV(b)(iv): Specific requirements: The committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
Findings: The Department is in compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(v): Specific requirements: The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
Findings: The Department is in compliance with this requirement.
XV(b)(vi): Specific requirements: These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is in compliance with this requirement.
XV(c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
XV(c)(i): Specific requirements: With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/ Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
20 Illinois Administrative Code Section 504 Subpart D: Segregation, Investigative Confinement and Administrative Detention—Adult provides:
Applicability, definitions, and responsibilities for IDOC staff regarding placement of offenders in segregation status; segregation standards for offenders placed into segregation, investigative confinement, administrative detention; and standards for recreation for offenders in segregation status.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
II (G): Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
- 62 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 63 of 105
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
II (H): Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP
- 63 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 64 of 105
and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: Please see section XXV, page 95, Discipline of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders, for a discussion about the disciplinary process.
II (I): Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or
- 64 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 65 of 105
behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: Please see section XXV, page 95, for a discussion about “Observation and Follow-Up
XV(c)(ii): Specific Requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: This is not occurring on a consistent basis within the Department. Please see section XV(a)(iv), above, for a further discussion on this requirement.
XV(c)(iii): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
1) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP.
2) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
3) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). 4) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP. 5) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. 6) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. 7) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. 8) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings: Please see section XV(a)(vi) above for a discussion about this requirement.
- 65 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 66 of 105
XV(c)(iv): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.48
Findings: Please see section XV(a)(vi) above for a discussion about this requirement.
XV(c)(v): Specific Requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendation shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: The Department is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XV(c)49: Specific Requirement: Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-ofcell time per week.
ii. For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-ofcell time per week.
iii. For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours outof-cell time per week.
iv. For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours outof-cell time per week.
Findings: Please see XV(a)(vi) above, for a discussion of this requirement.
Structured out-of-cell time & unstructured out-of-cell time: Again, please see XV(a)(vi) above, for a discussion regarding this requirement.
48 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on pages 19 and 20 of the Settlement. 49 As above, this appears mislabeled in the Settlement but is carried forward here.
- 66 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 67 of 105
The 60-day requirement: Based on the data presented in XV(a)(vi), the Department is not meeting the 8 hours of structured out-of-cell time. It is only offering 6.7 hours and offenders are only receiving 3.4 hours weekly. The offered hours for unstructured out-of-cell time exceeds the minimum requirement of 8 hours but only 4.1 hours are actually received. It remains my ardent recommendation that the Department provide these out-of-cell hours to any mentally ill offender in segregation, regardless of how many days they are in segregation..
Segregation-like settings: I have expressed similar concerns for mentally ill offenders who are held in segregation-like settings such as R&C units. These offenders should receive similar out-of-cell opportunities as those in segregated housing.
XV(d): Specific Requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: I am very pessimistic about the Department’s chances of fulfilling this requirement within the 4 year requirement. At this point the major impediment to achieving this goal is an overwhelming lack of clinical and custody staff.
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
Summary: Crisis Intervention Teams have been formed and trained at each departmental facility. Potentially deadly interference with the operation of the Crisis Intervention Teams by custody staff continues to plague the Department. Mentally ill offenders placed on crisis watch status do not receive adequate mental health care. Crisis cells are still located in control-unit housing. Finally, the administrative reviews and psychological autopsies conducted after a suicide are stuck in a blindloop system. That is, the often critical information contained in these documents is not part of a corrective action plan or some sort of feedback loop to help prevent future suicides. Therefore, the Department will not receive a rating of substantial compliance until such time as it can demonstrate that custody staff do not interfere with the operation of the Crisis Intervention Team and AD 04.04.102 is rewritten to include a corrective action plan based on the findings of the post suicide Administrative Review and Psychological Autopsy.
(XVI)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102 and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
The section titled “Identification, Treatment and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” from
- 67 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 68 of 105
the IDOC Mental Health SOP Manual50 provides general guidelines for the handling of suicidal offenders. AD 04.04.102, however, provides a number of specific requirements:
II (F) Requirements: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall: 1)Establish a Crisis Intervention Team. a. The Crisis Intervention Team shall consist of: (1) A Crisis Intervention Team Leader who shall be an MHP; (2) All facility MHPs and nursing staff; and (3) At least one member of the facility’s security staff of the rank of Lieutenant or above. NOTE: Other Crisis Intervention Team members may be chosen from facility staff upon the recommendation of the Team Leader to ensure at least one member is on site at all times. b. Prior to serving, all members of the Crisis Intervention Team shall receive training in accordance with Paragraph II.g.1. Crisis Intervention Team Members on leave of absence shall be required to make up missed training upon return and prior to resuming service on the Crisis Intervention Team. c. All Crisis Intervention Team Members shall participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.
(1) Meetings shall be held to: (a) Review all events involving offender suicide during the previous quarter; (b) Review the Facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan in accordance with Paragraph II.G; and (c) Assess the adequacy of the facility’s training program in relation to the facility’s needs
(2) Meetings shall be documented in writing and shall: (a) Include the date and minutes of the meeting, a list of all persons in attendance and any recommendations or issues noted; (b) Be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer, the respective Regional Psychological Administrator and the Chief of Mental Health
Findings: As previously reported, all facilities have formed Crisis Intervention Teams and all of the Teams have received the required training. This information was confirmed during the 18 site visits that were conducted during the reporting period. The Monitoring Team, however, did not review each facility’s quality assurance records to determine if the members of the Crisis Intervention Teams are fulfilling their QA requirements.
2) Designate a Crisis Care Area. a. Crisis care areas shall be used to house offenders determined by an MHP to require removal from his or her current housing assignment for the purpose of mental health treatment or observation. b. Excluding exigent circumstances as determined by the Director or a Deputy director, segregation units shall only be utilized for crisis care areas if no other crisis care areas are available, and only until alternative crisis care areas are available. c. Cells designated as crisis care areas shall: Allow for visual and auditory observation of
50 The Settlement references “Mental Health Protocol Manual.” IDOC has changed the name of this manual to “Mental Health SOP Manual.”
- 68 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 69 of 105
the entire cell; Allow for prompt staff access; Control outside stimuli; Contain beds that are suicide resistant and constructed of a metal base, cinder block, concrete slab or herculite material; Contain a pass through or chuck holes that open out of the cell; Contain mesh coverings over all vents; Contain laminated glass over all windows or be safely and security glazed windows; and Be made appropriately suicide resistant and provide adequate lighting and temperature.
Findings: Each Facility has provided the locations of their designated crisis care areas. The monitoring team has viewed the crisis care areas in each facility toured and has found them to have the required features. For the most part, crisis care is not in segregation, but there are notable exceptions. For a full discussion, please see X(f), above.
II (G): Prevention and Intervention Plan
The Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the facility’s mental health authority, shall establish a written procedure for responding to, and providing emergency mental health services, including prevention and intervention of emergency mental health situations. The procedure shall be reviewed annually and shall be approved by the Chief of Mental Health and shall include, at a minimum, provisions for the following: training, referrals for emergency mental health situations, crisis intervention team response, crisis watch, response to self-inflicted injuries and suicide, and quality improvement reviews.
Findings: The Quarterly report of October 2018 states on page 24 “There is no dispute that the Department has fulfilled this requirement.” The fact of the matter is that during the first 30 months of monitoring the Settlement Agreement, the Monitoring Team has only received 22 of the required Institutional Directives required by AD 04.04.102. I am fully aware that Crisis Intervention Teams have been established at each facility so the Department will receive a provisional compliance rating for II (G) pending receipt of all 29 Institutional Directives.
1) Training The Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training shall establish standardized training programs that provide information on emergency mental health services. All training shall be provided by an MHP, or in the absence of the MHP, a current crisis team member and, where appropriate, shall include enhanced content specific to the facility. a. Level I Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all staff that have regular interaction with offenders, and shall include a minimum of one hour of the following: (1) Elements of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan; (2) Demographic and cultural parameters of suicidal behavior in a correctional setting, including incidence and variations in precipitating factors; (3) Risk factors and behavioral indicators of suicidal behavior; (4) Understanding, identifying, managing and referring suicidal offenders, including the importance of communication between staff; (5) Procedural response and follow-up procedures including crisis treatment supervision levels and housing observation; and (6) Documentation requirements.
- 69 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 70 of 105
b. Level II Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all personnel identified in the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan as having the authority to initiate a crisis watch. Level II training shall consist of a minimum of four hours of in-depth didactic and experiential training in assessing suicide risk and procedures for initiating a crisis watch. c. Level III Training shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members, excluding MHPs, and shall consist of 24 hours of advanced training in the philosophy of suicide prevention and continuous quality improvement of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan.
(1) Crisis Intervention Team members shall also be trained by an MHP, designated by the Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training. This training will give the Crisis Intervention Team member the ability to instruct on the standardized training curriculum that provides information on emergency mental health services during cycle training, in the absence of the MHP. (2) Training shall be completed prior to active service with the Crisis Intervention Team. d. Clinical Continuing Education shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members and shall consist of a minimum of one hour per quarter of training to assist Crisis Intervention Team members in monitoring facility policy and procedure and in reviewing suicide attempts or completions. Clinical Continuing Education Training may be obtained through participation in the quarterly Crisis Intervention Team quality assurance meeting.
Findings: This training requirement has been met.
2) Referrals for Emergency Mental Health Situations: Staff shall immediately notify the Crisis Intervention Team, through his or her chain of command, of any situation whereby an offender exhibits behavior indicative of mental or emotional distress, imminent risk for harm to self or an attempted suicide.
Findings: There remains a serious problem with custody staff acting as gate keepers to the Crisis Intervention Team. Please see section V(g), page 22 for details.
3) Crisis Intervention Team Response a. At least one Crisis Team member shall be on site at all times. The designated Crisis Intervention Team Leader shall be available by phone when not on site. b. The Chief of Mental Health and the respective Regional Psychological Administrator shall be notified within 24 hours of the suicide of an offender, and within 72 hours of any attempted suicide. c. Upon notice of a potential crisis situation, a Crisis Intervention Team member shall: (1) Implement necessary means to prevent escalation and to stabilize the situation. (2) Ensure that the offender is properly monitored for safety. (3) Review the situation with the Crisis Team Leader or and MHP to determine what services or referrals shall be provided. If the Crisis Intervention Team Leader is not on grounds and cannot be reached by telephone, and there are no MHPs on grounds,
- 70 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 71 of 105
the Crisis Team member shall contact an alternative MHP and the review may be completed via telephone. (4) Initiate a crisis care treatment plan to monitor and facilitate the delivery of services, including referrals for mental or medical examination, and any additional recommendations of the MHP. The crisis care treatment plan shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Log, DOC 0377. Referrals for additional examination or services following the offender’s release from a crisis care treatment level of care shall be documented on a DOC 0377. (5) If determined that the offender does not need to be placed in the crisis care area, notify the Shift Commander of any additional care requirements for security staff.
Findings: When called, the response of the Crisis Intervention Team is generally timely. As noted in section V(g), problems continue to exist with access to the Crisis Intervention Team.
4) Crisis Watch a. A crisis watch shall be initiated when: (1) An offender exhibits behavior that is likely to cause harm to him or herself. (2) Mental health issues render an offender unable to care for him or herself. (3) Gestures, threats or attempts of suicide are made. (4) The Evaluation for Suicide Potential, DOC 0379, if administered, indicates need. (5) Less restrictive measures have failed or are determined to be clinically ineffective.
Findings: This requirement has been met throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. Problems have arisen, however, with mentally ill offenders withholding their genuine degree of suicidality out of fear of being placed on a crisis watch with its overwhelmingly austere conditions, prolonged lengths of stay and lack of any meaningful psychiatric care..
b. Determination to initiate a crisis watch shall be made by an MHP. If an MHP is not available, the following individuals, in order of priority, may initiate a crisis watch: (1) Respective Regional Psychologist Administrator, (2) Any Regional Psychologist Administrator, (3) Chief of Psychiatry, (4) Chief of Mental Health Services, (5) Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Leader, (6) Back-up Duty Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Member c. Offenders in crisis watch shall not be transferred to another facility unless clinically indicated and approved by the Chief of Mental Health or in the absence of the Chief of Mental Health, the Chief of Psychiatry. d. Upon initiation of a crisis watch, an MHP shall determine: (1) The appropriate level of supervision necessary in accordance with Paragraph II.E.; and (2) Allowable property, including the type and amount of clothing. e. Unless medically contraindicated: (1) Water shall be available in the cell or offered at regular intervals. When water is not available in the cell, the offers shall be documented on the DOC 0377. (2) Meals not requiring utensils shall be provided in the cell or crisis care area. If contraindicated, alternative nutrition sources shall be provided.
- 71 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 72 of 105
f. The offender’s vital signs shall be taken by health care staff within 24 hours of placement on crisis watch, or sooner if the offender has been placed in restraints for mental health purposes. g. Prior to placement in a designated crisis care area, the offender shall be stripsearched and the cell inspected for safety. h. Offenders shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, dependent upon level of supervision. All observations shall be documented within the appropriate staggered intervals, on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378, and shall include staff’s observation of the offender’s behavior and speech, as appropriate. i. The offender shall be evaluated by an MHP, or in his or her absence, a Crisis Intervention Team member, in consultation with the Crisis Team Leader, at least once every 24 hours. The evaluation shall assess the offender’s current mental health status and response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented on the DOC 0377. j. An offender’s crisis watch shall only be terminated by an MHP following the completion of an evaluation assessing the offender’s current mental health status and the offender’s response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented in the offender’s medical record and the termination of the crisis watch shall be documented on the DOC 0377.
Findings: The Department is meeting the requirements of this subsection.
5) Response to Self-Inflicted Injury and Suicides a. Responses to medical emergencies shall be in accordance with AD 04.03.108 and shall include immediate notification of an MHP. b. In the event of attempted suicide, the preservation of the offender’s life shall take precedence over preservation of the crime scene; however, any delay in response due to security factors shall be noted in the Incident Report, DOC 0434.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement.
6) Quality Improvement Reviews a. Mortality Review: In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief of Mental Health shall designate an MHP to complete a psychological autopsy. The psychological autopsy shall be documented on the Psychological Autopsy, DOC 0375, and shall be submitted to the Chief of mental Health within seven working days of assignment. b. Administrative Review
(1) In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief Administrative Officer shall: (a) Establish a clinical review team who shall systemically analyze the event. The Review Team shall consist of: i. Mental health and medical staff, including an MHP, a psychiatrist and a registered or licensed practical nurse. Medical staff chosen for the clinical review team shall have no direct involvement in the treatment of the offender for a minimum of 12 months prior to the event. ii. A security staff supervisor. NOTE: Facility
- 72 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 73 of 105
administrators or staff, whose performance or responsibilities maybe directly involved in the circumstances of the suicide, shall not be chosen for the review team. (b) Designate a clinical review team Chairman who shall ensure all relevant documentation pertaining to the offender and his or her treatment including, but not limited to, the master file, medical record, Medical Director’s death summary and the DOC 0375, if applicable, is available to the clinical review team. (2) Within ten working days following the suicide, the clinical review team shall complete a review to: (a) Ensure appropriate precautions were implemented and Department and local procedures were followed; and (b) Determine if there were any personal, social or medical circumstances that may have contributed to the event, or if there were unrealized patterns of behavior or systems that may have indicated earlier risk. (3) Upon completion of the review, the Chairperson shall submit a written report to the Chief Administrative Officer, the facility’s Training Coordinator, the Chief of Mental Health and the respective Deputy Director summarizing the review team’s findings and providing any recommended changes or improvements.
Findings: Three mentally ill offenders committed suicide during the monitoring period. The Administrative Reviews and Psychological Autopsies were completed on all of them in time to be included in this report.
As Monitor, I have noted in each of the previous reports that the Administrative Reviews and Psychological Autopsies serve no practical purpose for the Department. That is, these documents are often thoughtfully prepared but their recommendations have never been incorporated in any sort of feedback loop/corrective action plan that I am aware of. I first pointed this out to Dr. Hinton and Chief Lindsay on my first visit to Pontiac on August 26, 2016. Tragically, I am not aware of any substantive changes being made to the suicide review process during this last 27 months.
Two of the three suicides in the reporting period occurred at Dixon. Jamie Chess, Psy.D., Psychologist Administrator wrote two very thoughtfully prepared Administrative Reviews. Dr. Chess also included some very important recommendations to help prevent future suicides. Administrative Directive 04.04.102, effective date 11/1/2017 is titled “Suicide Prevention and Intervention and Emergency Services,” section G(6)(b)(3) states “upon completion of the review, the Chairperson shall submit a written report to the Chief Administrative Officer, the facility’s Training Coordinator, the Chief of Mental Health and the respective Deputy Director summarizing the review team’s findings and providing any recommended changes or improvements.” This is a blind loop. Per the Administrative Directive, nobody has the responsibility of doing anything with the findings and the recommendations from this Administrative Review. The same is true of the psychological autopsy except that the findings and recommendations only go to the chief of Mental Health.
- 73 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 74 of 105
This lack of feedback/corrective action is an egregious oversight that the Department has known about for at least 27 months. This issue requires immediate remediation.
(XVI)(b): Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department continues to struggle to meet the overall requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. This subsection calls for the implementation of all of the suicide and crisis-related policies. Significant problems exist in the following areas:
• Custody staff interfering with the work of the Crisis Intervention Team. • Crisis cells remaining in control units. • Lack of proper psychiatric care while offenders are on a crisis watch. • Lack of consistently in performing the 5 day follow ups of offenders who have been
discharged from crisis watch status. • Ongoing problems with the administrative reviews of suicides. Each of these issues is critically important to the properly operation of a suicide prevention program. The Department will continue to receive a rating of non-compliance until each of these items is addressed.
- 74 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 75 of 105
XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
Summary: The average use of restraints slightly increased in the current reporting period. It was 27/month as compared to 25/month in the previous reporting period. Not all facilities employ physical restraints for mental health purposes. Their use is primarily found in those facilities that treat higher acuity patients (i.e. Dixon, Logan, Joliet and Elgin.) Pontiac was able to reduce its use of restraints by the administration of emergency enforced psychotropic medication prior to an offender requiring restraints. Other facilities with high usage of restraints are encouraged to consider a similar strategy. The Monitoring Team did not conduct a data driven analysis of the use of restraints for this reporting period so no overall rating will be assigned. e (XVII)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC AD 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for the Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
IDOC AD 04.04.103 provides for:
II (G): Requirements
1. Restraints for mental health purposes shall be applied under medical supervision and shall only be used when other less restrictive measures have been found to be ineffective.
a. Under no circumstances shall restraints be used as a disciplinary measure.
b. Restraint implementation shall be applied by order of a psychiatrist, or if a psychiatrist is not available, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist. (1) If a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, a Registered Nurse (RN) may initiate implementation of restraints for mental health purposes. (2) The nurse shall then immediately make contact with the psychiatrist within one hour of the offender being placed into restraints and obtain an order for the implementation. If the psychiatrist is not available, the nurse shall make contact with the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist.
2. Crisis treatment shall be initiated in accordance with AD 04.04.102.
a. The initial order for the use of restraints shall not exceed four hours.
b. Should subsequent orders become necessary, the time limit may be extended, but no subsequent order for restraint extension shall be valid for more than 16 hours beyond initial order. Documentation of the justification for extension of the restraint order shall be recorded in the offender’s medical chart.
- 75 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 76 of 105
c. If further restraint is required beyond the initial order and one extension, a new order must be issued pursuant to the requirements provide herein.
II (H): Orders for Restraints
1. Only a psychiatrist who has conducted a face to face assessment, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, who has conducted a face to face assessment, may order the use of restraints for offenders in a crisis treatment supervision level of continuous watch or suicide watch when the current crisis level does not provide adequate safeguards.
2. If a psychiatrist, physician or licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, and the Crisis Team Member, after consultation with the on-call Crisis Team Leader or Mental Health Professional, in accordance with AD 04.04.102, has recommended the use of restraints, a RN may obtain an order from a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist via telephone.
3. The offender must be assessed, face to face by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist within one hour of being placed in restraints. If a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site within the hour time limit, a RN shall conduct a face to face assessment, and present that assessment to the psychiatrist, the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist via a telephone consultation, and document accordingly in the medical chart. Verbal orders shall be confirmed, in writing, by the ordering individual within 72 hours.
4. Orders for restraints shall be documented on the Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes, DOC 0376, and shall include: a. The events leading up to the need for restraints, including efforts or less intrusive intervention; b. The type of restraints to be utilized; c. The length of time the restraints shall be applied; d. The criteria required for the offender to be taken out of restraints (e.g. the offender is no longer agitated or combative for a minimum of one hour, etc.; and e. The offender’s vital signs, checked by medical staff, at a minimum of every four hours. The frequency of vital signs checks for offenders with serious chronic health conditions may be required more frequently during the restraint period.
II (I) Implementation and Monitoring 1. Restraints shall be applied in a bed located in a crisis care area, or similar setting that
is in view of staff. Immediately following the placement of an offender in restraints for mental health purposes, medical staff shall conduct an examination of the offender to ensure that: a. No injuries exist; b. Restraint equipment is not applied in a manner likely to result in injury; and c. There is no medical contraindication to maintain the offender in restraints. 2. Monitoring and documentation of visual and verbal checks of offenders in restraints for mental health purposes shall be performed as a continuous watch status or a suicide watch status in accordance with AD 04.04.102. All checks shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378.
- 76 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 77 of 105
3. Two hours after application of restraints, and every two hours thereafter, an offender may be allowed to have movement of his or her limbs. Movement shall be accomplished by freeing one limb at a time from restraints and for a period of time of approximately two minutes. Movement shall only be allowed if the freeing of the limb will not pose a threat of harm to the offender being restrained, or others. Limb movement shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart and by the watch officer on the DOC 0378. Denial of free movement and explanation for the denial shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart by medical staff.
4. Release from restraints for short periods of time shall be permitted as soon as practical, as determined by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or clinical psychologist.
5. The amount of restraint used shall be reduced as soon as possible to the level of least restriction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the offender and staff.
6. Clothing shall be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with the application and monitoring of restraints. The genital area of both male and females, and the breast area of females shall be covered to the extent possible while still allowing for visual observation of the restraints. Females shall not be restrained in a position where the legs are separated.
7. Restraints shall be removed upon the expiration of the order, or upon the order of a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, or in the absence of one of the approved aforementioned professionals being physically on site, an RN who, based upon observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition, determines that there is no longer cause to utilize restraints. Observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition shall be documented in the medical chart.
8. Offenders shall remain in, at minimum, close supervision status for a minimum of 24 hours after removal of restraints. Should any other crisis level or care status be utilized, justification of the care shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart.
9. Documentation of the use of restraints for mental health purposes shall be submitted to the Agency Medical Director and shall include the DOC 0376 and subsequent nursing and mental health notes.
10. All events whereby the use of restraints has been issued shall be reviewed during quality improvement meetings in accordance with AD 04.03.125.
Findings: The rate of restraints use for mental health reasons rose, with 133 total uses in the period reviewed.51 As in the past, the practice was concentrated where the mission is treating higher acuity patients—Dixon and Logan, and now Joliet and Elgin. Stateville also had a significant amount of use. Another eight institutions also used restraints only once or twice, and more than half of IDOC facilities had no restraints events.
Pontiac has made dramatic improvement. Where previously it had by far the highest amount of use, and some of its practices were problematic, during this round, staff had reduced restraints to just one event lasting four hours. This dramatic decrease in the use of restraints is due in large part to the administration of emergency enforced psychotropic medications prior to an offender requiring restraints. This is standard emergency psychiatric practice that could be safely
51 This is a higher average over the five months than the previous total of 196 averaged over an eight-month period.
- 77 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 78 of 105
implemented at all facilities, especially those who frequently use restraints for mental health purposes.
Logs indicated that the majority of uses systemwide lasted less than one day, and 95% concluded by the 24-hour point. The longest recorded use was three days though a man, discussed in previous reports, who had been living in restraints for many months was not listed on the logs for unknown reasons. About 20 patients were restrained multiple times, though these were separated in time and almost always a series of short interventions. This does, however, raise the question of whether some of that group is in need of inpatient beds not yet available.
Previously, 14 institutions have been found in substantial compliance on this requirement and they remain in this status.
(XVII)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60, and Administrative Directive 05.01.126. The Administrative Code sections are titled Section 501.30: Resort to Force; Section 501.40: Justifiable Use of Force; and Section 501.60: General Use of Chemical Agents.
IDOC AD 05.01.126 provides for:
II (F): The Chief Administrative Officer shall ensure a written procedure for the use and control of security restraints is established. The written procedure shall provide for the following:
Use of Security Restraints
(1) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints shall be used: (a) To prevent an offender from escaping. (b) To retake an offender who has escaped. (c) To prevent or suppress violence by an offender against another person or property. (d) When transporting an offender outside the facility for the purposes of transfers, writs, etc., except when transporting offenders to assigned work details outside the facility, pregnant offenders for the purposes of delivery, or offenders assigned to the Moms and Babies Program on approved day release while transporting a minor child. (e) When transporting a transitional security offender for other than job related or programmatic activities directly related to successful completion of the transition center program.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints may be used: (a) When moving an offender who is in disciplinary segregation or who is in segregation pending investigation within the facility; or (b) Whenever the Chief Administrative Officer deems it is necessary in order to ensure security within the facility or within the community.
(3) Offenders on funeral or critical illness furlough shall be restrained in accordance with AD 05.03.127.
Inventory and Control
- 78 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 79 of 105
(a) A written master inventory of all security restraints, dated and signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, shall be maintained.
(b) All security restraints that have not been issued to staff shall be stored and maintained in a secure area or areas that are not accessible to offenders.
(c) A log documenting issuance and return of security restraints shall be maintained in a secure area or areas. The log shall include: (1) Date and time issued; (2) Receiving employees name; (3) Issuing employees name; (4) Date and time returned; and (5) Name of employee receiving the returned restraints.
(d) A written report shall be filed on lost, broken, or malfunctioning security restraints. The report shall be reviewed by the Chief of Security and maintained on file with the security restraints inventory records for no less than one year.
Findings: The Monitor has previously found good practice in 21 Institutional Directives. The team did not review this requirement during the monitoring period.
(XVII)(c): Specific requirement: Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.
Findings: The team did not formally review this requirement during the monitoring period; however, it was the team’s impression in previous reviews and current site visits that physical restraints are not being used for punishment.
(XVII)(d): Specific requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Monitoring Team will conduct a comprehensive data driven analysis of this section for the 3rd Annual Report. Until that time, no overall rating will be assigned.
XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS
Summary: The required forms are in wide use within the Department. Many of these forms have undergone extensive revision, with the approval of the monitor, due to emerging clinical necessities.
Overall, the quality of the medical records remains poor. This poor quality of the medical records is an impediment to the provision of acceptable mental health care.
(XVIII)(a): Specific requirement: In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health
- 79 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 80 of 105
Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
Findings: As previously reported, standardized forms are in common use with the Department. Many of these forms have undergone modifications due to emerging clinical needs. The use of these forms has helped improve clinical care. Overall, however, the medical records are of very poor quality, which impedes the provision of adequate mental health care.
(XVIII)(b): Specific requirement: No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(7): The medical record shall be transferred to the receiving facility at the time of offender movement.
(7)(a): In the event that an offender is transferred from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice to an IDOC facility, the entire original medical record shall be transferred with the offender. The transferring youth center may keep a copy of the medical record. Such movement shall be treated as a departmental transfer with regard to documentation.
(7)(b): The medical record and, if applicable, medication shall be sealed in a clear plastic envelope through which the offender’s name and ID number can be easily identified.
(1) If the information on the DOC 0090 is not urgent in nature, the DOC 0090 shall be placed inside the front cover of the medical record.
(2) If the DOC 0090 contains urgently needed medical or medication disbursement information, the following steps shall be taken: (a) The DOC 0090 shall be folded in half to promote confidentiality and a notation of “URGENT MEDICAL INFORMATION” shall be made in bold print on the exposed (blank) side of the DOC 0090. (b) The folded DOC 0090 with the notation side up shall be enclosed on top of the medical record inside the clear plastic so that these individuals can be immediately identified and evaluated upon arrival at a new institution. (c) Prior to transferring an offender who has significant medical problems as determined by the transferring facility Medical Director, the transferring Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing shall telephone the receiving Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing to advise of the transfer.
(7)(c): A member of the receiving health care staff shall complete the Reception Screening section of the DOC 0090. The DOC 0090 shall be placed chronologically in the progress notes section of the medical record; no progress note shall be required.
Findings: The monitoring team did not evaluate this requirement during the current monitoring period.
- 80 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 81 of 105
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
Summary: Medical records are handled in a confidential manner throughout the Department. Administrative Directive, 04.04.100, was modified to make confidential mental health interactions the standard within the Department. This modification, however, occurred six months past its original deadline. The only locations where confidential mental health interactions occur on a consistent basis are the R&C units. Dr. Kapoor did find that the JTC was also adhering to AD 04.04.100.
An omnibus consent form, which was approved by the Monitor on 11/7/17, wasn’t implemented until May 2018. During the interim period, the consent portion of the treatment planning form was used. This often resulted in an offender having two different treatment plans. One of the plans was created by the psychiatrist and the other by a MHP. Hopefully this problem will be finally addressed by the use of this omnibus consent form.
XIX(a): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E) (10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E) (10) provides: Offender medical and mental health records are confidential. Access to medical and mental health records shall be limited to health care staff, other Department personnel and outside State and federal agencies on a need-to-know basis as determined appropriate by the Facility Privacy Officer or the Health Care Unit Administrator. All staff having access to medical records or medical information shall be required to sign a Medical Information Confidentiality Statement, DOC 0269, and a new DOC 0269 shall be signed during cycle training annually thereafter. The most recent DOC 0269 shall be retained in the staff member’s training file.
Findings: Based on the 18 site visits conducted by the Monitoring Team during the current reporting period, it is clear that the offender medical records are handled in a confidential manner. The Monitoring Team did not review if all staff having access to medical records have signed DOC 0269. The Quarterly Report of October 2018 is silent on the issue of staff signing DOC 0269.
Specific requirement: Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services:
XIX(b): Specific requirement: Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
- 81 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 82 of 105
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC modified AD 04.04.100, effective date 6/1/2017, to address the policy and procedure requirement of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Training on these policies and procedures is included in correctional staff training. As reported in the 2nd Annual Report and the Quarterly Report of October 2018, the Department received a rating of non-compliance for this requirement because the policy regarding confidentiality was not completed until over six months past the deadline. The Department will continue to receive a noncompliance rating for this requirement due to its not meeting its original deadline.
(XIX)(c): Specific requirement: Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)).
This section Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Confidentiality of the clinician-offender relationship is grounded in ethical and legal principles. It rests, in part, on the assumption that a patient will be deterred from seeking care and discussing the important matters relevant to therapy if there is not some guaranteed confidentiality in that relationship.  Clinicians should clearly specify any limits of confidentiality of the offender-clinician relationship. This disclosure should occur at the onset of treatment, except in emergencies. Notwithstanding these necessary limits on confidentiality, relevant guidelines should be adhered to, to the greatest degree possible.  36  
Requests from outside organizations for Mental Health-related information about offenders shall be referred to the Treating Mental Health Professional. The release of any Confidential Mental Health Records must be accompanied by a consent form or release of confidential information form signed by the offender on an Authorization for Release of Offender Mental Health or Substance Abuse Treatment Information, (DOC 0240). In addition, the CAO shall be notified of this request.
Offender disclosures made to a Mental Health Professional in the course of receiving Mental Health Services are considered to be confidential and privileged, with the following exceptions: Threats to physically harm self-and/or others; Threats to escape or otherwise disrupt or breach the security of the institution; Information about an identifiable minor child or elderly/disabled person who has been the victim of physical or sexual abuse; All other information obtained by a Mental Health Professional retains its confidential status unless the offender specifically consents to its disclosure;
In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
Findings: AD 04.04.100, was updated with an effective date of 6/1/2017. Subsection
- 82 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 83 of 105
II(F)(2)(b) now establishes the requirement for confidentiality within IDOC. It states “All mental health services shall, (emphasis added), be conducted in a manner which ensures confidentiality and sensitivity to the offender regardless of status or housing assignment. The Department continues to struggle to consistently meet this requirement.
As previously reported, the best examples of the Department meeting its confidentiality requirements are the R&C units. As reported in section IV(d), page 17 above, these units are consistently providing confidential mental health services. Of note, during the current reporting period, the Monitoring Team toured all of the R&C units in the Department.
Prior to the August 2018 Evidentiary Hearing, the Monitoring team conducted a chart review of 92 offenders who either were currently on a crisis watch or had recently been on a crisis watch. This review revealed that only 69 offenders were receiving daily contacts and that 40% were not in a confidential setting. Also, MHP progress notes indicated that custody staff was present during these non-confidential contacts. A tour of Pinckneyville and Menard revealed that there is the option to perform the daily crisis contacts in a confidential setting although this doesn’t occur if the offender refuses to leave his cell. A tour of Pontiac revealed that daily crisis checks generally occur but not on a consistent basis. When they do occur, they are not consistently done in a confidential manner. A problem in monitoring this issue is the fact that the daily crisis contact progress notes often omit specifying if they are conducted in a confidential manner.
Over the course of the reporting period, the Monitoring Team conducted 18 site visits of 14 different facilities. The overall consensus is that the mental health staff are aware of their responsibilities to provide mental health care in a confidential manner. For example, Dr. Kapoor found that the JTC was substantially compliant with this requirement. She went on to state that the RTU housing units and treatment mall contain adequate space for confidential mental health assessments. Crisis watch assessments are done in a day room of the housing unit, but the area is separate from the hallway containing inmates’ cells, and the officer is out of earshot.
The mental health staff throughout the toured facilities also admit that this is not always possible to conduct confidential mental health interactions given their tremendous workload. That is, it is much quicker to conduct a cell front evaluation then waiting for an escort officer. The lack of a sufficient number of escort officers is a tremendous problem throughout the Department. Finally, the MHPs at Pontiac admitted that the custody staff and not the mental health staff have final say over which offender can leave his cell. This fact, negatively impacts the staff’s ability to conduct confidential mental health interactions.
The Department will continue to receive a rating of non-compliance until they address these problems related to confidentiality.
(XIX)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into the IDOC AD 04.04.101 section II (E)(2) within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP
- 83 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 84 of 105
shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Before initiating psychotropic medication, the psychiatric provider must complete at least a brief history and Mental Status Examination to determine that the offender (a) has a basic understanding that he or she has a Mental Health Problem, (b) understands that medication is being offered to produce relief from that problem, and (c) is able to give consent to treatment. The clinician must also inform the offender about alternative treatments, the appropriate length of care, and the fact that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without compromising access to other Health Care. With the exception of Mental Health emergencies, informed consent must be obtained from the offender each time the Psychiatric Provider prescribes a new class of Psychotropic Medication.52
Findings: Throughout the first 30 months of the Settlement Agreement, the Department has struggled with this requirement. As reported in the 2nd Annual Report, “for the first 18 months of the Settlement Agreement, there was little indication that IDOC paid attention to this important requirement.”53 “The Monitored approved an omnibus consent form on 11/7/17 in hope that this new form would help address these deficiencies.”54 The Quarterly Report of October 2018 states that “a standalone confidentiality and consent from was implemented May 2018.” The Quarterly Report also states that “the informed consent procedures are addressed in Form 284, the mental health treatment planning form.” During the current reporting period the Monitoring team has not encountered this standalone form as the treatment planning form is consistently used to document informed consent. The continued use of the treatment planning form for the purposes of establishing informed consent results in there often being two treatment plans for a given offender. This was the reason why an omnibus form was created in the first place. It is also not lost on the Monitoring Team that this omnibus form was approved by the Monitor in November 2017 and wasn’t implemented until May 2018.
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
Specific requirement: The determination that an offender, who once met the criteria of seriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender’s mental health treatment team and documented in the offender’s mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
Findings: The Department does not currently track this information on a system-wide basis. The number of SMI-designated offenders has remained basically unchanged over the
52 The Manual defines “Informed Consent”: “Informed Consent is defined as consent voluntarily given by an offender, in writing, after he or she has been provided with a conscientious and sufficient explanation of the nature, consequences, risks, and alternatives of the proposed treatment.” This section of the Manual also provides: “Offenders should be advised of the Limits of Confidentiality prior to their receiving any Mental Health Services.” This requirement is nearly identical to the requirement discussed above regarding confidentiality, so the team does not address it again here under Informed Consent. 53 2nd Annual Report page 89. 54 Ibid.
- 84 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 85 of 105
reporting period.55 The procedure outlined by this requirement is being followed. This issue encountered by the Monitoring Team is that there is a large group of severely mentally ill offenders who do not carry the SMI designation. As important as this observation is, it is not pertinent to this section of the Settlement Agreement. Finally, the Monitor has not received any reports during the current reporting period that mentally ill offenders are losing their SMI status prior to a disciplinary hearing.
XXI: STAFF TRAINING
Summary: IDOC timely submitted a staff training plan. The implementation of that plan was also accomplished in a timely manner.
XXI(a): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has met this requirement by submission of this plan and program for staff training to the Monitor within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
XXI(b): Specific requirement: Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII (a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas: i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population; ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal; iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication; iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability; v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises; vi) Suicide prevention; vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
Findings: As previously reported, Chief Lindsay confirmed that this training requirement was completed within the requisite timeframe.
55 5112 on 5/9/18 & 5068 on 9/19/18. This is the most current data available.
- 85 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 86 of 105
XXI(c): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
Findings: As previously reported, IDOC has developed a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff within the deadline of May 22, 2017.
XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
Summary: This requirement was reviewed by the Monitoring Team during their site visits. In particular, Dr. Kapoor found that the JTC was in full compliance with this measure.
(XXII)(a): Specific requirement: Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
Findings: This requirement was reviewed by the Monitoring Team during their site visits. Nothing was found to suggest that SMI offenders are barred from participating in the few prison programs that currently exist. Dr. Kapoor particularly looked into this issue during her tour of the Joliet Treatment Center on 10/22/18. She found the facility is compliant with the provisions in this section. During her site visit, she did not encounter any inmates who were denied access to educational, religious, work, or substance abuse programs because of their SMI designation. However, she noted her previous concern that the Department does not seem to have a plan for allowing SMI offenders to earn early release credits. As she understands the situation, most SMI offenders do not have access to the specific IDOC programs that offer early release credits, and they cannot substitute treatment activities for these programs. Although not specifically addressed by the Settlement Agreement, in her view, the opportunity to earn early release credits should be afforded to SMI offenders.
XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
Summary: No rating will be assigned due to the Monitoring Team’s not reviewing this section during the current reporting period.
- 86 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 87 of 105
XXIII(a): Specific requirement: To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
Findings: The Monitoring Team did not review this requirement during the current reporting period.
XXIII(b): Specific requirement: When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
Findings: The Monitoring Team did not review this requirement during the current reporting period.
XXIII(c): Specific requirement: The provisions of this section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department will not receive a rating due to the Monitoring Team not fully reviewing this subsection.
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
Summary: When formal use of force incidents are initiated and completed, they generally meet the requirements of this section. However, an informal use of force and retaliation system carried out by the custody staff exists at Pontiac. The details of this system are provided in the body of this section of the report. There is also evidence of intimidation of the mental health staff at Pontiac by the custody staff. Both of these issues have been present at Pontiac throughout the life of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
It is my opinion as Monitor that the Department has not done anything to effectively address this ongoing problem at Pontiac.
Specific requirements: IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108(B)56 and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.30
Section 501.30 of the code, “Resort to Force,” provides: a) Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable
or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary to achieve a permitted
56 AD 03.02.108(B) does not appear to be the correct citation. The monitoring team believes the Settlement contemplated AD 03.02.108(I)(B).
- 87 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 88 of 105
purpose. b) Use of force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary. c) Medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force, which
results in bodily injury. d) Corporal punishment is prohibited.
AD 05.01.173, “Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions” provides:
F. General Provisions
1. Use of force shall be terminated as soon as the need for force is no longer necessary.
2. Nothing in this directive shall preclude staff from immediately using force or applying restraints when an offender’s behavior constitutes a threat to self, others, property, or the safety and security of the facility.
3. Restraints shall be applied in accordance with Administrative Directive 04.04.103 or 05.01.126 as appropriate.
4. Failure by the offender to comply with the orders to vacate is considered a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution and may result in the use of chemical agents in accordance with Department Rule 501.70
5. Unless it is not practical or safe, cell extractions shall be video recorded from the time circumstances warrant a cell extraction until the offender is placed in the designated cell.
NOTE: Any interruption in recording, including but not limited to changing a video tape or battery shall orally be documented on the video tape.
6. Use of force cell extractions shall be performed by certified Tactical Team members as designated by the Tactical Team Commander. The Tactical Team Commander shall designate one or more members who may function as the Tactical Team Leader.
G. Equipment
1. The following equipment items shall be available to and used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Orange jump suits; b. Protective helmets and full-face shields; c. Knife resistant vests; d. Protective gloves; e. Restraints minimally including hand cuffs and leg irons; f. Protective convex shields; g. Batons (36-inch length by 1.5 inches in diameter of oak or hickory); h. Gas masks; i. Leather boots, purchased by the employee, a minimum of 8 inches high for ankle protection; and j. Video camera with a minimum of two batteries and a video tape.
2. Chemical agents shall be available and may be used in accordance [with] Department Rule 501.70.
501.70: Use of Chemical Agents in Cells (Consent Decree) provides:
- 88 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 89 of 105
a) This Section applies only to the transfer of a committed person who has refused to leave his cell when so ordered. The transfer of a committed person shall be undertaken with a minimal amount of force. Only when the individual threatens bodily harm to himself, or other committed persons or correctional officers may tear gas or other chemical agents be employed to remove him.
b) Prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents, the committed person shall be informed that such tear gas or other chemical agents will be used unless he complies with the transfer order.
c) The use of tear gas or other chemical agents may be authorized only by an officer the rank of Captain or above. (For purposes of this rule, the shift supervisor or higher authority in the Juvenile Division may authorize the use of tear gas or other chemical agents.)
d) Precautionary measures shall be taken to limit the noxious side effects of the chemical agents. In addition, the following procedures shall be followed whenever tear gas or other chemical agents are used to compel a committed person to leave his cell:
1) If circumstances allow, ventilation devices, such as windows and fans, shall be readied prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents. In any event, these devices shall be employed immediately after tear gas or other chemical agents are used. The purpose of this procedure is to minimize the effect of tear gas or other chemical agents upon other committed persons located in the cell house.
2) Gas masks shall be available for use by correctional officers at the time the tear gas or other chemical agent is used.
3) When a gas canister is placed inside a committed person’s cell, the gas will quickly take effect and correctional officers shall enter the cell as soon as possible to remove the individual.
4) The committed person shall be instructed by the correctional officer to flush his eyes and skin exposed to the chemical agent with water. If the individual appears incapable of doing so, a member of the medical staff present shall perform this task. If no member of the medical staff is present, the correctional officer shall undertake this procedure.
e) An incident report shall be prepared immediately after the use of the chemical agent. This report shall be signed by each correctional officer involved in the transfer, who may indicate disagreement with any fact stated in the report.
f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall examine these incident reports to ensure that proper procedures were employed. Failure to follow proper procedures will result in disciplinary action.
- 89 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 90 of 105
g) Before Section 501.70 is modified, legal staff must be consulted. This Section was promulgated pursuant to Settlement litigation by order of the court. It may not be modified without approval of the court.
3. The following equipment items may be used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Throat protectors (cut resistant); and b. Elbow, groin, knee, and shin protectors
H. Tactical Team Structure for Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions
The Tactical Team shall consist of six certified Tactical Team members for a single offender cell extraction and seven certified Tactical Team members for a multiple offender cell extraction. One member of the team shall serve as the Tactical Team Leader; however, the team leader shall not be the person responsible for video recording the incident.
1. For a single offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the offender against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. Two members (also known as Number 2 and 3 persons) shall secure the offender’s arms and hands and place restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. c. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall secure the doorway with a baton to prevent the offender from escaping, and if necessary, to assist in the application of restraints. d. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; remain outside of the cell with a baton in the event the offender should attempt to escape from the cell; and deploy chemical agents if necessary. e. The video recording member (also known as Number 6 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
2. For a multiple offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the first offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. The assistant shield person (also known as Number 2 person) shall use a shield; secure the second offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. c. A member (also known as Number 3 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member in most need of assistance by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. d. A
- 90 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 91 of 105
member (also known as Number 4 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member with the other offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. e. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team members with the most combative offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands for placement of restraints. f. A member (also known as Number 6 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; secure the doorway with a baton to prevent an offender from escaping, and if necessary, deploy chemical agents and assist in the application of restraints. g. The video recording member (also known as Number 7 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
I. Calculated Use of Force Cell Extraction Procedures
1. Once an officer has ordered an offender to move from the cell and the offender refuses, the officer shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
2. The Lieutenant or above shall again order the offender to vacate the cell. If the offender refuses, the Lieutenant or above shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
3. On site personnel shall begin video recording the offender’s actions.
4. When time and circumstances permit, the Shift Commander shall obtain the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer for calculated use of force cell extractions. In all other situations, the Shift Commander or above shall approve the cell extraction.
5. If the decision is made to proceed with a cell extraction, the Shift Commander shall activate the Tactical Team.
6. The Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Secure the area by removing all non-involved staff and non-secured offenders; b. Ensure the video camera is present and recording the offender’s actions; and c. Notify medical staff of the pending cell extraction.
7. Upon notification of a pending cell extraction, Health Care staff shall check the offender’s medical file for pertinent medical information and be present in a secure area that is close to, but not in the immediate vicinity of the cell extraction.
8. Upon arrival of the Tactical Team, the Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Brief the Tactical Commander of pertinent information; b. Ensure the transfer of the video tape to a designated Tactical Team member to continue recording; c. Notify the Duty Administrative Officer of the incident, pending cell extraction, and other information as it becomes available; and d. Be available, if needed, but remain out of the immediate area of the cell extraction.
- 91 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 92 of 105
9. Prior to the use of force, the Tactical Team leader shall: a. Orally attempt to obtain the offender’s voluntary compliance to vacate the cell or area prior to the use of force. In cells or areas with two or more offenders, each offender shall be given the opportunity to comply and be voluntarily removed. Whenever possible, offenders who comply shall be placed in restraints and removed prior to action being taken. b. Issue three direct orders for the offender to comply. c. Advise the offender that failure to comply with the orders to vacate may result in the use of chemical agents.
10. If the offender does not vacate the cell voluntarily, the Tactical Team shall remove the offender from the cell.
11. Following removal from the cell, the Tactical Team shall escort the offender to a designated area to be examined by Health Care staff.
12. Following the completion of the cell extraction including medical care, the Tactical Team member who video recorded the incident shall: a. Label the video tape with the date and location of the incident, offender name(s) and number(s), and the name of the employee who recorded the incident; b. If available, activate any security measures such as breaking the security tab on the VHS (Video Home System) video tape to prevent the video tape from being erased or recorded over; c. Tag the video tape as evidence and process it in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.112.
13. Unless otherwise directed to maintain longer, the video tape shall be retained in a secure area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer for three years following the date of the extraction.
14. Each employee who participated in the cell extraction or who was otherwise involved shall complete an Incident Report and other appropriate reports documenting the incident in its entirety. When necessary, the incident shall be reported in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.105. (AD 01.12.105 provides general instructions on the reporting of “unusual incidents.”)
15. The Shift Commander shall ensure: a. A search of the involved area is completed after removal of the offender; b. The area is decontaminated if chemical agents were used; and c. Appropriate reports are completed and processed.
16. The Shift Commander or above shall debrief with the Tactical Team.
Findings: The monitoring team did not perform a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of this requirement during this monitoring period. Based on numerous site visits and overall familiarity with the use of force policies and procedures, it is my opinion as Monitor that when a formal use of force incident is initiated and completed, the Department is usually meeting the requirements of this subsection.
There exists, however, an informal use of force system at Pontiac. This informal use of force system may exist at other facilities but I have no objective evidence to support that. I am
- 92 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 93 of 105
absolutely convinced of the existence of this informal use of force system at Pontiac. The following are the bases of my opinion:
1. Hundreds of interviews with offenders describing in explicit details how the custody staff physically assault the mentally ill offenders. The details of these assaults are often corroborated by offenders living in proximity to the offender who has been assaulted.
2. The details of some of these assaults have been further corroborated by the mental health staff.
3. The details of some of these assaults have been further corroborated by the offender’s medical record.
4. During my site visits, I often encounter mentally ill offenders who present with injuries to their heads and face. I have even encountered mentally ill offenders with newly missing teeth and physical exam evidence of recent trauma to their faces. If I had encountered these types of injuries with my own patients, I would be obligated to report them to the police.
5. Finally, I have reviewed hundreds of filings to the Court regarding these incidents of physical abuse.
I have also encountered the presence of an elaborate system of retaliation perpetrated by the custody staff against the mentally ill offenders at Pontiac. These retaliatory acts include, but are not limited to:
1. Withholding of food/visits/phone calls. 2. Not allowing certain mentally ill offenders to attend required structured or unstructured
activities. 3. Setting up certain mentally ill offenders for assault by labeling them “snitches.” 4. Providing mentally ill offenders with the means for them to perform self-injurious
behaviors (i.e. staples, paperclips, or other sharp objects.) 5. Planting incriminating evidence in the cells of mentally ill offenders, such as weapons or
other forms of contraband.
As Monitor, I do not make these allegations frivolously. I have been relaying this information to parties informally and in writing throughout my tenure as Monitor. Nothing has come of my reports. In fact, the staff at Pontiac are more strident in their actions and dealings with me since I have been formally reporting their abuse. Regardless of Chief Lindsay’s claims to the contrary, the Department has done nothing to curb these abuses.
During the next reporting period, I will be seeking outside legal consultation, at my own expense, to determine what professional and ethical obligations I have to report this abuse to outside police agencies. I will keep the Department informed of my progress in this regard.
Professional Conduct
AD 03.02.108(I)(B), “Standards of Conduct” provides: The Department shall require employees to conduct themselves in a professional manner and, whether on duty or off duty, not
- 93 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 94 of 105
engage in conduct that is unbecoming of a State employee or that may reflect unfavorably on or impair operations of the Department.
Findings:
As was reported in the 2nd Annual Report “there have been several critical issues in regards to ‘Professional Conduct’ during the reporting period. The first is a series of vandalisms that occurred to the cars of mental health staff while they were parked in the staff parking lot at Logan. Several cars were ‘keyed’ between December 2016 and October 2017. A new Chief Administrative Officer, Warden Austin, came to the facility in August 2017. An investigation began during the summer of 2017. The Monitor has not been informed of the results of this investigation. The working hypothesis has been that the perpetrators of this vandalism are custody staff upset about the ever increasing mental health focus of the facility. I must emphasize that this is just a hypothesis at this time and has not been proven. Regardless, this is a very significant incident which Warden Austin is taking very seriously. I look forward to being informed of the results of the investigation into these incidents.”57 The Monitoring Team has not been informed of the results of this investigation.
There remains the specter of intimidation of the mental health staff by the custody staff at Pontiac. As Monitor, I held a focus group with the QMHPs at Pontiac on 9/11/18. Of note, an attorney from Wexford was present for the entire meeting. I have interviewed thousands of individuals over the course of my psychiatric career and it was blatantly obvious that the QMHPs had been thoroughly coached about what they should say. Even in this very hostile environment, the QMHPs reported that custody staff has the final say about which offenders can come out of their cells. They also reluctantly admitted that they had all been made aware that the custody staff acts as gatekeepers to the Crisis Intervention Team.
Finally, in my role as Monitor, the custody staff at Pontiac has attempted to intimidate me during my interviews with mentally ill offenders. This occurred on 10/18/18 during my interviews with mentally ill offenders who had submitted filings with the Court. Custody staff were standing immediately next to the door to the interview room and could clearly hear my conversations with the offenders. I repeatedly ask the custody officer to back away from the door and I was told he was there “for security.” Of note, this has never happened in all of my previous tours of Pontiac. To further highlight this frankly ridiculous claim of “for security”, the offender in question was handcuffed behind his back, shackled to a metal stool which was built into the floor, and locked into a cage. This claim of “for security” was reiterated by the custody chain of command including Warden Kennedy and the Deputy Director for the Central District, John Eilers. Thankfully, Chief Lindsay intervened and I was able to proceed with my monitoring duties.

57 2nd Annual Report, Pages 102 & 103.

- 94 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 95 of 105
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
Summary: Although the Department has made progress in this section, it is still not meeting all of the requirements specified in Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
The current review did not find any evidence of mentally ill offenders being punished for self-injurious behaviors. The Department is yet to consult with the Monitor on this issue, however.
Disciplinary procedures are taking place in a mental health treatment context for offenders assigned to an RTU level of care. Inpatient services were not monitored during the reporting period.
A Behavioral Treatment Program is yet to be initiated within the Department. There is a small Behavioral Management Unit operating at the JTC. The Monitoring team is unclear if this BMU is meant to satisfy the requirements of XXV(d).
XXV(a): Specific requirement: IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code section 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in AD 05.12.103.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
G. Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
H. Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original
- 95 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 96 of 105
notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
- 96 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 97 of 105
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: In the Quarterly Report of October 2018, the Department takes the position that “XXV(a) does not impose any obligations on IDOC. Instead, it states that IDOC ‘has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceeds (sic) in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense…’ IDOC affirms that these policies and procedures have been and remain implemented.” The Monitoring Team agrees with the fact that “system-wide policies and procedures have been implemented.” The specifics of this system are found in AD 05.12.103, which explicitly lists the requirements of XXV(a). That is what’s being monitored in this subsection.
For the purposes of these requirements, Reena Kapoor, M.D., conducted the following data-driven analysis:
She performed an updated review of the disciplinary process for seriously mentally ill (SMI) offenders in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The opinions in this report are based on her review of the following documents:
1. IDOC Administrative Directive 05.12.103, “Administration of Discipline for Offenders Identified as Seriously Mentally Ill.”
2. IDOC October 2018 Quarterly Report re: Rasho agreement
- 97 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 98 of 105
3. Adjustment Committee reports, Mental Health Disciplinary Review (DOC 0443), and Offender Disciplinary reports (DOC 0317) for a total of 125 disciplinary infractions adjudicated during September 2018, representing approximately 20% of incidents involving SMI offenders at the following facilities:
1. Big Muddy River – one incident 2. Centralia – four incidents 3. Danville – one incident 4. Decatur – five incidents 5. Dixon – 18 incidents 6. East Moline – one incident 7. Graham—one incident 8. Hill – one incident 9. Illinois River – six incidents 10. Joliet Treatment Center – four incidents 11. Kewanee – one incident 12. Lawrence – 17 incidents 13. Lincoln – two incidents 14. Logan – 12 incidents 15. Menard – seven incidents 16. Pinckneyville – eight incidents 17. Pontiac – 19 incidents 18. Robinson – one incident 19. Shawnee – two incidents 20. Sheridan – four incidents 21. Stateville – eight incidents 22. Vienna – one incident 23. Western Illinois – one incident
Overall Findings
I see incremental improvement since my last report in November 2017. Although some problems persist, I see areas in which IDOC facilities have taken into account the monitoring team’s recommendations and completed more meaningful assessments of SMI inmates in the disciplinary process. First, I will mention the good things, some of which I also noted in previous reports:
1. Segregation is not being used as a punishment (for SMI offenders) for 300- and 400-level infractions at any IDOC facility.
2. The Adjustment Committee consistently receives and reviews input from Mental Health regarding SMI inmates; I found just one possible exception in reviewing 125 disciplinary infractions.
3. I did not see any cases in which inmates received disciplinary infractions for suicide attempts, self-injury, or suicide attempts.
- 98 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 99 of 105
4. Evaluations of offenders by MHPs (as documented in the DOC 0443 forms) appeared more individualized overall and contained less “boiler plate” language. In addition, I did not see any forms that described inmates using pejorative or non-clinical language.
5. In the vast majority of cases, the Adjustment Committee is following IDOC’s policy 05.12.133, Section H.2, which states, in relevant part:
If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations (emphasis added).
If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).
In the 125 records I reviewed, the Adjustment Committee issued a sanction that was equal to or less than the Mental Health recommendation in all but two cases. In these two cases, the Adjustment Committee documented the reason for issuing a higher sanction, though seemingly without submitting an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer.
Areas for improvement include:
1. The quality of mental health (MH) evaluations documented on the DOC 0443 form is variable. In the vast majority of evaluations that I reviewed, the MHP concluded that mental illness did not contribute to the offense, and he/she did not clearly state a rationale for this conclusion. Although the 0443 reports might be kept brief in order to protect the confidentiality of the inmate’s mental health information, the MH clinician’s rationale should be documented somewhere (likely a progress note in the medical chart). If IDOC facilities are already doing this, then I would ask that copies of the documentation be provided to the monitoring team. If they are not doing this, I recommend that they begin as soon as possible.
2. MHPs are still not performing face-to-face assessments of SMI offenders after they are charged with disciplinary infractions in most cases; the 0443 forms are completed based on a chart review and/or discussion amongst the mental health staff. I did see some improvement in this area, as MHPs at Pinckneyville, Robinson, and Shawnee appear to be interviewing the inmates about the circumstances of disciplinary infractions. Also, in one of the seven cases I reviewed at Menard, the inmate was interviewed by an MHP after the disciplinary infraction.
3. When making specific recommendations regarding segregation time, MHPs at different facilities appear to be using different standards. For example, at some facilities the segregation recommendation was uniformly one half of the typical sanction for the offense, while at other facilities the recommendation was seemingly chosen at random.
- 99 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 100 of 105
In one case at Dixon, an MHP recommended segregation time of “0 to 9 months,” which struck me as a rather wide range. In another case at Dixon, two inmates were charged with the same offense after being found with contraband pills in their cell, but the MHPs recommended different segregation time (0-3 months for one inmate, 0-6 months for the other) without documenting a rationale for the discrepancy. As noted in my previous reports, additional training for the mental health staff across IDOC regarding how/why to recommend particular disciplinary sanctions to the Adjustment Committee may be helpful.
4. Overall, MHPs found mitigating factors related to mental health in more disciplinary cases in September 2018 than during my previous reviews. Out of the 125 infractions I reviewed from September, mitigating factors were found in 15 cases. However, I noticed an unusual pattern in which the facilities with the most disciplinary infractions involving SMI offenders—Dixon, Pontiac, Logan, and Lawrence—almost uniformly found that mental illness did not contribute to the offense behavior. I reviewed 66 infractions at these facilities, and in 65 of these cases the MHP concluded that mental illness was not a factor in the offense. In the one remaining case (at Dixon), the MHP found that mental illness “minimally” contributed. I do not know what exactly to make of this pattern, but it raises concerns about the thoroughness of the MHPs’ evaluations and/or the culture around inmate discipline at these facilities.
Additional Requirements:
I. Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
Findings: Weekly cell front rounds are generally being performed in segregation by BHTs.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
Findings: The Department has not been able to satisfy this requirement at any time during the life of the Amended Settlement Agreement. This is largely due to gross understaffing of MHPs at all of the monitored facilities. This is further evidenced by the significant backlog of Mental Health Evaluations, 231 as of 11/16/18. Mentally ill offenders in segregation must therefore rely on the Crisis Intervention Team. As described in section V(g) of this report, significant problems exist with this process.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
Findings: This is not occurring. The Department tolerates the existence of serious mental
- 100 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 101 of 105
illness for those offenders on segregation status. This means that this point of “clinical indication” is well past by the time the offender is seen, usually by the Crisis Intervention Team. Given all the problems associated with the Crisis Intervention Team, offenders are allowed to decompensate before they get any help.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
Findings: The Department is compliant with this requirement.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: The Department is compliant with this requirement.
(XXV)(b): Specific requirement: No later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
Findings: As stated previously, as Monitor, I have never been consulted about this issue. In her review of section XXV for the 2nd Annual Report, Dr. Kapoor stated “In contrast to my November 2017 findings, I did not see any cases in which inmates received Disciplinary Infractions for behaviors that would be better handled through clinical intervention, such as refusing medication, hiding pills or self-harm.”
In her current review, Dr. Kapoor reports “For the most part, inmates did not receive disciplinary infractions for behaviors that would better be handled through clinical intervention (e.g., cheeking or refusing medications). However, there was one case at Western Illinois in which I question whether a disciplinary infraction should have been issued at all. In that case, an inmate became angry and threatening during a Crisis Watch evaluation, and the MHP noted that he was also awaiting transfer to an RTU bed at another facility. He was issued a sanction of 30 days in segregation for this incident. Given the presumed severity of mental illness and active symptoms in an inmate awaiting an RTU bed, I would strongly urge the facility to consider alternatives to segregation in such cases.” The Department will receive a rating of compliance despite this one egregious example.
Finally, the Quarterly Report of October 2018 questions why the Department received a non-compliance rating for this requirement on the 2nd Annual Report. This was due to the fact that the 2nd Annual Report is just that, an annual report. The Department was found noncompliant with this requirement on the midyear report of November 2017. Although improvement was noted in Dr. Kapoor’s May 2018 report, the Department was not in compliance for the entire year of May 2017-May 2018.
- 101 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 102 of 105
(XXV)(c): Specific requirement: For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
Findings: The Quarterly Report of October 2018 correctly questions why the Department received a rating of non-compliance for this requirement on the 2nd Annual Report when the report states “IDOC is currently meeting these requirements.” The rating was accurate but the report did not explain the reasons behind this rating. As Monitor, I take full responsibility for this omission. The rating was based on the credible reports I received regarding violations of this requirement at Pontiac.
During the current reporting period the Department is meeting this requirement.
(XXV)(d): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
Findings: This mythical Behavior Treatment Program remains a source of intrigue for the Monitoring Team. As noted in the 2nd Annual Report, “Over the duration of the Settlement Agreement, the Monitor has been presented with several plans regarding this Behavioral Treatment Program. To date, this program has not been implemented in any IDOC facility.”58 During her tour of the Joliet Treatment Center on October 22, 2018, Dr. Kapoor reported the existence of a “Behavioral Management Unit” that had been operating for three weeks. There is no mention of this Joliet Behavioral Management Unit in the Quarterly Report of October 2018. As Monitor, I am unaware if this program is meant to fulfill the requirements of this subsection.
The Quarterly Report of October 2018 devotes a large paragraph on page 30 that discusses a “pilot Behavior Treatment Program at Pontiac Correctional Center.” The Quarterly Report makes it sound as if this program will be located in the same space as the putative Pontiac RTU. As Monitor, I have personally inspected these spaces numerous times during the reporting period and am able to definitely state that these spaces are nowhere near completion. Regardless of what’s really happening with this Behavioral Treatment Unit, it was not operating at Pontiac during the reporting period.

58 2nd Annual Report, page 113.

- 102 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 103 of 105
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
Summary: The Department is meeting all of the requirements of this section. The CQI program in its present form still requires improvement. The CQI program requires ongoing maintenance to ensure that it helps to facilitate the Department meetings all of the clinical requirements of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
(XXVI)(a): Specific requirement: IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), section II (E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility throughout IDOC.
Findings: As reported in the Quarterly Report of October 2018, the CQI Manager, Dr. Sim, has been in this position since January 2018. He has developed a audit instrument with a corrective actions component which meets the requirements of this subsection. This coupled with successfully meeting the requirements of section XXVI(b), below, the Department is in compliance with section XXVI.
It is important to note, however, that despite a rating of compliance, the results of a particular CQI audit cannot necessarily be used as evidence of compliance with any of the sections of the Amended Settlement Agreement. That is, as explained in the Quarterly Report of October 2018, the audits are conducted on 20 randomly selected charts at least 15 of which are SMI patients. A particular requirement, such as section XV(a)(iv) “An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such reviews shall be documented” may only be pertinent in a few of the audited charts, if any. For example, if one of the audited charts meets this requirement than it is reported as being in 100% compliance. A more accurate manner to report this finding would be to say that the requirement was met in the one chart where it was an issue.
XXVI(b): Specific requirement: The statewide CQI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
Findings: The Department was found to be non-complaint with this requirement on the 2nd Annual Report. This rating was due to Dr. Sim’s lack of authority to implement AD 04.04.104 and fill the designated mental health authority positions. The Department will continue to receive a rating of non-compliance for this requirement until such time as AD 04.04.104 is fully implemented.
- 103 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 104 of 105
XXVII: MONITORING
Only three specific requirements of this section will be discussed in detail.
XXVII(d): Specific requirement: Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
Findings: The Monitor submitted a request for an increase in the hourly compensation for the members of the monitoring team in June 2017. No formal response has been received by the time of submission of the 2nd annual report. The Monitor once again is requesting that the Department seriously review the pay rates for all of the members of the Monitoring Team.
XXVII(f)(iv): Specific requirement: The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation.
Findings: The Monitor once again is requesting that the Department develop an evidencebased protocol for the use of Telepsychiatric services.
XXVII(f)(v): Specific requirement: The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced onsite tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel.
Findings: The Department has been meeting this requirement.
XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Summary: The Department has been submitting quarterly reports for the duration of the Settlement Agreement implementation. The quarterly reports of October 2018 is more objective and of overall better quality from the previous reports.
Specific requirement: Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX
- 104 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2493 Page 105 of 105

(d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
Findings: The Department has been submitting quarterly reports to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor for the duration of the Settlement Agreement. These reports generally contained the information required by this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Prior to the submission of the quarterly report of October 2018, the reports were not necessarily objective in their descriptions of the progress that IDOC is allegedly making towards implementing the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. I am happy to say that the quality of the October 2018 quarterly report is improved from that of its predecessors. The Monitoring Team looks forward to receiving this type of high quality report moving forward.
CONCLUSION
The Department continues to struggle to meet the requirements of the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Department has many problems with its provision of mental health care. They include, but are not limited to, clinging to outdated notions about the use of segregated housing with mentally ill offenders, many serious instances of custody staff interfering with the provision of mental health care and the fact that the treatment needs of the mentally ill population exceed that which the Department is safely capable of providing. The data from the first 30 months of monitoring clearly substantiates that the staffing levels of the Approved Remedial Plan of May 2016 are grossly inadequate to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Until the staffing issue is adequately addressed, the Department will continue to flounder in its efforts to meet the requirements of the Amended Settlement Agreement.

Respectfully submitted, Pablo Stewart, M.D.59 Pablo Stewart, MD

Dated: November 30, 2018

59 Indicates electronic signature

- 105 -

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 1 of 115

E-FILED

Wednesday, 29 November, 2017 03:29:36 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH

)

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.

)

Hawley

)

)

)

MIDYEAR REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 2 of 115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………………………4 METHODOLOGY/MONITORING ACTIVITIES ……………………………………………7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………. 8 DETAILED FINDINGS ……………………………………………………………………… 16
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING ………………. 17 V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS ……………………………. 22 VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION …………………………………… 28 VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW ……………………………… 29 VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS..34 IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF ………………………………………….36 X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE ……………………………………………………………38 XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING ………………………………………………………44 XII: MEDICATION.………………………………………………………………………… 46 XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION ……………………………………………52 XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS ………………………………………………………….57 XV: SEGREGATION ……………………………………………………………………….59 XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION …………………………………………………………….72 XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES ……………….80 XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS ……………………………………………………………...85 XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY …………………………………………………………………87 XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION …………………………………………………..91 XXI: STAFF TRAINING …………………………………………………………………...92
- 2 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 3 of 115 XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS ……………………………………….93 XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY ………………………………………………….93 XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE ………………………………………….94 XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS ………………….103 XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ……………………….111 XXVII: MONITORING ……………………………………………………………………..112 XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING …………………………………………113 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………114
- 3 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 4 of 115
BACKGROUND
IDOC: IDOC consists of 25 adult correctional facilities. Among these are four maximum security facilities (including a facility for women), and two women’s facilities. Four of the facilities have Reception and Classification units where inmates are received into IDOC. Three of the facilities have Residential Treatment Units. All facilities have crisis care beds as well as having some form of segregation, including administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, and investigative status.
Settlement: The original Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on January 21, 2016. The Amended Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) was approved May 23, 2016. It covers a range of issues affecting inmates with mental illness or serious mental illness:
• Policies and procedures • Intake screening • Medication continuity on arrival • Referrals • Mental health evaluations • Crisis Intervention Team • Licensure • Inmate orientation • Treatment plans and updates • Psychiatric evaluations • Follow-up after discharge from specialized treatment settings • Staffing plans and hiring • Bed, programming, and office space for residential treatment units, inpatient
facilities, and crisis beds • Administrative staffing • Medication administration, documentation, evaluations, lab work, side effects
monitoring, informed consent, non-compliance follow-up • Enforced medication • Housing assignment notice and recommendations • Treatment, housing conditions, and out-of-cell time in segregation and
investigative status • Review of segregation terms length • Suicide prevention • Restraints for mental health purposes • Mental health care records and forms • Confidentiality • Change of Seriously Mentally Ill designation • Staff training • Nondiscrimination in program participation • Records and medication continuity on inter-facility transfers • Use of force and verbal abuse • Mental health input into discipline
- 4 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 5 of 115

• Continuous quality improvement • Terms of monitoring this Settlement • IDOC reporting
Deadlines: Deadlines in the Settlement range from immediate to the year 2020; this report calculates many deadlines from the Amended Settlement Agreement approval date of May 23, 2016. A number of deadlines on critical issues were contingent upon, and calculated from, the state budget approval date of July 6, 2017. The team reviewed each provision of the Settlement per the specific deadlines identified in the Settlement. Of note, there are many provisions for which the deadline is “as agreed upon” between the parties but for which the monitoring team did not receive a schedule of specific agreed-upon dates. For these particular issues, the assigned compliance ratings reflect the current status of the issues.
The following table lists the requirements in order of their deadlines to be accomplished. Of the 27 items with deadlines in or before November 2017, 16 have reached Substantial Compliance. Ratings are also indicated for those items to be accomplished “in a reasonable time,” in the event that it is determined that a reasonable time is now at hand. A more detailed summary of the compliance status of all Settlement Agreement provisions can be found in the Executive Summary.

Amended Settlement Agreement provision

Timeline

Substantial Compliance?

Crisis Beds are to be outside Control Units (except Pontiac) Regional Director hires State employee at each facility to supervise State clinical staff, monitor and approve vendor staff Architectural plans to Monitor 12 Mental Health Forms in use Treating mental health professionals1 disclose information to patient Medical Records and medication transferred with patient Intergovernmental Agreement with Department of Health Services Medication delivery, recording, side effects monitoring, lab work, patient informed, non-compliance follow-up Propose any amendment to Staffing Plan Any objections to proposed amended Staffing Plan All policies/procedures/ADs specified in Settlement Agreement – drafts to Plaintiffs and Monitor

May 2016

N

June 2016

Y

June 2016

N

July 2016

Y

July 2016

Y

July 2016

N

August 2016 August 2016

No rating Y

August 2016

N

August 2016

Y

October 2016 Y

November 2016 N

(unless otherwise

specified)

1 Referred to throughout the Settlement Agreement and this report as MHP
- 5 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 6 of 115

Confidentiality: records, mental health information, policies and training Behavior Treatment Program pilot Quality Improvement Manager hire Review Committees for SMI Disciplinary Segregation terms Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 8 hours out of cell time weekly Inmate Orientation policy and procedure Crisis beds at Pontiac moved to protective custody Suicide Prevention measures Physical Restraints measures Staff Training plan and program developed Discipline: policies related to self-injury Mental health staff Training plan and program developed Transfers: consults and notification Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 12 hours out of cell time weekly Staffing: quarterly hiring reports, meeting targets

November 2016 N

November 2016 N February 2017 Y February 2017 Y

May 2016-May Y

2017

May 2017

Y

May 2017

N

May 2017

N

May 2017

N

May 2017

Y

May 2017

N

May 2017

Y

May 2017

N

June 2017-May N

2018

Quarterly from N

October 2017 on

Mental health referrals and evaluations Staffing to run RTU at Joliet Central office staff hires for policies and recordkeeping RTU Programming and Office Space Staffing hires – Dixon, Pontiac, Logan
RTU Bed Space
Inpatient Bed Space construction
Screening conducted with sound privacy Training for all State and vendor staff with inmate contact Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 16 hours out of cell time weekly MHP review within 48 hours after Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement placement Inpatient Facility – transfer ownership and expand, policies Mentally ill Control Unit residents >60 days receive 20 hours out of cell time weekly Segregation and Temporary Confinement for mentally ill: housing decisions, MHP review, treatment and out-of-cell requirements

November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 January 2018 January-July 2018 January-October 2018 JanuaryNovember 2018 May 2018 May 2018 June 2018-May 2019 July 2018
November 2018
June 2019-May 2020 May 2020

N Y N No rating N
No rating
No rating Y No rating N
N
No rating
No rating
N

- 6 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 7 of 115

Develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations Screening on arrival at reception Psychotropic medications continued on arrival, reviewed, and related documentation Inmate Orientation Treatment Plans Psychiatry Review frequency Follow-up after Specialized Treatment Settings Enforced Medication SMI Housing Assignment information and consultation Change of SMI designation only by treatment team (or treating MHP before teams are operating) Mental illness does not prevent access to prison programs Use of Force and Verbal Abuse Discipline system conforms to AD 05.12.103 Discipline in RTU or inpatient is carried out in a mental health treatment context Quality Improvement Program implemented

After IGA is signed Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time Reasonable time
Reasonable time

N
Y N
Y N N N N N N
No rating N N No rating
N

METHODOLOGY / MONITORING ACTIVITIES
This report was prepared and submitted by Pablo Stewart, MD, Virginia Morrison, JD, and Reena Kapoor, MD.
To accomplish the monitoring obligations, the monitoring team sought information in a variety of ways. The monitoring team conducted 15 site visits to a variety of IDOC facilities, where interviews of administrators, staff, and offenders were conducted. While on site, the monitoring team would meet with the administrative and clinical leadership of the facility and then tour the facility. The tour would include observing general population units, segregated housing units, crisis care units, infirmary areas including medical records and restraint rooms, working spaces for the clinical staff, group therapy areas (if present), as well as any other area associated with the provision of mental health services. The monitoring team also toured the Residential Treatment Units at Dixon and Joliet. The Monitor personally inspected the Mental Health Unit at Pontiac on two separate occasions.
During the monitoring period, the Monitor met with the Director and Assistant Director, as well as the Chiefs of operations, mental health, quality assurance and legal. The Monitor also met with counsel for the plaintiffs on several occasions. The Monitor received and considered reports prepared by counsel for the plaintiffs regarding IDOC’s response to the Settlement Agreement, as well as receiving and considering reports prepared by counsel for the defendants. Of note, over the course of the monitoring period, the various members of the monitoring team interviewed and reviewed the medical records of several hundred offenders. This number of offenders evaluated represents a sufficiently robust sample of the mental health population of the

- 7 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 8 of 115

IDOC. Therefore, the opinions presented in this monitoring report are based on a substantial-sized clinical sample of offenders.

In advance of the site visits, a variety of materials were requested. These materials included policies, procedures, training materials, a variety of clinical data, internal audits and reports, inmate grievances, incident reports, various logs, and other materials. The responsiveness to the monitoring team’s request for data began to slow down during the course of this monitoring period. That is, some data was not received in a timely manner. In addition, the data when received was often disorganized and difficult to interpret. It is unclear why this occurred. The monitoring team has made every effort to include the most up to date data in this report.

Monitoring began immediately following the submission of the First Annual Report on May 22, 2017. The monitoring team, once again, was purposefully kept small in consideration of the budgetary issues facing Illinois in general and IDOC in particular. The rates of compensation were also purposely kept in the low range.

The monitoring team made the following site visits during the current monitoring period:

Pinckneyville 8/21-8/24 Ms. Morrison
10/16 Dr. Stewart

Pontiac 6/19 Dr. Stewart, Ms. Morrison
9/11 Ms. Morrison 9/19 Dr. Stewart

Stateville and Northern Reception Center 6/20 Dr. Stewart, Ms. Morrison
11/7 Dr. Stewart

Dixon 8/31-9/1 Dr. Kapoor

Joliet 6/20 Dr. Stewart

Menard 11/8-11/9 Dr. Kapoor

Hill 9/7-9/8 Ms. Morrison

Sheridan 9/7-9/8 Dr. Stewart

Big Muddy River 8/24-8/25 Ms. Morrison

Lawrence 10/18-10/23 Ms. Morrison

Robinson 10/23-10/24 Ms. Morrison

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During this current monitoring period, May 23-November 22, 2017, IDOC leadership has been generally cooperative and helpful with the work of the monitoring team. The Director and Assistant Director, as well as the Chiefs of Operations, Legal, and Mental Health have made themselves available to the Monitor regarding the implementation of the various requirements of the Settlement. In addition to this cooperation and availability, numerous IDOC staff members encountered during the various site visits have demonstrated a willingness for implementing the requirements of the Settlement. This was especially true of the staff at Pinckneyville and Sheridan.
Improvements to the mental health care delivery system in IDOC have occurred during this first six months of the second year of the Settlement. A greater number of structured out-of-cell
- 8 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 9 of 115
activities are being offered to those mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation, and there was improved content in group therapy in some locations. The RTU at Joliet began accepting mentally ill offenders on 11/6/17. Dixon has made significant progress and is close to being substantially compliant with constructing sufficient bed and treatment space for 625 RTU offenders. More institutions moved from cell side to private contacts for crisis care. Dixon has improved the overall confidentiality of its psychiatric contacts. It is a major improvement that treatment plans in Dixon’s STC are now completed during monthly review meetings by members of every discipline treating the patients. The mental status examinations of the mental health evaluations were somewhat more comprehensive.
Despite the improvements to the mental health care delivery system, IDOC continues to not be able to meet the majority of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Among IDOC’s biggest challenges is the lack of psychiatric services which meet a constitutional minimum level of care. That is, there continues to be a grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services. This overwhelming shortage and lack of standards undermines all of the efforts of IDOC to meet the requirements of the Settlement. These psychiatric services deficiencies include but are not limited to problems with the proper continuation of medications for offenders entering IDOC, lack of timely follow-up for offenders prescribed psychotropic medication, dangerous practices related to the use of psychotropic medications, lack of following standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, extreme delays in obtaining psychiatric evaluations, nonparticipation of psychiatrists in the mental health treatment team treatment planning process2, and lack of timely psychiatric intervention for offenders assigned to crisis beds. Of note, the overall quality of the psychiatric services provided to the mentally ill offenders of IDOC is exceedingly poor and often times dangerous. The Monitor has alerted IDOC of these deficiencies throughout the life of the Settlement. IDOC leadership has been well aware of the problems related to the insufficient amount of psychiatric services and yet has been unable to adequately solve this issue. At the time of the submission of this midyear report, however, the lack and quality of psychiatric services continues to negatively impact all aspects of the Settlement and contributes to IDOC being non-compliant in the vast majority of areas of the Settlement. Of note, these deficiencies regarding psychiatric services were reported in the First Annual Report. The Monitor personally met with Director Baldwin on 6/26/17 to discuss this problem. To date, IDOC is yet to effectively address this emergency.
The monitoring team continued to hear multiple credible complaints from mentally ill offenders at key facilities monitored that Custody staff was acting as “gate keepers” when a mentally ill offender requested to be seen by the Crisis Intervention Team. A data driven analysis of this concern conducted by Assistant Monitor Ginny Morrison did not support this claim by the offenders. It appears that this issue has continued to improve over this monitoring period. The degree of credible complaints regarding “gatekeeping” remains a concern, however.
The current system of treatment planning still is not working and needs to be completely rethought. IDOC is not able to perform its required treatment plan reviews and updates for mentally ill offenders assigned to RTU, segregation or crisis housing. IDOC is also not meeting the
2 The current practice in IDOC is for the MHP to complete a treatment plan. The psychiatrist involved in the case, at times, also completes a treatment plan. These treatment plans are usually independent of one another and regularly contain dissimilar diagnoses.
- 9 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 10 of 115
requirements of the Settlement Agreement regarding the transition of offenders from specialized treatment settings. Of note, all of these issues are not new to this monitoring period. They were all reported on in the Monitor’s First Annual Report. IDOC has done little to adequately address these very serious issues.
There continues to be an absence of “aggressive treatment” for mentally ill offenders assigned to a crisis level of care. The bulk of the treatment activities, and in most cases the only treatment, is limited to daily visits by an MHP. In at least two of the facilities monitored, Pontiac and Pinckneyville, these daily visits are mainly conducted in confidential settings, the remainder occur cell side. This includes the crisis cells located in the North House of Pontiac. In the facilities monitored, the procedures for enforced medications were being followed. Significant problems were noted in prescribing psychotropic medications for these offenders, however. Questions also exist regarding the system-wide application of these procedures.
Some institutions run multidisciplinary workgroups that meet routinely to discuss offenders assigned to segregation or others with behavior management issues. The workgroup spots issues and designs incentives and plans for those individuals that ultimately reduce acting out, shorten or prevent segregation terms, reduce disciplinary actions, improve safety, and support many of the treatment goals of this Settlement. This is an effective mechanism for moving toward compliance on a number of this Settlement’s requirements.
The observed conditions of segregation for mentally ill offenders remained problematic throughout the monitoring period. Challenges were observed in ensuring that these offenders continued to receive the treatment outlined in their Individual Treatment Plans. Also, there was no formal mechanism for identifying those mentally ill offenders who were decompensating while on segregation status. The only established mechanisms are the weekly segregation rounds, which are conducted at the cell front, and the Crisis Intervention Team. Given the problems with the Crisis Intervention Team, the main recourse available for mentally ill offenders who are decompensating while in segregation is to behaviorally act out, which often results in greater segregation time.
Two suicides occurred in IDOC during the current monitoring period. At the time of this report, the required administrative reviews have only been completed in one of the cases. More about suicide will be discussed in the body of this report. As previously reported, however, significant problems persist with the Crisis Intervention Team, the treatment afforded suicidal offenders on crisis watch and the treatment afforded suicidal offenders in segregation. Also, the current format for reviewing suicides should be rethought to emphasize corrective action. Again, this was previously reported but nothing has occurred to address these deficiencies.
IDOC is generally following its own procedures regarding the use of restraints, although the monitoring team has received credible reports of mentally ill offenders being restrained with their arms above their heads. This issue will be closely followed going forward. Also, a review of the IDOC data on the use of restraints revealed that restraints are utilized at a high rate by the staffs at Pontiac Logan and Dixon. This over reliance on the use of restraints most likely reflects the severity of the mental illness suffered by those mentally ill offenders assigned to these facilities as well as the lack of adequate psychiatric services to address their needs.
The medical records continue to be poorly organized. Delays of 24 hours or more were
- 10 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 11 of 115

noted between the time a mentally ill offender was seen and the time the progress note associated with that visit appeared in the medical record. This was especially a problem with those mentally ill offenders receiving Telepsychiatric services although it was observed throughout all the facilities monitored. This delay and disorganization make it very difficult, and at times impossible, to adequately follow the clinical care of a mentally ill offender.
Confidentiality continues to evolve in IDOC. At the beginning of the implementation of the Settlement Agreement, it was almost nonexistent but steadily improved over the course of the first year of the monitoring. This improvement continued during the current monitoring period, although a considerable number of the crisis contacts still occur at the cell front. Significant challenges remain, however. The physical plants are not designed to provide sound confidentiality. Custody staff continues to be reluctant to move mentally ill offenders to confidential settings and insists that the doors to the treatment rooms remain open while staff stands within hearing distance.
Problems with the provision of informed consent continue to be widespread in the department. The Monitor approved a new form, “Confidentiality Disclosure and Consent for Mental Health Treatment,” during a meeting with Chief Hinton on 11/7/17. When implemented, this form should help address some of the problems associated with informed consent.
Documented force is rare or nonexistent in most of IDOC; it is concentrated at three institutions. For the most part, IDOC is following its own procedures about use of force, with most of the reported and videotaped force being professionally handled. Some institutions focus on preventing and deescalating force, which is an excellent route to substantial compliance with this requirement. However, the number of offender complaints, and a small number of documented incidents that appear unnecessary or excessive, raise serious questions about the application of use of force.
Disciplinary procedures with mentally ill offenders continue to need refinement. The major concern is that MHPs are not appropriately advocating for the mentally ill offenders in the disciplinary process. This is occurring because the MHPs are not conducting face-to-face evaluations of the offenders in question. Problems also exist on the custody side of this process.
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) is a key element in an adequately functioning correctional mental health system. To date, IDOC does not have a department-wide CQI system. Data continues to be collected at the facility level based on AD 04.03.125. Although a CQI manager was hired on February 16, 2017, the department-wide CQI system as described in AD 04.04.104 has not been implemented. This is due to six facilities not having an assigned mental health supervisor.3
A summary of compliance findings is as follows:

Requirement IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH

Compliance Status Overall: Noncompliance

3 These facilities are: Danville, Western, Graham, Vandalia, Robinson and Illinois River.
- 11 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 12 of 115

Requirement SERVICES: SCREENING
(IV)(a), (b) (IV)(c) (IV)(d), (e) (IV)(f), (g)
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
(V)(a) (V)(b), (c) (V)(d) (V)(e) (V)(f), (g) (V)(h), (i) (V)(j)

Compliance Status Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance Noncompliance

VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
(VI)(a), (b)

Overall: Substantial Compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial Compliance

VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW
(VII)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance

VIII: TRANSITION FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
(VIII)(a) (VIII)(b)(i) (VIII)(b)(ii)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance

- 12 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 13 of 115

Requirement
IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
(IX)(a) (IX)(b) (IX)(c) (IX)(d) (IX)(e) (IX)(f)

Compliance Status
Overall: Target date has not arrived Subfindings supporting overall finding: Target date has not arrived Noncompliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Target date has not arrived

X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
(X)(a) (X)(b)(i) (X)(b)(ii) (X)(c)(i) (X)(c)(ii) (X)(d) (X)(e) (X)(f) (X)(g) (X)(h) (X)(i)

Overall: Target date has not arrived Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Target date has not arrived Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Target date has not arrived Target date has not arrived Noncompliance Noncompliance Target date has not arrived Substantial compliance

XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
(XI)(a) (XI)(b) (XI)(c) (XI)(d)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:
Substantial compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance

XII: MEDICATION
(XII)(a) (XII)(b) (XII)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: Noncompliance

- 13 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 14 of 115

Requirement
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
(XIV)(a) (XIV)(b) (XIV)(c)
XV: SEGREGATION
(XV)(a)(i) (XV)(a)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vi)(sic), (vii) (XV)(b)(i) (XV)(b)(ii), (iii), (iv) (XV)(b)(v), (vi)
(XV)(c)(i) (XV)(c)(ii) (XV)(c)(iii), (iv), (c)(sic)
(XV)(d)

Compliance Status
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Noncompliance Substantial compliance No rating Substantial compliance
Noncompliance Target date has not arrived Noncompliance
Target date has not arrived

XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION (XVI)(a), (b)

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance

XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL Overall: Noncompliance

HEALTH PURPOSES

Subfindings supporting overall

finding:

(XVII)(a), (b) (XVII)(c) (XVII)(d)

Substantial compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance

XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS

Overall: Noncompliance - 14 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 15 of 115

Requirement
(XVIII)(a) (XVIII)(b)
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
(XIX)(a) (XIX)(b) (XIX)(c) (XIX)(d)
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION XXI: STAFF TRAINING
(XXI)(a) (XXI)(b) (XXI)(c)

Compliance Status Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance No rating
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: No rating Noncompliance Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: Noncompliance
Overall: Substantial compliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance No rating Substantial compliance

XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS

Finding: No rating

XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
(XXIII)(a) (XXIII)(b) (XXIII)(c)
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Substantial compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance
Finding: Noncompliance

XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS

Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding:

- 15 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 16 of 115

Requirement (XXV)(a) (XXV)(b) (XXV)(c) (XXV)(d)
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(XXVI)(a), (b)
XXVII: MONITORING

Compliance Status Noncompliance Noncompliance No rating Noncompliance
Overall: Noncompliance Subfindings supporting overall finding: Noncompliance
Finding: Noncompliance

XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING Finding: Noncompliance

DETAILED FINDINGS
This Section details the Monitor’s findings for each provision of the Settlement.
Overall structure: This Section is organized along the same structure as the Settlement; each major section below corresponds with a substantive section of the Settlement. That said, the Settlement includes provisions that appear multiple times across different sections. The Monitor attempts in this report to address each substantive requirement in that section of the Settlement where it appears.
Compliance with specific provisions of policies or law incorporated by reference: Unlike the Settlement itself, the report lays out the specific provisions of the various Administrative Directives (“ADs”), administrative code (“Code”), or the Mental Health Standard Operating Protocol Manual (“Manual” or “SOP Manual”) that are incorporated by reference in the Settlement. This significantly lengthens the report, but it is critical that the monitoring team evaluates these substantive requirements, especially given that many of them are central to providing the kind of treatment, out-of-cell opportunities, conditions, and protection from harm contemplated in the Settlement. For example, it is in the ADs and the Manual that one finds detailed requirements on suicide prevention, including crisis placement, crisis intervention teams, and suicide reviews. However, the team will apply the compliance/non-compliance rating only to the provision of the Settlement, not to individual provisions of ADs or the Manual or Code incorporated by reference. In this way, IDOC may be out of compliance with one or two provisions of the cited AD, for example, but, depending on the severity (including the importance of the particular provision of the AD) or how widespread that non-compliance is, nonetheless may be in substantial compliance with the provision of the Settlement.
- 16 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 17 of 115
Compliance ratings: As discussed above, the team institutes the “Substantial Compliance” and “Non-compliance” ratings for each provision, as specified in the Settlement. In actual fact, these may mask true performance. In practice, IDOC has made significant progress on a number of requirements. These would be more accurately described as “partially compliant,” but by the terms of the Settlement, those provisions must be found in Non-compliance. The monitoring team encourages the Court and the parties to consider allowing a modification of the ratings to permit a finding of Partial Compliance.
Section II (t) of the Amended Settlement Agreement defines “Substantial Compliance” as follows: The Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOCwide or at specific facilities. For the purposes of this report, compliance ratings will be IDOCwide. This was done because the changes to the mental health delivery system contemplated in the Settlement represent a major shift in both the clinical care provided to the offenders and the overall culture of the IDOC. As the monitor of this seismic shift for IDOC, I felt it more appropriate to consider system-wide compliance prior to evaluating the compliance of specific facilities. As IDOC makes progress with these changes, the Monitor will consider that subsequent reports may include compliance ratings for specific facilities.
IV: INITIAL (INTAKE) MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: SCREENING
Summary: At the R&Cs evaluated, screenings were conducted in a timely manner by appropriate staff in confidential settings. Screening MHPs review the available records, though records do not always arrive from other corrections settings and MHPs do not have access to inmates’ previous IDOC health care records. “Evaluation of Suicide Potential” was being administered to offenders transferred from an R&C facility, this includes those offenders transferred back to NRC on writs.
Policies and Procedures have been developed to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption. Psychiatric contact, however, was sometimes very delayed. Problems were also noted in that the medications were often changed without providing documentation in the medical record for the change. The offenders were not always informed about the changes.
(IV)(a): Specific requirement: All persons sentenced to the custody of IDOC shall receive mental
- 17 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 18 of 115
health screening upon admission to the prison system. Absent an emergency which requires acting sooner, this screening will ordinarily take place within twenty-four (24) hours of reception (see “Components of Mental Health Services” at pg. 5 in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101(II)(E)(2)), but in any event no later than forty-eight (48) hours after reception, as required by IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100 (II)(G)(2)(b) (see also IDOC Administrative Directive 05.07.101).
Findings: During the first year of the Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team reviewed all IDOC reception centers. The Monitor personally inspected the Northern Reception Center (NRC) for the purposes of this report. 16 of 17 screenings reviewed demonstrated that they occurred within the 24-48 hours requirement. The one exception was a case of an offender arriving at the facility on a Friday evening and not being screened until the following Monday morning. Warden Pfister was made aware of this situation and assured me that this would not occur in the future.
Assistant Monitor, Reena Kapoor, M.D., inspected the R&C unit at Menard and found that it was meeting this requirement.
(IV)(b): Specific requirement: The mental health screening conducted upon admission to IDOC shall be conducted by a Mental Health Professional [MHP]4 and shall use IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening). In those instances where a mental health screening is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement.
Findings: The NRC as well as the R&C unit at Menard are fulfilling this requirement. At the NRC, for example, 17 of 17 screenings reviewed confirmed that IDOC Form 0372 is used and that the screenings are conducted by MHPs or unlicensed staff that are supervised by licensed MHPs.
(IV)(c): Specific requirement: Offenders transferred from a receiving and classification facility who have been screened and referred for further mental health services shall be administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC Form 0379, but need not be administered the mental health screening form again.
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed this requirement at the facilities monitored during this reporting period. There was strong practice, among a subset of the facilities,5 with 90% of 48 relevant charts reflecting a timely suicide screening on transfer to the facilities.6 Completed suicide assessments were administered to those offenders transferred to Dixon from Reception & Classification or from another IDOC facility. At Robinson, the screenings were conducted by
4 The Settlement uses MHP to indicate Mental Health Professional. This report adopts that convention as well. 5 Throughout this report, analysis referring to “five institutions” reflects a review of practices at Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, and Robinson. 6 The relevant charts were patients who arrived at the institutions between November 2016 and the date of review. There were no screening forms in 10% of these charts; it is unknown whether this reflected missed screenings or filing issues.
- 18 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 19 of 115
nurses, as vacancies and extended medical leave have left the facility with only one MHP through much of 2017. While screening by nurses cannot be considered fully in compliance with the Agreement, it is a reasonable short-term solution under the circumstances.
There were notable exceptions to the practice of timely suicide assessments on arrival, however. A mentally ill offender from Menard was received at Pontiac at 3am, the morning of the 6/17/17. He was not administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential, IDOC form 0379. He went on to attempt to hang himself, was pepper sprayed, and eventually was housed in crisis. There was another example at Pontiac where a mentally ill offender was not administered the Evaluation of Suicide Potential. Additionally, a mentally ill offender was transferred from NRC to Sheridan off a 15-minute watch in a crisis cell for attempting to hang himself. At Sheridan, the screening indicated “no further action required” with a nursing note stating “psych (-).” Approximately two weeks later this offender attempted suicide and was placed in a crisis cell.
During the first year of the Agreement, the monitoring team did find compliance among the facilities reviewed. Of note, the NRC is now conducting suicide screenings for offenders temporarily housed there on writs.
(IV)(d): Specific requirements: In order to encourage full and frank disclosure from offenders being screened, mental health screening shall take place in the most private space available at the receiving and classification facilities. Within two (2) years of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will ensure that mental health screening at all receiving and classification facilities takes place only in spaces that ensure sound confidentiality.
Findings: During the first year of the Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team found substantial compliance with this requirement at all of the reception centers. The most current review of the NRC revealed 16 of the 17 screenings reviewed took place in a confidential setting. In the remaining case, the offender stated that a custody officer was standing in the doorway of the screening room. The offender explicitly stated that the presence of the custody officer prevented him from being 100% open with the screener. Again, Warden Pfister was made aware of this situation and assured me that this practice would cease. Dr. Kapoor found that the R&C unit at Menard was meeting this requirement.
(IV)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an offender who has a current prescription for psychotropic medication is able to continue receiving medication without interruption upon transfer to IDOC custody.
Findings: AD 04.04.101, effective date of 5/1/2016, provides the Mental Health SOP Manual with the authority to fulfill this requirement. The Mental Health SOP Manual clearly states on page 78 “for those offenders who arrive at an IDOC facility on verifiable, prescribed psychotropic medication, the psychotropic medication shall be continued (bridged) for up to 30 days or until such time as a psychiatric provider can evaluate the inmate for ongoing psychotropic medication. This evaluation may be no more than 30 days from arrival into an IDOC facility.”
(IV)(f): Specific requirement: Following transfer to IDOC custody, an offender’s prescription for psychotropic medication shall be reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist, and modified only if deemed clinically appropriate. Any change in psychotropic medication, along
- 19 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 20 of 115
with the reason for the change, shall be documented in the offender’s medical record. The psychiatrist or other physician, or nurse practitioner acting within the scope of their license, must also document on the offender’s chart the date and time at which they discussed with the offender the reason for the change, what the new medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication, and answered any questions the offender had before starting the medication.
Findings: Several of the cases reviewed at the NRC included transfer of offenders previously prescribed psychotropic medications. All of these cases were reviewed by a licensed physician or psychiatrist. Among these cases, however, were numerous examples where the offenders’ medications had been changed by the prescribers. In none of these cases were the reason(s) for the changes documented in the medical record. There was also no documentation that the prescribers discussed with the offenders the reason for these changes, what the new medication was expected to do, what alternative treatments were available and what, in general, are the side effects of the new medication.
The R&C unit at Menard is not meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement. Although prescriptions are consistently ordered for offenders who enter the facility on psychotropic medication, the offenders are not typically seen by a psychiatrist to review the appropriateness of the regimen for several weeks or even months. When the offenders are eventually seen by a psychiatrist, the documentation is exceptionally poor, with no clinical rationale for the psychiatrist’s treatment decisions documented.
(IV)(g): Specific requirement: Screening will include identifying neurodevelopmental disabilities, suicidal ideation or intent, current or past self-injurious behavior, the presence or history of symptoms of mental illness, current or past use of psychotropic medications, or the presence of conditions that require immediate intervention, in addition to the information required to be documented on IDOC Form 0372 (Mental Health Screening).
Findings: The screenings generally addressed the topic areas outlined in this section. As described in the first annual report, there were consistent deficiencies noted with the thoroughness in what was recorded during the screenings. This was especially problematic with the mental status examinations (MSE). There was progress noted during the current review in that the mental status examinations were more comprehensive, although there is still room for improvement.
Specific requirement: The screening process shall also include review of the records, which accompany the offender.
Findings: Not all offenders arriving at the NRC are accompanied by their mental health records. In those cases, in which offenders were accompanied by their mental health records, staff reviewed them. A significant problem with records, however, does exist. Several of the offenders interviewed at the NRC were returnees to IDOC who had received mental health care during their previous incarcerations. Screening staff do not have a mechanism to retrieve these previous mental health records.
As previously reported, the R&C units are de facto control (or segregation) units as defined in Section II (g). During a recent tour of the NRC, the Monitor was glad to hear that SMI offenders
- 20 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 21 of 115 with greater than 60 days in segregation are offered two groups per week in addition to their yard time. The majority of mentally ill offenders at NRC, however, are not offered groups even though they routinely stay there for greater than 60 days. Although not specifically required in the Settlement Agreement, it is the Monitor’s strong recommendation that offenders on the mental health caseload housed at the various R&C units be afforded the same level of structured and unstructured out of cell time as those who are housed in a segregation unit. It is the Monitor’s further recommendation that both structured and unstructured out of cell time begin as soon as offenders are placed on the mental health caseload and not after they have been on the unit for greater than 60 days.
- 21 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 22 of 115
V: MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND REFERRALS
Summary: Authorized staff continue to provide timely evaluations, on the required forms, for mentally ill offenders at the Menard R&C and the NRC. Mentally ill offenders with a psychiatric history are not automatically referred for a mental health assessment, however. Once offenders transfer to other facilities, evaluations are less timely there, and backlogs are reported in at least 15 institutions.
Appropriate referral policies are in place at the facilities monitored. Offenders are familiar with self-referral procedures and mental health staff routinely respond to referrals from them, their families, and custody and other corrections staff. A high percentage of MHP responses are timely.
Crisis Intervention Teams have been trained and are in place at all institutions. Logs show them fielding large numbers of crisis calls. Although staff endorse an inclusive approach to taking crisis calls and admitting inmates to crisis care, it is troubling that inmates continue to voice concerns that their requests are ignored.
(V)(a): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluation, or an appropriate alternative response in case of emergency, shall be timely provided as required by IDOC Administrative Directives 04.04.100 and 04.04.101.
Findings: No real improvement has occurred in this section since the first annual report. At that time, the monitoring team found that IDOC is fulfilling the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement for mentally ill offenders in the R&C units. This same attention to providing timely mental health evaluations does not equally exist in the general population and control units. Also, the Monitor found that both custody and mental health staff are slow to provide “an alternative response in case of emergency.” That is, staff routinely responds to “emergencies” but fail to appreciate the growing severity of a situation and intervene before it becomes an actual emergency. This lack of timely “pre-emergency” intervention by staff is most likely due to being overcommitted because of insufficient staffing levels.
The NRC and the R&C unit at Menard were monitored for this midyear report. Currently, mental health referrals are occurring at the NRC but not all offenders who are prescribed medications receive a referral for a mental health assessment. This means that some mentally ill offenders who are being prescribed psychotropic medications remain there for upwards of 90 days without the benefit of a mental health evaluation. At Menard, the mental health assessments are routinely being completed within the 14-day requirement.
In the Quarterly Reports of 6/30/17 and 10/23/17, IDOC describes that there are backlogs in providing mental health evaluations “at fifteen facilities.” As of 11/10/17, there was a backlog of 438 mental health evaluations Department-wide. The quarterly reports of 10/23/17 then goes on to erroneously state that “Wexford has increased the number of Telepsychiatry hours to address
- 22 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 23 of 115
this backlog.” Of note, the increased number of Telepsychiatry hours is meant to reduce the backlog of psychiatric evaluations and has nothing to do with the requirements of this section “Mental Health Evaluations and Referrals.” An error of this degree calls into question the reliability of these quarterly reports.
(V)(b): Specific requirement: Referral may be made by staff and documented on IDOC Forms 0387 and 0434 or by self-referral by the offender.
Findings: It was clear from mental health and custody staff interviews, and from logs and medical records, that referrals routinely take place. Mental health leadership at Hill, Lawrence, and Pinckneyville emphasized how frequently they receive referrals from custody staff, and that a number of them were good partners in observing and sharing key behavioral information. In total, at least 510 referrals were evident in records the monitoring team reviewed, in addition to those specifically made to the Crisis Intervention Teams. In records, there were referrals from officers, clinical services, inmate job supervisors, teachers, health care staff, inmates on behalf of other inmates, self-referrals, intra-mental health department, and family.
(V)(c): Specific requirement: IDOC shall ensure that the referral procedures contained in IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) for offender self-referral are created and implemented in a timely fashion in each facility.
Section II (G)(4)(a) and (b) provide:
Referrals for mental health services may be initiated through staff, credible outside sources such as family members, other offenders or self-reporting.
(a) To ensure proper handling of requests from credible outside sources, the Department shall ensure mail room staff and facility operators, gatehouse staff and other staff who may come in contact with family members, visitors or other interested persons are aware of procedures for receiving and addressing inquiries regarding referrals for mental health services. Additionally, the contact information and procedures by which outside sources may refer offenders for mental health services shall be provided on the Department’s website.
(b)The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall ensure a procedure for referring offenders for mental health services is established.
(1) Referrals from staff shall: (a) Be initiated on the Mental Health Services Referral, DOC 0387; (b) Be submitted to the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management through the chain of command; and (c) Include a copy of the Incident Report, DOC 0434, if applicable.
(2) The facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in the offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others, if not treated immediately.
- 23 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 24 of 115
(c) Procedures for self-referrals by offenders for mental health services shall be provided in the offender handbook. The offender will be encouraged to submit their requests on the Offender Request, DOC 0286.
Findings: IDOC has an Administrative Directive in place concerning these requirements. It also requires each institution to create an Institutional Directive. The monitoring team reviewed these policies at numerous facilities, and will continue to do so throughout the monitoring process. Each of the facilities reviewed provided a copy of the Institutional Directive with language largely corresponding, or consistent with, the Administrative Directive.
During the monitoring period, IDOC administration distributed a memo to all facilities reinforcing these requirements. The Chief of Operations emphasized the terms of the Administrative Directive; the expected documentation method; and the expectation that all Lieutenants be trained members of the Crisis Intervention Team, that staff explain to inmates about the Crisis Intervention Team, and that there be an investigation of any allegation that referrals or Crisis Intervention Team calls are not being made. The memo was accompanied by substantial dissemination instructions.
In terms of implementation, it was clear from mental health and custody staff interviews, and from logs and medical records, that referrals routinely take place. For more detail, please see V(b), above. All institutions have provided documentation showing that staff have been trained and can serve on Crisis Intervention Teams; the total pools per facility range from 25 to 84 staff. Some facilities described the team members, showing a range of professional disciplines. Crisis Intervention Teams were operational during the first year of monitoring and, drawing on incident logs, incident reports, and charts, it was evident that Crisis Intervention Team members have been called on at least 565 occasions in a recent, approximately three-month period.7 For more discussion, please see Section V(g), below. In the First Annual Report, the Monitor found that selfreferral procedures were detailed in inmate orientation handbooks. As a spot check, inmates interviewed at Dixon were aware that they could access mental health services by submitting a written request, asking an officer to call an MHP on their behalf, or speaking with an MHP during weekly segregation rounds.
(V)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to those persons identified by the screening process described in Section IV, above, any offender who is transferred into the custody of IDOC with a known previous history of mental illness as reflected in that offender’s medical records or as self-reported by the offender shall automatically be referred for services which will include a mental health evaluation and/or referral.
Findings: Due to the large volume of mentally ill offenders that come through the Northern Reception Center coupled with the limited number of staff, this is not occurring. Only those mentally ill offenders that are designated as SMI receive a mental health referral and evaluation.
7 For the most part, IDOC institutions provided incident logs for July through September, 2017. There was some variability in the time periods covered by the logs, and some question of whether only SMI or all on the mental health caseload are included in some logs. The monitoring team supplemented this with Crisis Intervention calls evident in chart reviews at five institutions, which were not always captured on the logs. It appears that some institutions routinely include these events on logs while others do not; it therefore seems likely that this total underrepresents the total number of crisis calls made.
- 24 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 25 of 115
(V)(e): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop a policy and procedure by which other sources with credible information (including other offenders or family members) may refer an offender for a mental health evaluation. The policy and procedure shall include a record-keeping mechanism for requests, which shall record who made the request and the result of the referral.
Findings: IDOC reports that family members may make referrals via the website and by calling the facility; the monitors verified that the website offers this information. These referrals are then submitted to mental health staff. The department has developed an Administrative Directive and provided it to the Monitor for approval. The department has submitted additional changes based on the Monitor’s feedback. The Monitor has approved the department’s changes to the Administrative Directive. The Administrative Directive became effective system wide on 6/1/17.
In the meantime, a few sources suggest that the Mental Health Department is receiving such referrals. In logs and medical records, the monitoring team encountered a small number of mentions of referrals from other inmates and family. The monitoring team conducted limited staff interviews, concentrating on visiting and mailroom staff, which yielded uneven results; some were unaware of the expectations, while others gave a number of examples of the types of issues families raise and the appropriate actions the staff had taken in response, sometimes well beyond the basic requirements.
(V)(f): Specific requirement: Evaluations resulting from a referral for routine mental health services shall be completed within fourteen (14) days from the date of the referral.
Findings: As noted in V(d), the staff at the Northern Reception Center only refers mentally ill offenders designated as SMI for mental health evaluations. When these referrals occur, they are completed within the 14-day timeframe. In one example of a mainline institution, however, Mental Health Assessments were completed by a QMHP within 14 days of arrival at Dixon, and in most cases, much sooner. Timeliness was uneven at some other institutions, with about 60% clearly completed in this timeframe.8
Mentally ill offenders at Dixon report being able to see a QMHP for routine concerns within a few days. This is consistent with a monitoring team assessment of the timeliness of responses to 196 referrals evident in chart reviews at five institutions.9
Response times appeared consistent between self-referrals and staff or family referrals. The patterns were:
§ MHP responses on the same or next day 33% (whether crisis referral or not)
8 In the following analysis, the monitoring team did not establish whether the inmates arrived with R&C evaluations; in that event, these percentages would improve. With the 31 new arrivals in the chart samples at Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, and Robinson. 60% of the evaluations were clearly completed within 14 days; most of the others were completed later, although a few charts were missing evaluations altogether. 9 Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, Robinson
- 25 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 26 of 115

§ MHP responses timely (includes above responses)

90%10

§ 10% of MHP responses appeared to take from 3 weeks to 2 months or may have been missed. These tended to be concentrated at Pinckneyville.

The timeliness of psychiatry responses to referrals was much worse. For an analysis, please see section VII.

There were only two instances documented where inmates complained of unanswered selfreferrals during site reviews, although a more systematic review would be necessary to determine whether this is a problem.

As of 11/10/17, however, there was a backlog of 438 mental health assessments within the Department. The majority of this backlog was located in two facilities, Graham (129) and Western (146), although Big Muddy, Hill, Menard, Pinckneyville, Pontiac and Vandalia all reported significant backlogs.

(V)(g): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(4)(a)(2), the facility Crisis Intervention Team shall be contacted immediately for offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems.

Findings: Based on a review of system-wide incident logs, and incident reports and health care records from some facilities, it was evident that Crisis Intervention Team members have been called on at least 565 occasions in a recent, approximately three-month period. There were examples of the team being called out for a range of urgent matters – either that the inmates voiced or staff observed – such as odd behavior, anxiety, and an impulse to hurt others, so logged calls appropriately were not confined to claims of suicidality. There were also a number of examples where there were claims of suicidality and, although the recorded facts suggested the claims might not be genuine,11 staff took a conservative approach and admitted to crisis watch. It was rare, in the cases reviewed, for a team member to return an inmate to his or her cell without crisis watch, and in those cases, documents showed the inmate withdrawing his request and/or his concern being addressed by a different mechanism. MHPs and Psych Administrators at Pinckneyville, Lawrence, and Hill said the deliberate culture change they had cultivated over time was taking full effect, noting how frequently custody staff now call them for crisis screenings—during working hours and overnight—and naming Segregation Lieutenants and others as knowledgeable champions. All of the foregoing are indications that IDOC staff are using a broad interpretation of the need for crisis admissions and are not preventing admissions.

Previously, information had come to the monitoring team that some staff may be unreceptive to crisis intervention requests and either inappropriately served as gatekeepers, or the teams themselves may not be responding. Opinions ran the gamut among the segregation offenders interviewed. Within the same institution, opinions ranged from full custody cooperation when the

10 Where there were multiple referrals from the same source close in time, these were only counted as 1 referral if
they appeared routine. 11 Here, the monitoring team is referring only to those cases in which an MHP recorded the inmate’s own words
that his request was for another purpose, such as wanting a cell change.

- 26 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 27 of 115
interviewee makes crisis requests, to objections to gatekeeping when the interviewee’s described concern was not urgent, to an observation that genuine crisis requests trigger a chorus of “copycat” requests in the housing unit, to feeling legitimate requests are disregarded and mocked. Officers in Dixon’s X House stated strongly that they call Mental Health immediately upon an offender’s request. However, a number of offenders at Dixon, and at Pontiac, stated that they must make threats of self-harm in order to see a mental health professional urgently.
The monitoring team conducted a limited data driven investigation of gatekeeping or lack of response; the information summarized above does not support such a concern, although at key facilities monitored, mentally ill offenders voiced credible concerns about “gatekeeping.” More data will be needed to confirm or rule out this concern.
(V)(h): Specific requirement: The results of a mental health evaluation shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation). These documents shall be included as part of the offender’s mental health record as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, section II (G)(3).
Findings: Form 0374 is routinely used by mental health staff to record the results of a mental health evaluation throughout all the facilities monitored.
(V)(i): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluations shall be performed only by mental health professionals. In those instances where an evaluation is performed by an unlicensed mental health employee, said mental health employee will have obtained at least a Master’s degree in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or similar degree program or have a Ph.D./Psy.D. and said mental health employee will be supervised by a licensed MHP no fewer than four hours per month. This exception for unlicensed mental health employees applies only to those mental health employees currently working in IDOC and grandfathered in prior to this Settlement. Further, a licensed MHP will review, and if the evaluation is satisfactory, sign off on any evaluation performed by an unlicensed mental health employee within seven (7) days after the evaluation has been completed. If the evaluation is not satisfactory, it shall be redone by a licensed MHP.
Findings: This requirement is being met throughout the facilities monitored.
(V)(j): Specific requirements: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The submission of this report corresponds with the 18-month time requirement specified in the Settlement Agreement. As noted above, difficulties in fully implementing the requirements of this section persist.
- 27 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 28 of 115
VI: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ORIENTATION
Summary: The Department continues to fulfill the requirements of this section of the Settlement. The required policy has been in place since at least 2013. Each facility produces its own orientation manual, but all reviewed manuals satisfy this requirement. A comprehensive orientation program was present at each facility monitored.
(VI)(a): Specific requirement: In addition to information regarding self-referrals to be included in the offender handbook as required by IDOC AD 04.04.100, § II (G)(4)(b), information regarding access to mental health care shall be incorporated as part of every offender’s initial reception and orientation to IDOC facilities. The basic objective of such orientation is to describe the available mental health services and how an offender may obtain access to such services.
Findings: IDOC does not utilize a department-wide orientation manual. Each facility produces its own orientation manual. The Monitor reviewed the orientation manuals from each IDOC facility and found them all to fulfill the requirements of this section.
(VI)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall develop and implement a written policy and procedure concerning such orientation no later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC has AD 04.01.105, effective date 7/1/2013, which governs facility orientation. This AD states “The Department shall establish a comprehensive orientation program for incoming offenders at all correctional facilities that shall include the distribution of an orientation manual prepared in a format consistent throughout the Department.” A comprehensive orientation program was present at each facility monitored.
- 28 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 29 of 115
VII: TREATMENT PLAN AND CONTINUING REVIEW12
Summary: Treatment plans are being prepared for mentally ill offenders with a few exceptions noted. They are not, however, being prepared “collectively” as required by the Settlement Agreement. The only exception to this is at the Dixon STC, where multidisciplinary teams routinely meet to prepare treatment plans for their assigned offenders.
A continuing problem is that the treatment plans are non-specific, often using the same language to address different problems for different offenders. It is common to find two separate and very different treatment plans prepared for the same offender. One plan is prepared by the MHP and the other plan by the prescribing psychiatrist. They are often at odds with one another, even listing differing diagnoses for the same offender. Overall, the treatment planning process currently in place in IDOC does not facilitate the treatment of mentally ill offenders and should be completely rethought. Also, the requirement for reviewing and updating treatment plans for mentally ill offenders assigned to Crisis or Segregation is not being met anywhere in the Department.
Equally important to the problems note with treatment planning, IDOC is not meeting its requirement to conduct timely psychiatric evaluations and follow-up appointments for those mentally ill offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications. During the week of 11/10/17, there was a backlog of 2132 psychiatric evaluations and follow-up visits in the Department. The only facility that was meeting this requirement was the STC at Dixon.
The monitoring team noted numerous progress notes in the medical records of SMI offenders but was unable to determine if these progress notes reflected the actual number of clinical contacts. Of note, however, was the variability in the frequency and quality of the recorded clinical contacts.
(VII)(a): Specific requirement: As required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (II)(F)(2)(c)(4), any offender requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services shall have a mental health treatment plan. Such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.
Findings: The Department is not meeting this requirement. That is, the monitoring team noted that for those offenders requiring on-going outpatient, inpatient or residential mental health services, a treatment plan was usually prepared. At Menard, the treatment plans were completed at seemingly random intervals. Dr. Kapoor also noted that there did not appear to be an organized system for the completion of treatment plans.
These treatment plans, however, were not “prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.” Rather, MHPs prepare one plan and a psychiatrist often completes a
12 A few word processing “gremlins” were encountered when writing this section. It is possible that the reader might find two different summaries when printing the document. The actual summary is four paragraphs with a slight white line running between paragraphs 2 & 3. I apologize for any confusion that this may cause the reader.
- 29 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 30 of 115
competing plan. These plans often have inconsistent diagnoses. These plans are not “prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team.”
Single clinicians complete the treatment planning form—indeed one member of the monitoring team only encountered one jointly prepared plan out of 229 plans reviewed—and the vast majority use boilerplate language with little or no reference to the inmate’s particular needs or treatment. In four of the institutions subject to systematic analysis, only 14% of the plans reviewed could be said to be tailored to the patient. The positive exception was Robinson; while staff struggled with missed or late treatment plans, nearly every general population patient in a random sample had a tailored treatment plan (albeit created by the MHP alone). Effectively, then, compliance for the system is -0-, at least based on the 11 institutions where health care records were reviewed.
Timeliness compliance was also low in several treatment settings. There were not clear patterns of practice across institutions. In some, the plans were present but the issue was lateness. Some completed initial plans but not updates, or vice versa. Some were successful in one treatment setting but not another.
Although not captured in written treatment plans, staff at some locations do routinely consult across disciplines in a daily meeting about crisis cases and others cases calling for special staffing. The monitoring team observed this meeting at Lawrenceville; reportedly, a psychiatric PA and a psychiatrist participate in those meetings at Lawrence and Stateville, respectively. Reviewed charts had a handful of notes indicating an MHP and a psychiatric PA or psychiatrist had conferred about the patient. Reportedly, Lawrence’s Telepsychiatrist and the MHPs have begun meeting on about five treatment plans per week since the summer.
(VII)(b): Specific requirement: The plan shall be recorded on IDOC Form 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan), or its equivalent and requires, among other things, entry of treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities. Reviews of the treatment plan shall also be recorded on form 0284 or its equivalent.
Findings: IDOC Form 0284 is consistently being used for treatment planning and reviews throughout the facilities monitored. The form does contain the required items. However, the treatment goals, frequency and duration of intervention/treatment activities, and staff responsible for treatment activities are being completed in a generic manner that does not facilitate the provision of mental health services. The Monitor has informed the Department throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement that IDOC Form 0284 needs to be significantly modified in order to facilitate the treatment of mentally ill offenders. Chief Hinton has recently created a new treatment planning form, which the Monitor has approved and will be implemented in the near future. The hope is that this new treatment planning form will facilitate the tailoring of the plans to the specific needs of the mentally ill offenders and allow for modifications as the treatment progresses. This newly approved treatment planning form, however, does not relieve the Department of the requirements of this section of the Settlement Agreement. In particular, the requirement that “such plans will be prepared collectively by the offender’s treating mental health team” remains in effect. The Monitor will continue to interpret this requirement to mean that the Department is responsible
- 30 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 31 of 115
for conducting treatment planning meetings in which all staff involved in a particular offender’s care are present and contribute to the creation of a comprehensive treatment plan. This same procedure applies to those mentally ill offenders in Crisis and/or Segregation who require treatment plan updates and reviews.
(VII)(c): Specific requirement: Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated for offenders designated as receiving outpatient level of care services annually, or sooner when clinically indicated (e.g., when level of care changes).
Findings: The monitoring team reviewed hundreds of medical records of mentally ill offenders at the outpatient level of care. Although treatment plans were present in the overwhelming majority of the records reviewed, significant problems were noted. As reported in VII(a), the treatment plans were not prepared collectively by the offenders’ treating mental health team. The treatment plans were very generic in nature. That is, many of the plans contained similar treatment interventions often using the same language. They did not appear to have been created to address the unique needs of the mentally ill offenders. Additionally, the monitoring team noted there were often delays in completing the treatment plan after a mental health evaluation had been finalized.
In a sample of 67 charts of inmates on the general population caseload, 94% had treatment plans generated within the year preceding the site visit. The majority were updated more often than the annual requirement. Some were updated in response to changes in the inmate’s condition, though some were glaringly missed in this regard. In the subset where an annual update due date was discernible, 54% were completed timely.13
Specific requirement: Where the IDOC provides crisis or inpatient care to an SMI offender, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: This requirement is not being accomplished in any of the monitored IDOC facilities. In an analysis of 90 Crisis Watch admissions in 2017, four of five of the institutions did not complete treatment plans in that setting. Lawrence completed initial treatment plans on 95% of its crisis watch admissions. No institutions completed treatment plans weekly thereafter, nor on discharge.
Specific requirement: For those offenders receiving RTU care, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated upon entrance and thereafter no less than every two (2) months, or more frequently if clinically indicated, and upon discharge.
Findings: It is a major improvement that treatment plans in Dixon’s STC are now completed during monthly review meetings that include the psychiatrist, QMHP, BHT, nurse, and officer assigned to the inmate’s RTU. The monitoring team witnessed several of these treatment planning meetings for inmates in Building 38, and it was clear that the treatment team and inmate found them meaningful and beneficial. However, no such process has been implemented for SMI
13 The relevant population was a total of 24 cases. This paragraph’s analyses incorporate chart reviews from five institutions.
- 31 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 32 of 115
offenders in the X House, where treatment plans were still completed sporadically and without the input of a multidisciplinary team.
The timeliness and frequency requirements are not being met in X House. STC, offenders did generally have plans updated monthly.
Specific requirement: For mentally ill offenders on segregation status, treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: This requirement is not being accomplished in any monitored IDOC facilities including but not limited to Dixon, Menard, Pontiac, Pinckneyville or Stateville Proper. Compliance was also poor in the five institutions14 where a data-driven analysis was performed. For initial plans within one week of placement, only 22% met the requirement.15 In the majority, no plan was present. Where there was a plan, numbers were about equally divided between timely and late cases.
In terms of monthly updates thereafter, relevant records showed only 31% compliance:16 Among noncompliant cases, some had one or two updates, but not all that would have been required. The majority had no updates at all. This requirement also was not being met in the segregation units at Dixon.
(VII)(d): Specific requirement: Offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days, subject to the following:
(i) For offenders at the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no follow-up appointment to exceed ninety (90) days.
(ii) For offenders at a residential level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments to more than a thirty (30) day period may be considered, with no extension to exceed sixty (60) days.
(iii) Offenders receiving inpatient care shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days with no extension of the follow-up appointments.
Findings: The requirement that offenders who have been prescribed psychotropic medications shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every thirty (30) days is not being accomplished in any of the monitored IDOC facilities. There continues to be a tremendous backlog
14 Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, Robinson.
15 This analysis is based on 81 Segregation placements in 2017 across the same five institutions. 16 This analysis draws on 45 Segregation placements in 2017 at those same institutions where the terms were longer than 5 weeks.
- 32 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 33 of 115
of psychiatric follow up visits throughout the Department. As of 11/10/17, there was a backlog of 1868 follow up visits. As such, mentally ill offenders often go for months without seeing a psychiatrist. The monitoring team observed prescriptions for psychotropic medications being written for anywhere from two to six months to cover the extended periods between psychiatrist visits. At Menard, mentally ill offenders reported seeing a psychiatrist 2-3 times within the past year despite reporting medication problems. This included mentally ill offenders on enforced medications.
Regarding the subsections (i)-(iii):
(i): For mentally ill offenders at the outpatient level of care, psychiatric visits routinely occurred on a 90-day schedule, although a sizeable number of visits occur at even greater intervals. Of note, this was usually done without any documentation that “stability had been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist.” For further analysis, please see XII(b) below.
In addition to routine monitoring, response to referrals was poor—whether the referrals were from staff or patients, urgent, routine, or reporting medical issues such as side effects and noncompliance.
§ In the monitoring team’s analysis, only 38% of psychiatry responses met the standard. Timely responses were especially found at Lawrence, where the onsite, full-time Psychiatric Physician’s Assistant had much more timely contacts of all types.
§ Thus, 62% were not seen for 3 to 10 weeks. This was the case even if there were multiple referrals, multiple sources, and/or staff requests for “first available” appointment or observations of side effects or noncompliance. Occasionally, inmates went into crisis watch or discontinued taking their medications after a prolonged period without response.
(ii): The monitoring team did not evaluate this RTU requirement for the midyear update. In general, this requirement was not being met in any of the non-RTU units monitored.
(iii): The monitoring team did not evaluate those mentally ill offenders on the “inpatient list” for the midyear report.
Both sub-requirements (ii) and (iii) will be monitored and reported in the 2nd annual report.
(VII)(e): Specific requirement: Upon each clinical contact with an SMI offender, the MHP shall record a progress note in that offender’s mental health records reflecting future steps to be taken as to that offender based on the MHP’s observations and clinical judgment during the clinical contact.
Findings: During this reporting period, the monitoring team reviewed several hundred medical records of offenders on the mental health case load. Mental health progress notes were present in all of the medical records reviewed. The monitoring team was unable to determine with any degree of accuracy if the progress notes observed in the medical records were a reflection of “each clinical contact with an SMI offender” being recorded in the medical record. The exception to this is the large number of medication changes that occurred without a corresponding progress
- 33 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 34 of 115 note in the medical records. The monitoring team also observed that there was a wide range in the quality of the progress notes reviewed.
- 34 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 35 of 115
VIII: TRANSITION OF OFFENDERS FROM SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SETTINGS
Summary: MHPs approve the return of SMI offenders to general population from a specialized treatment setting; this decision is not yet made by a multidisciplinary treatment team.
The monitoring team is aware of two institutions that have begun five days of follow-up after crisis watch discharge. Most facilities conducted a suicide screening within one week, but did not repeat it monthly for six months.
MHPs did generally review inmates’ care within 30 days after transitioning from RTU to outpatient treatment.
(VIII)(a): Specific requirement: SMI offenders shall only be returned to general population from a specialized treatment setting with the approval of either the treating MHP or, once established, with the approval of the multidisciplinary treatment team. The Settlement provides a definition of “Specialized Treatment Setting”: Housing in a crisis bed, residential treatment unit, or inpatient mental health setting.
Findings: The monitoring team confirmed that the treating MHPs approve the return of SMI offenders to general population from a specialized treatment setting. In no cases was this approval the product of a multidisciplinary treatment team.
(VIII)(b)(i): Specific requirement: For offenders transitioning from Crisis placement, there will be a five (5) working day follow-up period during which the treating MHP will assess the offender’s stability on a daily basis since coming off Crisis watch. This assessment may be performed at cell front, using a form, which will be specifically designed for this purpose by IDOC and approved by the Monitor.
Findings: IDOC has not fully implemented this requirement. At the time of this report, it is occurring at Stateville proper and Menard; it was not occurring as of site visits at Dixon, Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, and Robinson. The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states “the requirements of subsection (b)(i) are currently being done in many cases and will be done on a widespread basis once staffing increases. IDOC is actively working on recruitment and hiring efforts in order to fulfill the requirement.” Of note, this is almost the exact quote from the quarterly reports of 9/29/16, 12/23/16 and 6/30/17. First of all, these five-day follow ups are not “currently being done in many cases.” Throughout the first 18 months of the Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team has not found any facility to have been meeting this requirement with the exception of Stateville proper. Menard only began accomplishing this in September 2017. The staff at Stateville, however, reported that they only began performing these follow up visits in January 2017. This is yet another example of the misleading data presented as fact in the Quarterly Reports. The Monitor has approved the use of BHTs to perform these duties but that has not occurred to date.
- 35 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 36 of 115
Specific requirement: This five-day assessment process will be in addition to IDOC’s current procedure for crisis transition, which IDOC will continue to follow. This procedure requires an MHP to conduct an Evaluation of Suicide Potential (IDOC Form 0379) on the offender within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from crisis watch, and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months. Findings shall be documented in the offender’s medical record.
Findings: This full requirement is not generally being met. All members of the monitoring team observed that most of the facilities monitored conducted an evaluation of suicide potential within seven calendar days after discharge from crisis but not necessarily monthly for at least six months. For example, in a sample of 2017 crisis watches at five institutions, 88% were seen within one week after discharge from crisis care,17 and the Evaluation of Suicide Potential was regularly used. In some instances, staff saw the inmates two to three times during that first week. To a lesser extent, staff also followed up with these inmates monthly, at a rate of 68% compliance in relevant cases.18 Lawrence and Hill had strong performance in this area.
The staff at Menard were compliant with both aspects of (VIII)(b)(i)—they began conducting the evaluation of suicide potential on mentally ill offenders within seven (7) calendar days of discontinuation from crisis watch and thereafter on a monthly basis for at least six (6) months in September 2017; staff at Dixon did not comply with either provision.
(VIII)(b)(ii): Specific requirement: Offenders returned to general population or to an outpatient level of care setting from a specialized/residential treatment facility shall be reviewed by an MHP within 30 days to assess the progress of the treatment goals. The IDOC Form 0284 shall be reviewed annually thereafter, unless otherwise clinically indicated (e.g., change in level of care) as required by IDOC AD 04.04.101, section (F)(2)(c)(4)(c).
Findings: As an initial matter, the term “specialized/residential treatment facility” is not defined in the Settlement, and the monitoring team interprets this term to be synonymous with “specialized treatment setting,” the definition of which is discussed above. The monitoring team did note that this was occurring in some of the facilities monitored including Menard, Pontiac and Pinckneyville.
17 This analysis draws on 61 crisis watches in 2017 at Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, and Robinson. Cases where the inmate was readmitted to crisis care within that week, or had not been out of crisis care for more than one week, were excluded. This was supplemented by a log provided by Sheridan showing its initial follow-ups. 18 There were 34 admissions where the inmate was out of crisis care long enough for at least one monthly visit. Cases where the inmate was readmitted to crisis care within the first month were excluded. Cases were considered compliant if there were contacts at monthly intervals for as long as the inmate had been out of crisis care, even if the six-month mark has not been reached.
- 36 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 37 of 115
IX: ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH STAFF
Summary: Six months have not passed since the budget contingent approval date of July 6, 2017. Lack of staffing, however, continues to be the primary impediment contributing to IDOC’s being out of compliance in the majority of the sections of the Settlement. Dixon, for example, routinely operates with 4050% less mental health staff than is called for in its staffing plan, and IDOC reports a similar level of staffing for the newly opened facility at Joliet as well as for Logan and Pontiac.
MHPs do appear to be solely dedicated to providing mental health services under this Settlement.
IDOC provides quarterly hiring reports and has not proposed any staffing plan amendment. The dates for meeting targets have not yet passed, so any discussions of extensions are not ripe.
(IX)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identifies additional staff needed for the operation of IDOC’s outpatient and RTU settings. The necessary funding to pay for this hiring is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than the following dates: Dixon Correctional Center and Logan Correctional Center – 6 months from the budget contingent approval date; Pontiac Correctional Center – 12 months from the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: Six months have not passed since the budget contingent approval date of July 6, 2017. Lack of staffing, however, continues to be the primary impediment contributing to IDOC’s being out of compliance in the majority of the sections of the Settlement. In the Quarterly Report of 10/23/17, the Department describes its efforts at addressing this serious staff shortage.
Staffing was not improved at Dixon as of the monitoring team’s visit. Dixon routinely operates with 40-50% less mental health staff than is called for in its staffing plan. At that time of the monitoring visit, there were just 4.9 FTE of the 10 FTE psychiatry positions filled. Similarly, each RTU in the STC is slated to have 2 QMHPs and 3 BHTs to care for approximately 80 SMI inmates, but the units continue to be staffed by only 1 QMHP and 2 BHTs. Understaffing continues to be the root cause of several problems affecting the provision of mental health care, including staff burnout and turnover.
Similar staffing shortages were also noted for Logan and Pontiac. No rating will be given for this requirement as the deadline has not arrived.
(IX)(b): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan also identified the staff IDOC preliminarily determined to be necessary in order to open and operate the RTU to be located at the former IYC Joliet. IDOC will cause to be hired the appropriate staff no later than eighteen (18) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
- 37 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 38 of 115
Findings: The deadline for this requirement has arrived. The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states “Approximately half of the positions approved for the JTC have been filled.”
(IX)(c): Specific requirement: Defendants will have three (3) months from the approval of the Settlement Agreement to propose an amendment to the staffing plan. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall have forty-five (45) days following the submission of the revised staffing plan to state whether they have an objection to the proposed revisions and provide data to support the objections. Following receipt of any objection and supporting data, the parties will either accept the Monitor’s and/or Plaintiffs’ suggestions or the issue will be resolved through the dispute resolution process.
Findings: IDOC did not provide any proposed amendment to the staffing plan, nor has IDOC indicated it intends to do so.
(IX)(d): Specific requirement: To the extent the positions listed on Exhibits A and B of the Approved Remedial Plan are to be filled by Mental Health Professionals, these positions shall be allocated solely to the provision of the mental health services mandated by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states “the mental health staff who have been hired are allocated solely to the provision of mental health as required by the Agreement.” The monitoring team has no reason to challenge the veracity of this statement.
(IX)(e): Specific requirement: In accordance with its obligations in Section XXVIII, infra, IDOC will include quarterly hiring progress reports related to the additional mental health staff identified in the Approved Remedial Plan. Where a target may not have been met, the Monitor will review the reasons for failure to meet the target and, if necessary, propose reasonable techniques by which to achieve the hiring goals as well as supporting data to justify why these techniques should be utilized.
Findings: IDOC includes quarterly hiring reports in its quarterly reports.
(IX)(f): Specific requirement: In the event that IDOC has not achieved a staffing target, then, after notice to counsel for Plaintiffs, any necessary time extensions shall be negotiated by the parties. All such extensions shall require the written agreement of counsel for Plaintiffs. This provision is in addition to any mechanism for dispute resolution set out in Section XXIX.
Findings: All of the target dates as specified in the Settlement have not yet arrived. It appears to the Monitor that staffing targets will very likely not be reached by the target dates. The Monitor will notify parties when specific staffing levels are not met by the target dates.
- 38 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 39 of 115
X: BED/TREATMENT SPACE
Summary: The four required RTU facilities have been identified. The RTU at Logan has opened ahead of the target date. The Joliet RTU began receiving mentally ill offenders on 11/6/17. The Monitor is not optimistic about the Pontiac RTU opening on time. Crisis beds continue to be located in control units notwithstanding reports to the contrary by IDOC. IDOC should move quickly on fully opening the RTUs at Pontiac and Joliet. Mentally ill offenders will continue to suffer needlessly until this occurs.
(X)(a): Specific requirement: The Approved Remedial Plan identified four facilities at which IDOC would perform renovations, upgrades, and retrofits to create bed/treatment space for SMI offenders requiring residential levels of care: (i) Dixon Correctional Center (male offenders only); (ii) Pontiac Correctional Center (male offenders only); (iii) Logan Correctional Center (female offenders only); and (iv) the former IYC Joliet facility (male offenders only). The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations.
Findings: These four facilities have been identified and various construction projects have occurred at each facility.
(X)(b): RTU beds for male offenders
(i): Specific requirement: Approximately 1,150 units of RTU bed space for male offenders have been identified.
Findings: IDOC has identified these units of RTU bed space for male offenders.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make its RTU beds available at the following facilities on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for approximately 626 male offenders at Dixon CC no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date. Additional construction to increase treatment and administrative office space will be completed within twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date;
(B) RTU beds and programming space for 169 male offenders at Pontiac CC no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(C) RTU beds and programming space for at least 360 male offenders at IYC-Joliet no later than fifteen (15) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings:
(A) Dixon has made significant progress and is close to being substantially compliant with the provisions in this section. Dixon has the required 626 RTU beds, and each RTU unit has adequate space to conduct group therapy and private clinical meetings between mental health staff and offenders. In the X House, construction has been completed on group therapy rooms in each of the 4 wings, with a total of 5 group rooms. In addition, construction is in progress to create private mental health offices on each X House
- 39 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 40 of 115
wing for individual assessments. Considerable thought has gone into this process, particularly because many staff members have extremely difficult memories of a hostage incident that occurred with a QMHP a few years ago. At the time of the monitoring visit, both security and mental health staff felt comfortable with the plan to create plexiglass windows in the doors of the treatment rooms. This construction may well be sufficient for Dixon to be in substantial compliance with this section. (B) Pontiac has plans for a RTU of at least 169 beds. Construction has not begun on this project. The deadline for completion is 7/6/18. (C) IYC-Joliet began receiving mentally ill offenders on 11/6/17. The Monitor has been informed that approximately 20 mentally ill offenders will be housed at this facility by the end of 2017. The deadline for having a capacity of 360 is 10/6/18.
The Monitor is well aware that the deadline for the opening of these units has not been reached. As such, the department will receive a “target date has not arrived” rating for this provision of the Settlement Agreement. The overwhelming need for these higher acuity beds, however, is constantly being demonstrated by the long waits for RTU admission, extremely high rates of self-injurious behavior, lengthy stays in Crisis and the frequent reliance on the use of restraints. The lack of these higher acuity beds for the mentally ill offender population of IDOC, results in their needlessly suffering. The Monitor personally shared these concerns with the Director on 6/26/17, strongly encouraging him to accelerate the opening of the RTUs at Joliet and Pontiac. His response was less than reassuring. He stated “we’re moving fast for Illinois.”
(X)(c): RTU beds for female offenders
(i): Specific requirement: IDOC has identified RTU bed and programming space for 108 female offenders at Logan CC.
Findings: IDOC has identified 118 RTU beds for female offenders at Logan Correctional Center.
(ii): Specific requirement: IDOC will perform the necessary construction to make these 108 RTU beds available on the following schedule:
(A) RTU beds and programming space for 80 female offenders no later than six (6) months after the budget contingent approval date; and
(B) RTU beds and programming space for an additional 28 female offenders no later than twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: Logan RTU Phase I was completed in October 2016. It is currently fully occupied. Phase II has also been completed. Logan will have created 118 RTU beds, 10 more than the 108 required by the Settlement Agreement. The beds are divided among five housing units. Staff and offenders alike stated that the housing units provide adequate programming space and confidentiality of sound and sight.
(X)(d): Specific requirements: The facilities and services available in association with the RTU beds provided for in subsections (b) and (c), above, shall in all respects comply with the requirements set forth in the section titled “IDOC Mental Health Units,” subsections 2 and 3, in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101,
- 40 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 41 of 115
section II (E)(2)). All RTU units shall have sufficient beds and program space for all offenders in need of residential level of care services, including the provision to each RTU offender of a minimum of ten (10) hours of structured therapeutic activities per week and a minimum of ten (10) hours of unstructured out of cell activities per week. To the extent that IDOC maintains an RTU in segregation units (e.g., Pontiac) these provisions shall apply regardless of whether the RTU bed is within or outside of a segregation unit.
Findings: The target date has not arrived for this requirement. The following is the current status of these units:
Dixon RTU: Inmates are now offered approximately 6 hours per week of structured time and 12 hours of unstructured time out of cell. Additionally, two of the three RTU units in the X House have implemented communal meals for lunch and dinner, adding a pro-social component to the treatment milieu and an additional 45 minutes per day of out-of-cell time.
Pontiac Mental Health Unit: This unit houses some of the most seriously mentally ill offenders in the Department. Many of them are too impaired to take advantage of the limited treatment opportunities offered on this unit. Department resources need to be reallocated to address the treatment needs of this population. Also, the construction of ample treatment spaces should be greatly accelerated. Given the current rate of progress, the Monitor is not optimistic that this RTU will be completed by the target date of 7/6/18.
Logan RTU: Please see X(c)(ii), above.
Joliet RTU: The Monitor inspected this facility on 6/20/17. This was obviously prior to their accepting mentally ill offenders. The progress of this unit will be closely followed moving forward.
(X)(e): Inpatient beds
Specific requirement: Within three (3) months of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall enter into an intergovernmental agreement (‘IGA’) with the Illinois Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) to secure at least 22 beds for female offenders and at least 22 beds for male offenders in an existing DHS-owned mental health facility. The necessary funding to complete this construction is dependent upon additional appropriations. Consequently, IDOC will perform the construction and improvements to make at least 22 beds available for female offenders within nine (9) months of the budget approval contingent date and to make at least 22 beds available for male offenders within sixteen (16) months of the budget contingent approval date. Within thirty (30) months of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC will transition to assuming control or ownership of said facility and provide approximately sixty (60) additional beds and programming space for separate housing of male and female offenders in need of an inpatient level of care. During that transition period, IDOC shall consult closely with the Monitor and IDOC’s own retained mental health expert to develop any additional policies and procedures and design programming and treatment space that is appropriate for a forensic hospital. After the IGA is signed, IDOC will continue to develop plans for inpatient care that can be implemented after necessary appropriations.
- 41 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 42 of 115
Findings: IDOC has entered into this IGA with the Illinois Department of Human Services. The target dates for the remainder of the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement have not arrived.
(X)(f): Crisis beds
Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each facility has crisis beds which comply with IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102, § II(F)(2), IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.100, § II(G)(4)(b), and IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102. These beds shall not be located in Control Units with the exception of Pontiac CC, in which case such cells will be relocated to the protective custody unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement. To the extent that, as of the approval of this Settlement Agreement, offenders are placed in crisis beds located in a Control Unit (excluding Pontiac CC), they will be moved to a crisis bed in general population within the facility, to an infirmary setting within the facility, or, if no such placement is available, transferred to another facility which has an appropriate crisis bed available.
Findings: One set of crisis cells is still located in the North House of Pontiac. These cells are referred to as “overflow.” On 9/19/17 there were two mentally ill offenders in crisis cells in North House. The Monitor spoke with a custody sergeant who stated “there are always one or two overflows in crisis in North House.” The Settlement Agreement clearly states “such cells will be relocated to a protective Custody Unit no later than twelve (12) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.” This apparently is not happening. The Quarterly Reports of 6/30/17 & 10/23/17 incorrectly state “Although it took some time, Pontiac’s crisis cells were moved prior to the May 2017 due date.” This is another example of erroneous information being presented as fact in the quarterly reports.
The Quarterly Reports of 6/30/17 & 10/23/17 go on to state “each facility in question has crisis beds outside of the main control units.” Plaintiffs’ counsel determined that the primary crisis cells at Lawrence Correctional Center were located in a control unit, and this was confirmed by Assistant Monitor Ginny Morrison during her tour from 10/18-10/20. The monitoring team observed that Lawrence is in the process of retrofitting cells in a different building to replace those in the control unit. The first set of replacement cells was anticipated to open in November 2017. The quarterly reports create a misleading impression that the placement of crisis care beds is resolved, when in fact, a significant number of patients are still placed in control units in a few locations.
Several institutions use control units as overflow for crisis care; some logs show this was used this rarely,19 but Pontiac appears to have used a control unit for at least 13% of its crisis cases in recent months.20 At Menard, mentally ill offenders who are housed in segregation who need a crisis bed are moved to a crisis cell located in a general population wing of the same building. The crisis cells at Logan were not monitored during this reporting period. Of note is that, although
19 For example, from July through September, Stateville shows 9 such cases, Big Muddy River shows 2, and Robinson and Western Illinois each show 1. 20 Aggregating July and September yields a total of 13%. August shows a much higher number, but legal counsel has explained that staff made a consistent labeling error. It was not possible, at the time of this writing, for the monitoring team to determine a correct rate for August.
- 42 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 43 of 115
Stateville and Northern Reception Center have made appropriate efforts to retrofit cells outside of control units, the monitoring team observed cells in the NRC infirmary and in Unit A that have points that self-harming patients could potentially use to tie materials to attempt hanging. The team encourages Stateville to review those units for possible safety improvements.
Specific requirement: Section II (e) of the Settlement Agreement states in part: Crisis beds are available within the prison for short-term (generally no longer than ten (10) days unless clinically indicated and approved by either a Mental Health Professional or the Regional Mental Health Administrator) aggressive mental health intervention designed to reduce the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilize the offender prior to transfer to a more or less intensive care setting.
Findings: As was reported in the first annual report, “crisis beds are an integral part of a well-functioning correctional mental health treatment system. As stated in the Settlement, they are meant to provide an acute and aggressive level of care designed to rapidly stabilize mentally decompensated offenders. If, due to the severity of their mental illness, the offenders are not able to stabilize in a relatively short period of time, which is defined as “generally no longer than 10 days,” then they need to be transferred to a higher level of care. In all fairness to IDOC, it currently does not have a well-functioning correctional mental health treatment system. The number of mentally ill offenders continues to overwhelm the resources available in the current mental health treatment system. Of note, there are no inpatient services available. This results in extremely ill offenders being housed in the RTUs, Control Units, General Population Units, and R&C Units. There are not sufficient services available to adequately address the needs of this extremely ill population. All of this results in seriously mentally ill offenders being placed in crisis beds, which represent the highest level of psychiatric care currently available to mentally ill offenders in the IDOC. The crisis beds have become de facto inpatient care.”
The level of services provided to offenders in crisis care has remained woefully inadequate to meet their treatment needs during the current monitoring period. Mentally ill offenders in crisis care only receive an evaluation for suicide potential on admission, and sometimes on discharge,21 and an MHP contact on a daily basis. Among the institutions monitored, mentally ill offenders in crisis have the option of being seen in a confidential setting at Menard, Pinckneyville, Lawrence, Hill, Big Muddy River, and a portion of the crisis beds at Pontiac.22 Big Muddy River was able to accomplish this change during the monitoring period, a significant improvement. Elsewhere, the visits are not confidential. The monitoring team observed clinical contacts at some locations, reviewed chart notes, and discussed cases with staff. MHPs were routinely very knowledgeable about the offenders, and often conducted goal-directed contacts to address the stressors and mental health issues contributing to the admissions. At Pinckneyville, Big Muddy River, and Lawrence, crisis cases were discussed by all MHPs at daily staff meetings. Pinckneyville also provides nursing checks twice daily.
The department is also not meeting the requirements of section VII (c) of the Settlement
21 This is based on a review of 80 crisis admissions from Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, and Robinson; the analysis is heavily weighted toward practice at Lawrence as many more cases were reviewed there. Suicide screenings were evident at admissions for 91% of the cases, while 69% showed screenings on discharge. 22 The mentally ill offenders housed in crisis cells in the North House receive their daily evaluations cell side.
- 43 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 44 of 115
Agreement regarding SMI offenders who are placed in crisis beds. That is, the Department is not reviewing and updating the treatment plan upon entrance to crisis and thereafter once weekly, or more frequently if clinically indicated. Please see VII(c) above for an analysis.
A psychiatrist does not routinely evaluate the offenders to determine if their medications should be adjusted or changed. These mentally ill offenders do not receive any “aggressive mental health” interventions. In an analysis of 80 of the crisis watches the monitoring team reviewed, only 19 had any psychiatry contact. While a handful of these admissions were brief and/or involved inmates who said they were not genuinely in crisis, in most cases, psychiatric evaluation would be expected. Psychiatry did not respond to indicia of greater need, such as many admissions in a short time, very lengthy admissions, and pending RTU referrals. For example, with three men--living in crisis watch for 1 month to 2.5 months--each was seen only once or twice in that length of time.
Examples of the poor care while on crisis include:
• A mentally ill offender who stated “cutting is my coping skill.” He had been on crisis several times during the preceding few months and did not have a treatment plan in his medical record. The Monitor evaluated him on 6/19/17 and found him to be extremely psychotic. Of note, his most current visit with a psychiatrist was four months earlier, 2/18/17, when he was prescribed two different antidepressants.
• A mentally ill offender placed on crisis for attempting to hang himself. He did not have a mental health assessment or a treatment plan in his medical record. He had not been seen by a psychiatrist and had gone at least five days without receiving his prescribed medications.
• A mentally ill offender placed on crisis for attempting to hang himself. There was no mental health assessment or treatment plan in his medical record. There was also no crisis plan even though he had been on crisis for over two days. He had not taken any of his medications for at least three days. His medications included two psychotropics and one cardiac medication.
• A mentally ill offender in crisis at the North House in Pontiac receives his daily contacts with a MHP at cell side, although not all of these visits had been documented in the medical record. His most current treatment plan was over five months old and he had not seen a psychiatrist for two months. Of note, his medications had been prescribed for three months although there was no documentation of stability.
Not much has changed in the care of mentally ill offenders placed on crisis during this reporting period. As was reported in the first annual report ‘“Aggressive’ intervention, required by the Settlement, cannot be provided simply by virtue of placement into a crisis cell and daily monitoring by a MHP. This will not accomplish the aim of “reducing the acute, presenting symptoms and stabilizing the offender.” Inmates in crisis need actual treatment, such as one-toone and group therapies as well as an aggressive reevaluation of the patients’ prescribed psychotropic medication. It seems offenders may receive more treatment in segregation than in crisis care, though additional out-of-cell time is provided for those in crisis for prolonged periods.”
(X)(g): Specific requirement: IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate space for group therapy sessions; private clinical meetings between offenders and Mental Health Professionals; private initial mental health screenings; and such other therapeutic or evaluative
- 44 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 45 of 115
mental health encounters as are called for by this Settlement Agreement and IDOC’s own ADs, forms, and policies and procedures. IDOC shall also ensure that each RTU facility has adequate office space for the administrative and mental health staff required by this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement at Logan and Joliet and should meet this requirement at Dixon upon completion of the current construction projects.
(X)(h): Specific requirement: The treatment and other space required by subsections (d)(g), above, shall be completely available no later than six (6) months after the work completion dates identified in subsection (a), above, for the four facilities identified there, and for any other residential treatment or outpatient facilities at which it is determined that modifications are needed no later than December 2017.
Findings: The target dates for this requirement have not arrived.
(X)(i): Specific requirement: Within forty-five (45) days of the selection of the Monitor, IDOC will submit to the Monitor descriptions and architectural plans, if being used, in sufficient detail to enable the Monitor to determine whether construction undertaken pursuant to this section complies with the previously approved Remedial Plan. If, having reviewed these descriptions and plans, the Monitor concludes that the space allocations in any or all facilities under this Settlement Agreement are not consistent with the Remedial Plan, the Monitor shall so inform IDOC and Plaintiffs’ counsel, and IDOC shall have thirty (30) days to propose additional measures that address the Monitor’s concerns.
Findings: As reported in the first annual report, Chief Lindsay sent the required floor plans to the Monitor within the time frame specified in the Settlement. These floor plans are consistent with the requirements of the Remedial Plan.
XI: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING
Summary: Regional directors and a statewide quality improvement manager have been hired, although not all positions are being worked full-time.
Each institution has designated a Psych Administrator position, though about 20% are vacant.
Hiring of the required Central Office staff is very limited.
(XI)(a): Regional Directors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, to the extent it has not already done so, IDOC will hire two regional directors who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists to assist the IDOC Chief of Mental Health Services.
- 45 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 46 of 115
Findings: As reported in the first annual report, IDOC actually hired three regional directors who are licensed psychologists and they were in place prior to the filing of the Settlement. They were:
• Dr. Horn, northern regional director, who was hired March 2014 • Dr. Sim, central regional director, who was hired January 2015. As reported in the
Quarterly Report dated 10/223/17, Dr. Sim is only devoting 75% of his time to this position as he is also the Continuous Quality Improvement Manager. • Dr. Reister, southern regional director, who was hired December 2014
(XI)(b): Statewide Quality Improvement Manager
Specific requirement: IDOC will also create a position for a statewide Quality Improvement Manager (the QI Manager). In addition to the other responsibilities assigned to the QI Manager in this Settlement Agreement, the QI Manager or one or more qualified designees shall have the responsibility for monitoring the provision of mental health services performed within IDOC by state or vendor employees and the performance of any vendor(s) under the vendor contract(s). This position shall be filled only by a State, not vendor, employee, and shall be filled no later than nine (9) months after the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This position was filled on 2/16/17, eight days before the deadline, by Dr. Jeff Sim. Curiously, Dr. Sim was also serving at the Central Regional Director at the time of his appointment to Statewide Quality Improvement Manager. The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states that Dr. Sim is only devoting 25% of his time to this role. This is consistent with the fact that IDOC is not operating a statewide continuous quality improvement program.
(XI)(c): Clinical supervisors
Specific requirement: Within thirty (30) days after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also designate at least one qualified state employee at each IDOC-operated facility encompassed by this Settlement Agreement to provide supervision and assessment of the State clinical staff and monitoring and approval of the vendor staff involved in the delivery of mental health services. The employee shall be a PSA-8K, Clinical Psychologist, Social Worker IV or appropriately licensed mental health professional. If the designated employee leaves the facility and the position has not yet been filled, IDOC may designate an interim holder of this position who may be a member either of IDOC or vendor staff.
Findings: There continues to be vacancies in these positions throughout the Department. These include positons at Danville, Graham, Vandalia, Robinson, and Illinois River. Chief Hinton reported to the Monitor on 11/7/17 that Western also had a vacancy. The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17, however, lists the position at Western as having been filled. Regardless, multiple vacancies exist 17 months after the deadline. In addition to negatively affecting the quality of mental health services at these five or six facilities, the Department is unable to implement its Statewide Quality Improvement system until all positions are filled.
- 46 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 47 of 115
(XI)(d): Central office staff
Specific requirement: IDOC shall hire ten (10) central office staff (i.e., non-facilityspecific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. These positions will be filled no later than eighteen (18) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The deadline has arrived for filling these positions. To date, IDOC has not reported the hiring of “ten (10) central office staff (i.e. non-facility specific staff including the positions mentioned in (a)-(d), above) to implement the policies and record-keeping requirements of this Settlement Agreement. Regarding this specific requirement, the Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states “With regard to subsection (d), the Department is not required to fill these positions until 18 months after the Agreement. However, the Department hired a Mental Health Training Coordinator, Tim Lawrence, and a chief of psychiatry, Dr. Michael Dempsey. Dr. Dempsey recently resigned and the Department plans to hire a new chief of psychiatry. The Department made an offer to a candidate last week and is in salary negotiations with that candidate.” It is important to note that Dr. Dempsey quit his position over six months ago, so he has not “recently resigned.” The Department’s response to this very important issue is to provide misleading information in an apparent attempt to obfuscate the issue. The monitoring team needs to know:
• When will Dr. Sim fully assume the position of Statewide Quality Improvement Manager?
• When will all IDOC facilities have an assigned mental health supervisor? • When will IDOC hire ten (10) dedicated central office staff to manage the Settlement
Agreement, including a Chief of Psychiatry?
XII: MEDICATION
Summary: Staff makes every effort to “contemporaneously record the administration of psychotropic medication. SMI offenders with a new prescription are not being seen at least twice within 60 days after starting a new medication. Offenders are not being evaluated every 30 days by a psychiatrist. There was a backlog of over 1800 psychiatric follow-up visits in early November. Mentally ill offenders are routinely followed every 90-180 days even though “stability” has not been documented. Serious problems exist with the medication distribution system. Poor compliance with medications is rarely referred to the psychiatrist. Offenders can go for weeks or months before anything is done about poor compliance with their medications. The efficacy or side effects of prescribed medications are not routinely documented in the offenders’ medical records. Protocols for laboratory and neurological evaluations are not generally followed. Laboratory work is sometimes obtained but in a haphazard fashion that doesn’t support the care of the mentally ill offender.
(XII)(a): Specific requirement: In accordance with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(4)(d)(1), no later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement
- 47 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 48 of 115
Agreement, medical staff shall record contemporaneously on offender medical records all medications administered and all offender contacts with medical staff as to medications. With respect to offenders taking psychotropic medications, “contemporaneously” means that the medication, the amount of the medication, and whether the offender took it or refused it will be recorded at the time the medication is delivered, either on a temporary record from which information is subsequently transferred to a permanent record located elsewhere, or in the permanent record at the time of delivery.
Findings: As reported in the first annual report, “this requirement has increasingly been met during the monitoring period.” The monitoring team observed the medication administration process and noted that staff makes every effort to contemporaneously record if an offender to or refused his/her medication.
At Hill and Lawrence, while medication administration records were in use, nearly half of the relevant charts showed unexplained gaps in recording for one to two days per month. At this time, it is unclear what this may reflect.23
(XII)(b): Specific requirement: Within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall also comply with the provisions of IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5), except that under no circumstances shall a SMI offender who has a new prescription for psychotropic medication be evaluated as provided therein fewer than two (2) times within the first sixty (60) days after the offender has started on the new medication(s).
AD 04.04.101, section II (F)(5) provides: Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, subject to the following:
(a) For offenders in the outpatient level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for the extension of follow-up appointments may be considered, with no follow up appointment to exceed 90 days.
(b) For offenders at a Special/Residential Treatment Unit level of care, once stability has been observed and documented in the offender’s medical record by the attending psychiatrist, consideration for an extension of follow-up appointments may be considered with no extension to exceed 60 days.
Findings: In none of the facilities monitored were:
• SMI offenders who have new prescriptions being evaluated two times within the first 60 days of treatment: Among 12 patients newly on medication in 2017 at Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, and Robinson, follow-up was compliant in only 2 of the cases. More commonly, these patients were seen after 90 days, and some were not seen for 120 days.
23 The monitoring team reviewed medical administration records at these facilities for 42 inmates who were prescribed psychotropic medication. Of those, 20 patients’ records had these gaps, usually in multiple months of 2017, but not every month.
- 48 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 49 of 115
• Offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications being evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days: Only at Dixon were some patients seen every 30 days, but the quality of the notes—which omitted such critical information as diagnosis and medication effects--was so poor as to render them useless
In fact, in a sample of 113 patients at five other institutions across general population and segregation, only one could be said to have follow-up occur at 30-day intervals during 2017. Indeed, follow-up did not adhere to any regular schedule for any of these patients; the intervals appeared haphazard and rarely seemed to adjust to indications of acuity.
The time between appointments was almost evenly divided between:
o Appointments 4 to 8 months after the previous contact o Appointments 90 days after the previous contact o Appointments 60 days after the previous contact o Appointments within 30 days after the previous contact
Notably, that means that 25% of the appointments in this sample exceeded even the maximum permitted by the Agreement for outpatient contacts (90 days).
Concurrently, psychiatrists too often issue medication orders without seeing the inmates. Among this sample of 113 patients, there were 27 verbal orders, in 2017, to continue medication. This excludes bridge orders that extend medication a brief time; this conclusion refers only to those verbal orders where an appointment did not follow for at least another month. In a handful of cases, the verbal orders extended the medication for 90 days, serially, and the patients were not seen for 8 months. This sample also contained five orders to discontinue medication, rather than seeing the patient to assess whether a medication adjustment would address reported side effects or reasons underlying noncompliance.24 IDOC leaders report that they have recently conducted trainings to curb the practice of orders issued without seeing the patients; this is a welcome step.
In some instances, the psychiatrist or psychiatric physician’s assistant wrote a plan to follow up more quickly, but subsequent appointments almost never occurred according to that plan. In some locations, particularly Lawrence, custody practices—lockdowns, physical plant issues, staffing shortages—played a role. Most commonly, an explanation was not evident for these lengths of time between psychiatry contacts.
• In none of the medical records reviewed was “stability” documented and the extension of follow-up appointments properly considered.
Indeed, among the sampled records that did not have 30-day contacts were:
• New arrivals to the institution, with whom the psychiatrists would have insufficient history to determine stability
24 These also were not cases where the psychiatrist and staff had previously made multiple attempts to address the noncompliance.
- 49 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 50 of 115
• Offenders newly on medication • Offenders reporting side effects to nurses, MHPs, and in self-referrals • Offenders newly going off all medication • Offenders referred by nurses and MHPs for noncompliance follow-up
It appeared these offenders generally were not prioritized for psychiatry follow-up and were just as likely to wait 2 to 6 months for a contact.25 In some cases, these offenders were not seen until they went on crisis watch.
As of 11/10/17, there was backlog of 264 new psychiatric evaluations and 1868 follow up appointments.
The Department has suggested that an expansion of Telepsychiatry will address these problems. The Monitor sent a letter to Dr. Hinton on 10/1/17 listing a variety of concerns about the wholesale use of Telepsychiatry to solve this state of “psychiatric emergency” that currently exists in IDOC. To date, these concerns have not been addressed by Dr. Hinton or any member of the IDOC leadership. Also, these psychiatric issues are necessarily the purview of the Chief Psychiatrist, whose position has been vacant for over six months.
(XII)(c): Specific requirement: In addition to these requirements, within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall accomplish the following:
(i): Specific requirement: The timely administration or taking of medication by the offenders, so that there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed;
Findings: On the whole, the Department is not meeting this requirement at any of the facilities monitored during this reporting period. On the positive side, there was medication continuity for inmates arriving from other IDOC facilities with current psychotropics medication orders. All medications were delivered from the day of arrival in the 31 relevant charts in one analysis.
However, the monitoring team reviewed a significant number of medical records that documented very poor medication compliance that was not being reported to the prescriber, or those reports were not conveyed until the problem had existed for a week, and up to several weeks. So as far as the prescriber knew, the mentally ill offender had been taking their medication when in fact they had not.
Another serious problem exists regarding whether “there is a reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to and taken by the offenders as prescribed.” The Monitor observed that this particular requirement is not being met. This widespread problem is referred to as “cheeking.” This occurs when an offender appears to have taken their medication but they actually don’t swallow it and spit it out for use at a later time. This is especially a problem in the control units where the medication is passed out at cell front. While
25 It took more than one month to be seen for those patients in this sample: 45% of the 31 new arrivals; 83% of the 12 patients newly on medication; 83% of 6 patients reporting side effects; 67% of the 3 patients newly going off all medication; 67% of the 6 patients referred for noncompliance.
- 50 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 51 of 115
conducting interviews at Pontiac, the Monitor was handed a small package by a mentally ill offender, which contained 13 Prozac capsules and seven unknown white pills. The Monitor immediately turned this package over to Major Blackard. In further questioning the mentally ill offender involved, he stated that it was easy to cheek medications because the staff pass the offender their pills and quickly walk away. In yet another case at Pontiac, the monitored interviewed a mentally ill offender who was in the infirmary due to an intentional drug overdose. This offender stated that he had saved “50 Benadryl’s, 40 lithium’s and ‘a shitload of other pills.’” Whether he actually took all of the medications that he claimed to have taken is not the point. The medical records confirmed that in fact he had taken an overdose of prescription medications. This is an extremely serious problem that requires immediate attention.
(ii): Specific requirement: The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects, including both subjective side effects reported by the patient, such as agitation, sleeplessness, and suicidal ideation, and objective side effects, such as tardive dyskinesia [sic], high blood pressure, and liver function decline;
Findings: Meeting this continues to be a problem for the Department. In the overwhelming majority of the medical records reviewed during this reporting period, little to no attention was paid to either the efficacy or the side effects of the prescribed medications. As was reported in the first annual report, the monitoring team encountered numerous mentally ill offenders who were displaying medication-induced side effects. In all of these cases, there was no mention of these side effects in the offenders’ medical records.
Of note, the Department’s response to this requirement, as noted in the Quarterly Report dated 10/23/17, is “the Department has devised a brochure that provides a list of the side effects associated with medications. This brochure is part of the mental health manual and is available to all offenders.” This brochure will do little to address this requirement until such time as there are an adequate number of competent psychiatrists who are given the time and resources to provide a constitutionally mandated level of care to the mentally ill offenders housed in the IDOC.
(iii): Specific requirement: Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation;
Findings: There has been no change in the Department’s response to this requirement since the submission of the first annual report. That is, the monitoring team found no evidence that adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects was occurring on a regular basis. There was some evidence of an occasional blood test being obtained. These blood tests were not obtained routinely and certainly not on the entire cohort of offenders who require these blood tests as part of their treatment with psychotropic medications. There was evidence that certain neurological evaluations were being done but again not routinely or on all the offenders who required them as part of treatment.
Similar to the Department’s response to XII(c)(ii), the Quarterly Report dated 10/23/17 states “The lab work requirement is also included in the mental health manual.” The Monitor would like to point out that the lab work requirement has been present in the mental health manual for the duration of the Settlement Agreement. Its mere presence has done little to ensure “Adherence to standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, including client interviews, blood tests, blood
- 51 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 52 of 115
pressure monitoring, and neurological evaluation.” As with the requirements of section XII(c)(ii), the requirements of this subsection will not be able to be met until such time as there are an adequate number of competent psychiatrists who are given the time and resources to provide a constitutionally mandated level of care to the mentally ill offenders housed in the IDOC.
(iv): Specific requirement: The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results;
Findings: As noted above, this lab work has not been obtained or reported in a timely manner.
(v): Specific requirement: That offenders for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanation from the prescribing psychiatrist about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what, in general, are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
Findings: As with most of the requirements of this section, no real change has occurred with this requirement during this monitoring period. As was reported in the first annual report, this requirement is not being met in IDOC with the exception of Dixon. At Dixon, offenders in the STC reported that they were given an opportunity to discuss medication options with the psychiatrist in a confidential setting, but patients in the X House noted that they were seen cellside and often felt uncomfortable discussing medication issues in that setting. For the remainder of IDOC, visits with a psychiatrist, when they occur, reportedly are rushed and very superficial. The monitoring team interviewed hundreds of offenders as well as reviewing their medical records to ascertain if this requirement was being met. The overwhelming majority of the offenders reported that their visits with the psychiatrist only last a few minutes and that they are often not allowed to ask questions. This was consistent with the medical records where little to no documentation was present to satisfy this requirement. It is also important to note that during the current monitoring period, there was a backlog of over 1800 psychiatric follow-up visits. This means that these offenders prescribed psychotropic medication were never afforded the opportunity to discuss medication issues with their prescribing psychiatrist.
(vi): Specific requirement: That offenders, including offenders in a Control Unit, who experience medication Non-Compliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender’s Medication Non-Compliance said Non-Compliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatrist.
Findings: The Department has not made any progress in addressing this requirement during the current monitoring period. As was reported in the first annual report, there was little evidence that this was occurring in IDOC. The monitoring team found numerous examples of medication non-compliance with offenders housed in control units for which nothing was done. That is, there was no documentation in the offenders’ medical records that the MHP was aware of these non-compliance issues or that the offender was referred to a psychiatrist. In fact, there were examples of the psychiatrist discontinuing the offenders’ medications without a visit if noncompliance was reported.
- 52 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 53 of 115
In general population facilities, however, some examples of noncompliance referrals were evident. The monitoring team did not conduct a systematic review, but encountered 11 examples of nursing staff notifying MHPs of a patient’s noncompliance. While these referrals were sometimes made much later than is good practice, especially at Robinson, in each instance the MHP met with the inmate in a reasonable time and completed a referral to a psychiatrist. Dixon, Graham, Robinson, and Shawnee incident logs reflect 29 referrals to the mental health department for medication refusals in recent months, as well.26
XIII: OFFENDER ENFORCED MEDICATION
Summary: Offenders subject to enforced medication are found in only nine institutions. All facilities have trained staff able to serve on a Treatment Review Committee; some appear to substitute other physicians for the required psychiatrist on the committee, but this seems a reasonable adaptation.
Psychiatrists documented the clinical reasons for the request and it appeared these were included in notices to the inmates. Staff Assistants were regularly appointed and hearings were held, appropriately staffed, and documented. Inmates reportedly were informed of at least some rights of appeal and some availed themselves of it.
Some medication orders contained unsupportable pharmacological practices and psychiatrists did not follow up with these patients as often as the Administrative Code and the Settlement Agreement require.
Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that its policy and practice as to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication continues to fully comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 415.70. The cited provision of the Administrative Code is lengthy and includes numerous detailed provisions:
a) Administration of Psychotropic Medication 1) Psychotropic medication shall not be administered to any offender against his or her will or without the consent of the parent or guardian of a minor who is under the age of 18, unless: A) A psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a physician, has determined that: i) The offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) The medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) The offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others; and B) The administration of such medication has been approved by the Treatment Review Committee after a hearing (see subsection (b) of this Section). However, no such approval or hearing shall be required when the medication is administered in an emergency situation. An emergency situation exists whenever the required determinations listed in subsection (a)(1)(A) of this Section have been made and a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist a
26 The monitoring team has not examined the response to those referrals.
- 53 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 54 of 115
physician, has determined that the offender poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm to self or others. In all emergency situations, the procedures set forth in subsection (e) of this Section shall be followed. 2) Whenever a physician orders the administration of psychotropic medication to an offender against the person’s will, the physician shall document in the offender’s medical file the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination that the standards in subsection (a)(1) of this Section have been met and: A) The Chief Administrative Officer shall be notified as soon as practicable; and B) Unless the medication was administered in an emergency situation, the Chairperson of the Treatment Review Committee shall be notified in writing within three days. b) Treatment Review Committee Procedures The Treatment Review Committee shall be comprised of two members appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer, both of whom shall be mental health professionals and one of whom shall be a physician. One member shall serve as Chairperson of the Committee. Neither of the Committee members may be involved in the current decision to order the medication. The members of the Committee shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall designate a member of the program staff not involved in the current decision to order medication to assist the offender. The staff assistant shall have completed a training program in the procedural and mental health issues involved that has been approved by the Agency Medical Director. 2)The offender and staff assistant shall receive written notification of the time and place of the hearing at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The notification shall include the tentative diagnosis and the reasons why the medical staff believes the medication is necessary. The staff assistant shall meet with the offender prior to the hearing to discuss the procedural and mental health issues involved. 3) The offender shall have the right to attend the hearing unless the Committee determines that it is likely that the person’s attendance would subject the person to substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm or pose a threat to the safety of others. If such a determination is made, the facts and underlying reasons supporting the determination shall be documented in the offender’s medical file. The staff assistant shall appear at the hearing whether or not the offender appears. 4) The documentation in the medical file referred to in subsection (a)(2) of this Section shall be reviewed by the Committee and the Committee may request the physician’s personal appearance at the hearing. 5) Prior to the hearing, witnesses identified by the offender and the staff assistant may be interviewed by the staff assistant after consultation with the offender as to appropriate questions to ask. Any such questions shall be asked by the staff assistant unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 6) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses be interviewed by the Committee and may submit written questions for witnesses to the Chairperson of the Committee. These questions shall be asked by the Committee unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of
- 54 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 55 of 115
individuals or the security of the facility. If any witness is not interviewed, a written reason shall be provided. 7) Prior to the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may request in writing that witnesses appear at the hearing. Any such request shall include an explanation of what the witnesses would state. Reasonable efforts shall be made to have such witnesses present at the hearing, unless their testimony or presence would be cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility, or for other reasons including, but not limited to, unavailability of the witness or matters relating to institutional order. In the event requested witnesses are unavailable to appear at the hearing but are otherwise available, they shall be interviewed by the Committee as provided for in subsections (b)(6) and (9) of this Section. 8) At the hearing, the offender and the staff assistant may make statements and present documents that are relevant to the proceedings. The staff assistant may direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing. The offender may request that the staff assistant direct relevant questions to any witnesses appearing at the hearing and the staff assistant shall ask such questions unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 9) The Committee shall make such investigation as it deems necessary. The staff assistant shall be informed of any investigation conducted by the Committee and shall be permitted to direct relevant questions to any witnesses interviewed by the Committee. The staff assistant shall consult with the offender regarding any statements made by witnesses interviewed by the Committee and shall comply with requests by the offender to direct relevant questions to such witnesses unless cumulative, irrelevant, or a threat to the safety of individuals or the security of the facility. 10) The Committee shall consider all relevant information and material that has been presented in deciding whether to approve administration of the medication. 11) A written decision shall be prepared and signed by all members of the Committee that contains a summary of the hearing and the reasons for approving or disapproving the administration of the medication. Copies of the decision shall be given to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Any decision by the Committee to approve involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be unanimous. The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Committee. 12) If the Committee approves administration of the medication, the offender shall be advised of the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Agency Medical Director by filing a written appeal with the Chairperson within five days after the offender's receipt of the written decision. c) Review by Agency Medical Director 1) If the offender appeals the Treatment Review Committee’s decision, staff shall continue to administer the medication as ordered by the physician and approved by
- 55 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 56 of 115
the Committee while awaiting the Agency Medical Director’s decision on the appeal. 2) The Chairperson of the Committee shall promptly forward the written notice of appeal to the Agency Medical Director or a physician designated by the Agency Medical Director. 3) Within five working days after receipt of the written notice of appeal, the Agency Medical Director shall: A) Review the Committee’s decision, make such further investigation as deemed necessary, and submit a written decision to the Chief Administrative Officer; and B) Provide a copy of the written decision to the offender, the staff assistant, and the Chairperson of the Committee. 4) The Chief Administrative Officer shall direct staff to comply with the decision of the Agency Medical Director. d) Periodic Review of Medication 1) Whenever any offender has been involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication continuously or on a regular basis for a period of six months, the administration of such medication shall, upon the offender’s written request, be reviewed by the Treatment Review Committee in accordance with the procedures enumerated in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section. Every six months thereafter, for so long as the involuntary medication continues on a regular basis, the offender shall have the right to a review hearing upon written request. 2) Every offender who is involuntarily receiving psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days, and the psychiatrist shall document in the offender's medical file the basis for the decision to continue the medication. e) Emergency Procedures Subsequent to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in an emergency situation: 1) The basis for the decision to administer the medication shall be documented in the offender's medical file and a copy of the documentation shall be given to the offender and to the Agency Medical Director for review. 2) A mental health professional shall meet with the offender to discuss the reasons why the medication was administered and to give the offender an opportunity to express any concerns he or she may have regarding the medication. f) Copies of all notifications and written decisions shall be placed in the offender’s medical file. g) Grievances An offender may submit a grievance concerning the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication directly to the Administrative Review Board in accordance with 20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.Subpart F. In considering the grievance, the Board shall confer with the Agency Medical Director.
Findings: Institutions reported to the Monitor 182 inmates during the monitoring period for whom enforced medication can be ordered. These were nearly all concentrated at Dixon, Pontiac, and Logan. The distribution was:
§ Dixon (120), Pontiac (28), Logan (14)
- 56 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 57 of 115
§ Big Muddy River, Illinois River, Menard, Pinckneyville, Stateville, Western Illinois: 1 to 5 each
§ 17 institutions had no inmates subject to enforced medication
The monitoring team reviewed a 9% sample of these medical records drawn from five of the institutions.
In four instances, medication was given as an emergency before the hearing. Documentation raised some concerns, but there was insufficient information to reach conclusions.27
Each institution provided a list of staff who have been trained and serve as Treatment Review Committee members. In some instances, the pool of members includes mental health professionals and psychiatrists; in other instances, that is less clear. IDOC has indicated that, where hearings are rare and there is not a standing committee, regional administrators ensure that committees are correctly composed at the time of hearing. In the monitoring team’s chart sample, a Treatment Review Committee did hold a hearing in each case; the committees were composed of MHPs and either a psychiatrist or the medical director. While this does not meet the letter of the Administrative Code, it is a reasonable adaptation in the face of psychiatry shortages, in the opinion of the monitoring team.
In all cases reviewed, a psychiatrist documented facts on which he or she determined that: i) the offender suffers from a mental illness or mental disorder; and ii) the medication is in the medical interest of the offender; and iii) the offender is either gravely disabled or poses a likelihood of serious harm to self or others. Generally, those facts were also captured in a notice to the inmate.
Staff assistants were appointed in all reviewed cases. Inmates were almost always present28 and there was no indication any had been excluded. There was no mention of the inmates offering witnesses or documents, nor of the committee declining either of these options. A written summary of the hearing and the committee’s reasons for approving medication administration did appear in each reviewed health care record.
The Administrative Code requires that these inmates be evaluated by a psychiatrist at least every 30 days while these decisions are in place; this did not occur. Interviewed mental health staff indicated that inmates are informed that they have a right to appeal every six months. Examples of inmates taking advantage of this opportunity were apparent in the Stateville charts.
27 In one case, it was not fully clear whether emergency medications were given. In another, the administration was in an earlier medical chart volume that the monitor did not review. In a third, justification procedures were followed but the administration seemed to occur for five days, beyond the permitted time. In the fourth case, justification was presented but it was questionable whether the inmate’s condition was acute. One instance of anything, of course, does not constitute a pattern, so there is insufficient information to determine whether these rise to the level of ongoing concern. 28 A notice was evident in half of the cases. Inmates were clearly present in ¾ of the cases. The presence of notices and inmates was inconclusive in the other cases and the monitoring team was unable to seek alternative information sources.
- 57 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 58 of 115
The monitoring team determined that Dixon continues to manage enforced medications reasonably well. Upon reviewing the medical charts, the clinical rationale for enforced medication was consistently documented in the psychiatrists’ notes and medication orders. Staff maintains a centralized list and all offenders subject to enforced medications are housed in an RTU setting so that they can be monitored closely; there were 110 such inmates during the monitoring visit.
As these analyses indicate, the monitoring team observed many good practices in the enforced medication cases reviewed. The most glaring exception was the lack of psychiatric follow-up for this vulnerable population. Also, the pharmacological practices in these “offender forced medications” were abysmal. There were no documented reasons for the choice of a particular medication. This was especially problematic when reviewing the choice of medications used for the “IM backup.” These “IM backups” are orders for injectable medications used if an offender refuses to take the prescribed oral medication. The standard of practice is to use an equivalent dose of an equivalent medications. That is, one would substitute an injectable antipsychotic medication for the refusal of an antipsychotic medication. This has not generally been the practice. Several other aspects of the Administrative Code requirements were not reviewed during this monitoring period.
XIV: HOUSING ASSIGNMENTS
Summary: The appropriate policies are in place. MHPs do routinely learn quickly about cell assignments and feel their input into housing decisions, including post-segregation placement, is sought and respected. MHPs could not recall instances of custody staff overriding MHPs’ housing recommendations for patients.
(XIV)(a): Specific requirements: Cell assignments for SMI offenders shall be based on the recommendations of the appropriate security staff. However, notice shall be made to members of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team within twenty-four (24) hours of a new or changed cell assignment. It is expected that MHPs will monitor the location of each SMI offender on their caseload. IDOC will require MHPs to alert security staff of their concerns regarding SMI offender housing assignments and related contraindications. In all instances, an SMI offender’s housing assignment shall serve both the security needs of the respective facility and the treatment needs of the offender.
Findings: During the monitoring period, IDOC administration distributed a memo to all facilities reinforcing this requirement and those that follow in (b) and (c). To date, five institutions visited have provided local policies containing this language, or substantially similar language.
At several institutions visited, the administration sends a daily email about cell moves of mentally ill inmates; some concern all moves, and some concentrate on moves in and out of segregation. There is also a procedure, apparently in system-wide use, in which mental health, medical, investigations, and other departments are emailed about segregation placements and asked to note concerns or sign-off on double-celling eligibility.
- 58 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 59 of 115
Lawrence MHPs are also able to check the relevant database themselves. In some institutions, moves have limited effect on access to patients in that contacts take place in the mental health offices. Several MHPs at each institution visited confirmed that they learn quickly about moves from custody and from each other, and they have not had difficulty in this regard.
(XIV)(b): Specific requirement: For those offenders who have served fifteen (15) days or longer in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation, an MHP who is a member of the SMI offender’s mental health treatment team shall be consulted regarding post-segregation housing recommendations pursuant to Section XVIII (a)(v)(F), below.
Findings: The monitoring team notes that MHPs are being consulted regarding postsegregation housing. Also, during the monitoring period, IDOC administration distributed a memo to all facilities reinforcing this requirement. To date, five institutions visited have provided local policies containing this language, or substantially similar language.
Dixon security staff consults with mental health staff regarding housing decisions, such as single-cell status and RTU placement after segregation. Both Hill and Lawrence clinical leaders emphasized that custody staff is receptive to their advice about housing. Big Muddy River staff has not been consulting with MHPs on post-segregation placements, but the administration committed to doing so.
(XIV)(c): Specific requirement: If security staff rejects a housing recommendation made by an MHP as to an SMI offender, the security staff representative shall state in writing the recommendation made by the MHP and the factual basis for rejection of the MHP recommendation.
Findings: During the monitoring period, IDOC administration distributed a memo to all facilities reinforcing this requirement. To date, five institutions visited have provided local policies containing this language, or substantially similar language. None of the Psych Administrators or MHPs interviewed could identify any instances when security staff overrode their opinions about housing placements for mentally ill inmates.
- 59 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 60 of 115
XV: SEGREGATION
Summary: Some institutions run multidisciplinary workgroups that meet routinely to discuss segregation offenders individually, spotting behavioral issues and designing incentives and other solutions to prevent and solve those behavioral management problems. These are effective means to shorten segregation terms, reduce tickets, and support all of the treatment goals that are the subject of this section’s requirements.
Segregation units generally met the conditions of the Administrative Directives cited herein, but the noise and chaos were anti-therapeutic for mentally ill offenders.
Mental Health rounds did take place consistently. These treatment requirements were met at very low levels: MHP contact within 48 hours, continuing prior treatment plans, counseling if included in the treatment plan, generating new treatment plans and updating them monthly, providing enhanced therapy if needed. Pharmacological treatment is poor, consistent with this treatment for other populations. These deficiencies may be contributing to overuse of calls for Crisis Intervention Teams.
The monitored institutions reportedly offered 6 to 15 hours per week of unstructured out of cell time, but there are concerns about the accuracy of this information. The conditions of unstructured out of cell time at some locations also were a disincentive to its use.
Similar concerns existed about the accuracy of reported structured out of cell time, and the difference between hours scheduled and hours received, which could be reduced by refusals, cancellations, and other causes. With current reporting capabilities, it is difficult to discern the amount of treatment received. IDOC improved the content of some therapy groups offered, and trained BHTs to conduct Rounds in order to make MHPs more available for counseling and group therapy.
MHPs are able to arrange for offenders to be placed in crisis care or other higher levels of care with collaboration from custody staff and administration. There is not a reliable system for identifying mentally ill offenders who are deteriorating due to continued placement in a control unit.
As of the first annual report, IDOC appeared to have met the requirements related to review of segregation terms and tickets.
As to all of the above requirements, the analysis applies equally to offenders in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement.
XV(a)(i): Specific requirement: Prior to housing two offenders in a cell, the respective Lieutenant or above shall comply with Administrative Directive 05.03.107 which requires an offender review that shall consider compatibility contraindications such as difference in age or physical size; security threat group affiliation; projected release dates; security issues; medical or
- 60 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 61 of 115
mental health concerns; history of violence with cell mates; reason for segregation or protective custody placement; racial issues; and significant negative life changes, such as additional time to serve, loss of spouse or children, etc. The respective security staff shall consult with the mentally ill offender’s treatment team regarding the appropriateness of such placement in accordance with Section XVII of this Settlement Agreement.
Of note, AD 05.03.107 provides: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility with segregation and protective custody units designed to double cell offenders shall develop a written policy that includes, but is not limited to, the following for routine segregation and protective custody placement:
• Segregation placement • PC placement • Documentation • Review of documentation and final determination • Compatibility contraindications • Review with other inmates • Upon determination to double-cell:
o Documentation o Suitability review following placement o Documentation upon release • Documentation and Reassessment for disciplinary report
Findings: The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 states “Double-cell reviews are in place, and all facilities are in the process of implementing the requirements of this Section. On June 23rd, a memo was sent to all wardens reminding them of the requirements outlined in this section. Additionally, wardens were instructed to draft institutional directives reiterating the requirements in this section. The Monitor had requested a list of facilities that have complied with this requirement. On November 20, 2017, the Monitor received confirmation from Chief Funk “that all facilities have an institutional directive relative to the double celling of special populations.” Additionally, Psych Administrators at several institutions convincingly described to the monitoring team the particulars of this process and its routine nature. Please see section XIV, above.
XV(a)(ii): Specific Requirement: Standards for living conditions and status-appropriate privileges shall be afforded in accordance with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.620, 504.630 and 504.670. Section 504.620 is detailed and covers a number of issues regarding conditions in segregation: double celling, secure fastening of the bed, clean bedding, running water, lighting, placement above ground with adequate heat and ventilation, food passage and visual observation, use of restraints inside the cell, cleaning materials, showers and shaves, toiletries, clothing and laundry, dentures, glasses and other hygienic items, property and commissary, food, visits, medical, chaplain and correctional counselor visits, programs, exercise, phone calls, mail privileges and reading materials. Section 504.630 provides for the same conditions and services in investigatory status as in segregation status. Section 504.670 addresses recreation, including requiring five hours of recreation for inmates who have spent 90 or more days in segregation, yard restrictions, and related documentation.
- 61 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 62 of 115
Findings: The segregation units inspected generally met the criteria outlined in this subsection. There were numerous complaints from offenders about the lack of cleaning supplies and hygienic items. These segregation units were uniformly unfit for housing mentally ill offenders. The units themselves were oppressively loud and chaotic. They do not contribute to providing quality mental health care. The North House at Pontiac was especially anti-therapeutic and remains one of the worst correctional units the Monitor has toured in over 30 years of working within the correctional psychiatric field.
XV(a)(iii): Specific requirement: Mentally ill offenders in segregation shall continue to receive, at a minimum, the treatment specified in their Individual Treatment Plan (ITP). Treating MHPs and the Warden shall coordinate to ensure that mentally ill offenders receive the services required by their ITP.
Findings: Prior to addressing the specifics of this subsection, it is important to restate that the treatment planning in the Department as a whole is exceedingly poor. The plans are not the product of a multidisciplinary team, very non-specific, usually utilizing the same generic treatment approaches regardless of the offenders’ diagnoses. It is not uncommon to find two treatment plans in a given medical record, one created by the MHP and another created by the prescriber. These plans often contain incongruous diagnoses, which further deteriorate the quality of care provided.
This is the status of the treatment plans prior to a mentally ill offender being placed in segregation. The monitoring team found that even these plans are not continued in segregation. The one exception was at Menard where mentally ill offenders in segregation reported receiving weekly or semi-weekly counseling visits by the MHPs. Usually, the only treatment that is consistently continued in segregation is medications. Please see section XII above which describes the problems with medications in general and in segregated housing units in particular.
XV (a)(iv): Specific requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender no later than forty-eight (48) hours after initial placement in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation. Such review shall be documented.
Findings: This procedure is not, as a general matter, being implemented in the IDOC. The Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 is silent about IDOC’s meeting this requirement. In an analysis of 76 Segregation placements in 2017, the monitoring team determined that only 36% satisfied this requirement.
XV (a)(v): Specific requirement: As set forth in Section VII(c) above, an MHP shall review and update the treatment plans (form 284) of all offenders on segregation status within seven (7) days of placement on segregation status and thereafter monthly or more frequently if clinically indicated.
Findings: This requirement is not being accomplished in the majority of the monitored IDOC facilities. Compliance was poor in the five institutions where, Assistant Monitor Ginny Morrison completed a detailed analysis. She found for initial plans within one week of placement, only 22% met the requirement.29 In the majority, no plan was present. Where there was a plan, numbers were about equally divided between timely and late cases. In terms of monthly updates
29 This analysis is based on 81 Segregation placements in 2017 across five institutions.
- 62 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 63 of 115
thereafter, relevant records showed only 31% compliance:30 Among noncompliant cases, some had one or two updates, but not all that would have been required, but the majority had no updates at all.
The Quarterly report of 10/23/17 stated “The Department is working with haste to implement these provisions as its staffing increases.” Please note that this is not a budget contingent item.
XV(a)(vi): Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
A) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.
B) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) calendar days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
C) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). D) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP E) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. F) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. G) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. H) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings:
Continuation of ITP with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation: Please see subsection XV(a)(iii) for specifics regarding this requirement. Menard was the only facility that consistently continued the ITPs for those mentally ill offenders placed in segregation. Otherwise, the only treatment that is continued is medication. Also, the monitoring team did not find any evidence of the offenders being provided “with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation.”
Rounds: Staff has adopted rounds as a routine practice. For the most part, they were successful, with 81% of relevant charts showing documentation of weekly rounds for caseload patients. Staff consistently reports that they provide rounds for every Segregation resident; the monitoring team did not undertake a review of this point. Where practice was noncompliant, nearly
30 This analysis draws on 45 Segregation placements in 2017 at those same institutions where the terms were longer than 5 weeks.
- 63 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 64 of 115
universally there was rounds documentation but it contained occasional gaps.31However, in the prison where this mainly occurred, Segregation prisoners reported that rounds take place consistently, which suggests the gaps may have been a problem of charting and/or filing rather than practice. There is a problematic practice in place at Big Muddy River; the MHPs are accompanied throughout by a custody officer, and must speak to the inmates through the chuckholes.
At Dixon, BHTs have been trained to do segregation rounds in order to free up MHPs to do more individual and group therapy. Segregation rounds do occur weekly and are consistently documented in the medical charts. At Pontiac, the Monitor observed that weekly rounds were occurring on a regular basis.
Pharmacological treatment: All the problems noted with medications are present for those mentally ill offenders in segregated housing. These include but are not limited to lack of timely follow-up, poor medication compliance, mismanagement of medication-induced side effects, lack of timely laboratory/medical/neurological evaluations and improper supervision of medication distribution that allows for “cheeking.”
Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP: As noted in several previous sections of this report, the ITP was not consistently implemented for those mentally ill offenders in segregation with the exception being Menard. The lack of counselling by MHPs was frequently voiced by mentally ill offenders in segregation. This lack of counselling has contributed to the overuse and potential burnout of the Crisis Intervention Teams. Ultimately, this lack of counselling leads to mentally ill offenders acting out and being placed in Crisis.
Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established: The monitoring team is not aware of any institution operating a multidisciplinary team in the treatment of mentally ill offenders in segregation.
MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing: Please see (XIV)(b), above.
Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record: Please see (VII)(e), above.
Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time for mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or disciplinary segregation: All of the monitored facilities offered unstructured out-ofcell time for mentally ill offenders in segregation, for example:
• Dixon-12 hours per week • Menard-7 hours per week (5-hour and 2-hour sessions) • North House, Pontiac-2 hours/day X 3 days/week • Pinckneyville-10 hours/week • Stateville Proper-5 hours/day X 3 days/week
31 This analysis is based on a review of 68 Segregation placements of mentally ill inmates at five institutions. It took into account interruptions such as crisis watch admissions and offsite transfers. Segregation placements of less than one month, or where the length of placement could not be determined with confidence, were excluded.
- 64 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 65 of 115
• NRC-4 hours weekly (this information is included although NRC is not officially a segregation unit. In the opinion of the Monitor it is a de facto segregation unit.)
Significant problems with the yard schedule were noted at Stateville Proper and NRC. Offenders complained that once they went to yard, they were required to remain out for the entire 4 or 5 hours. This was especially problematic in that there are no toileting facilities on the yard. They also said that they would not be allowed back inside even if it began to rain. Additionally, there was no documentation regarding mentally ill offenders in segregation who refuse out-of-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
XV(a)(vi):32 Specific requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (a)(v), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-ofcell time in accordance with subsection (c) below.33
Findings: Significant discrepancies exist between what the Department is claiming to provide and what the monitoring team observed. In the Quarterly Report of 10/23/17 the Department is representing that all facilities are meeting the 2nd year requirement for structured out-of-cell time. It is the opinion of the Monitor that all of the facilities in the Department are not meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
Using Pontiac as an example, during a visit on 6/19/17, the staff informed the Monitor that they were only able to offer one or two hours of group per week per mentally ill offender. This was confirmed by multiple mentally ill offenders who consistently reported that they only attended two groups per week at most with some weeks only attending one group. It was due to this lack of groups that the Monitor first raised the issue of allowing BHTs to conduct weekly segregation rounds to free up MHPs to provide more groups. Dr. Hinton informed the Monitor that due to having to train and supervise the BHTs in their new duties, the increase in groups would not occur until mid-October. On a follow-up visit to Pontiac on 9/19/17, the Monitor was informed that since mid-August staff began offering weekly movie groups. So, for the majority of the current monitoring period, mentally ill offenders would only be able to attend at most four hours of structured out-of-cell time.
At Dixon, on the other hand, it was the monitoring team’s impression that out-of-cell time improved during the reporting period, with offenders being offered approximately 6 hours per week of structured time and 12 hours of unstructured time. It is noteworthy that staff has begun a Dialectical Behavioral Therapy group for offenders in the X House, which offenders reported to be helpful because it specifically addresses self-injury.
However, widespread treatment refusal continues to be a problem in the X House, including in segregation. Although groups and unstructured activities are offered to all SMI
32 This numbering from the Settlement Agreement is in error but this report will continue to use it to remain consistent with the numbering in the Settlement Agreement. 33 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on page 20 of the Settlement Agreement
- 65 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 66 of 115
offenders, only about 50% of eligible inmates take advantage of the opportunities. The team did not undertake a comparison between hours offered and received. IDOC leaders said that they hope the opening of the Joliet Treatment Center will allow transfer of some of these inmates to a more therapeutic setting for assessment and treatment.
Stateville leadership stated that all caseload offenders are offered group five days per week in segregation; the monitoring team did not seek to verify this. Groups reportedly are tailored to the inmate population and, as of the summer monitoring visit, staff were developing a group to prepare offenders to reenter general population after a segregation term.
It is noteworthy that leaders and MHPs at Stateville and Lawrence said they seek to include inmates in groups without waiting for the 60-day point, and some examples were evident in chart reviews. Big Muddy River, Robinson, and Hill are among those institutions where nearly all segregation terms are 30 days or less, so the Agreement’s out-of-cell time requirements very rarely apply at these sites. This was borne out in caseload lists provided before and during the visits, and in chart reviews.
This specific requirement states that mentally ill offenders “will receive” out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c) below. The hours of structured out-of-cell time provided in the Quarterly Report are listed as “offered” and not actually received. As of this report, the Department does not have a comprehensive reporting system of how many hours of structured out-of-cell time each mentally ill offenders are actually receiving. The exception to this was noted at Pinckneyville. The staff provided the Monitor a hand-made spread sheet listing the groups attended by each offender who had spent greater than 55 days in segregation. Until the Department can document the actual amount of structured out-of-cell time that each mentally ill offender is receiving, it will remain the opinion of the Monitor that some mentally ill offenders in segregation are receiving some amount of structured out-of-cell time.
XV(a)(vii): Specific requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendations shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the mentally ill offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP34 unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: In the facilities monitored, MHPs have the authority to move a mentally ill offender to crisis. They also have the authority to refer a mentally ill offender to an RTU but this seldom happens given the lack of adequate number of RTU beds. The problem is that there is no formal procedure for mental health staff to identify offenders for removal from segregation other than weekly segregation rounds and/or contact with the Crisis Intervention Team. This is especially problematic given the difficulty noted in continuing the ITP when an offender goes to
34 IDOC’s compliance with the portion of this provision regarding MHP recommendations for placement into crisis care is discussed elsewhere this report.
- 66 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 67 of 115
segregation. Unfortunately, a very common method for mentally ill offenders to be moved to crisis is by acting out, usually by performing some self-injurious act.
XV(b) As to SMI offenders in Disciplinary Segregation:
XV(b)(i): Specific requirements: IDOC will organize Review Committees (‘Committees’) to review the segregation terms of all SMI offenders in segregation with at least 60 days of remaining segregation time as of the approval date of this Settlement Agreement. These Committees will be comprised of attorneys, security professionals, and MHPs.
Findings: The Quarterly report of 10/23/17 states “Notably, those reviews have occurred for SMI offenders and are complete at all facilities.” The monitoring team will closely follow this issue moving forward.
An important, complementary structure exists at four of the institutions monitored, and its activities support reducing segregation terms and tickets, and increasing safety while enhancing the mental health services provided. As such, it supports compliance with XV(b)(i) and many of the requirements that follow in this section. That structure is a custody-mental health interdisciplinary workgroup that takes different forms at different institutions.
At Hill, the Wardens must approve the proposed segregation placement of any mentally ill offender. A workgroup drawn from the administration, mental health, and many other departments meets routinely to discuss each of these offenders individually, spotting behavioral issues and designing incentives, tailored groups, and other mechanisms to prevent and solve those behavioral management problems. Similarly, at Lawrence, the Segregation Lieutenant and Counselor, MHPs, an Assistant Warden, and a member of the Adjustment Committee meet to monitor, share information, and address issues concerning every mentally ill offender in segregation. Stateville has a similar workgroup that meets monthly to address problem cases. Pontiac meets biweekly for general population offenders on the caseload, and in the PMH unit, they attempt to involve the offenders. These systems are very beneficial for day to day management of the population and can be very effective in moving IDOC toward substantial compliance with this Settlement.
XV(b)(ii): Specific requirements: The Committees shall eliminate any and all 300 and 400 level tickets and the accompanying segregation time from each SMI offender’s disciplinary record.
Findings: IDOC purports to have met this requirement. The monitoring team will evaluate this issue going forward.
XV(b)(iii): Specific requirements: With regard to all remaining tickets, the Committees shall examine: (1) the seriousness of the offenses; (2) the safety and security of the facility or any person (including the offender at issue); (3) the offender’s behavioral, medical, mental health and disciplinary history; (4) reports and recommendations concerning the offender; (5) the offender’s current mental health; and (6) other legitimate penological interests.
Findings: IDOC purports to have met this requirement. The monitoring team will evaluate this issue going forward.
- 67 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 68 of 115
XV(b)(iv): Specific requirements: The committees shall have the authority to recommend to the Chief Administrative Officer that an SMI offender’s remaining segregation time be reduced or eliminated altogether based on the factors outlined in XV(b)(iii).
Findings: Similar to the other subsections regarding the reduction/elimination of segregation time, the monitoring team will evaluate this issue going forward.
XV(b)(v): Specific requirements: The decision for reduction or elimination of an SMI offender’s segregation term (excluding the elimination and reductions relative to 300 and 400 level tickets) ultimately rests with the CAO who, absent overriding concerns documented in writing, shall adopt the Committees’ recommendations to reduce or eliminate an SMI offender’s segregation term.
Findings: This requirement was being met at all the facilities monitored.
XV(b)(vi): Specific requirements: These reviews shall be completed within nine (9) months after approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Findings: This requirement was met at all the facilities monitored. In addition, IDOC reports that this requirement was accomplished in a timely manner throughout the system
XV(c) Mentally ill offenders in Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement:
XV(c)(i): Specific requirements: With regard to offenders in Investigatory Status/ Temporary Confinement, IDOC shall comply with the procedures outlined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504 and Administrative Directive 05.12.103.
20 Illinois Administrative Code Section 504 Subpart D: Segregation, Investigative Confinement and Administrative Detention—Adult provides:
Applicability, definitions, and responsibilities for IDOC staff regarding placement of offenders in segregation status; segregation standards for offenders placed into segregation, investigative confinement, administrative detention; and standards for recreation for offenders in segregation status.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
II (G): Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
II (H): Disciplinary Process
- 68 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 69 of 115
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
- 69 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 70 of 115
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: The details of the disciplinary process for SMI offenders are discussed in Section XXV, below.
II (I): Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
- 70 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 71 of 115
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: As reported in subsection XV(a)(vii), above, there is currently not a reliable system to identify mentally ill offenders who are deteriorating due to continued placement in segregation.
XV(c)(ii): Specific Requirement: An MHP shall review any mentally ill offender being placed into Investigative Status/Temporary Confinement within forty-eight (48) hours of such placement. Such review shall be documented. This obligation will begin twelve (12) months after the budget contingent approval date.
Findings: These reviews are not occurring anywhere in IDOC. The Budget Contingent Approval date has not yet occurred.
XV(c)(iii): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement for periods of sixteen (16) days or more receive care that includes, at a minimum:
1) Continuation of their ITP, with enhanced therapy as necessary to protect from decompensation that may be associated with segregation. Therapy shall be at least one (1) hour or more of treatment per week, as determined by the offender’s individual level of care and ITP.
2) Rounds in every section of each segregated housing unit, at least once every seven (7) days, by an MHP, documented on IDOC Form 0380.
3) Pharmacological treatment (if applicable). 4) Supportive counseling by an MHP as indicated in the ITP. 5) Participation in multidisciplinary team meetings once teams have been established. 6) MHP or mental health treatment team recommendation for post-segregation housing. 7) Documentation of clinical contacts in the medical record. 8) Weekly unstructured out-of-cell time, which may include time for showers or yard
time, of an amount equivalent to the out-of-cell time afforded to all segregation offenders at the relevant facility, unless more unstructured out-of-cell time is indicated by the offender’s ITP. Instances where mentally ill offenders in segregation refuse outof-cell unstructured time shall be appropriately documented and made available to the offender’s mental health treatment team.
Findings: Please refer to the findings under section XV(a)(vi), above.
XV(c)(iv): Specific Requirement: IDOC will ensure that, in addition to the care provided for in subsection (b)(iii), above, mentally ill offenders who are in Investigatory Status/Temporary
- 71 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 72 of 115
Confinement for periods longer than sixty (60) days will receive out-of-cell time in accordance with subsection (c), below.35
Findings: Please refer to section XV(a)(vi), above.
XV(c)(v): Specific Requirement: If, at any time, it is determined by an MHP that a mentally ill offender in Investigatory Status/Temporary Confinement requires relocation to either a crisis cell or higher level of care, the MHP’s recommendation shall be immediately transmitted to the CAO or, in his or her absence, a facility Assistant CAO, and the SMI offender shall be placed in an appropriate mental health setting (i.e., Crisis Bed or elevated level of care) as recommended by the MHP unless the CAO or Assistant CAO specifies in writing why security concerns are of sufficient magnitude to overrule the MHP’s professional judgment. In such cases, the offender will remain in segregation status regardless of his or her physical location.
Findings: Please refer to the findings under section XV (a)(vii), above.
XV(c)36: Specific Requirement: Mentally ill offenders in a Control Unit setting for longer than sixty (60) days shall be afforded out-of-cell time (both structured and unstructured) in accordance with the following schedule:
i. For the first year of the Settlement Agreement, four (4) hours out-of-cell structured and four (4) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of eight (8) hours out-ofcell time per week.
ii. For the second year of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) hours out-of-cell structured and six (6) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twelve (12) hours out-ofcell time per week.
iii. For the third year of the Settlement Agreement, eight (8) hours out-of-cell structured and eight (8) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of sixteen (16) hours outof-cell time per week.
iv. For the fourth year of the Settlement Agreement, ten (10) hours out-of-cell structured and ten (10) hours out-of-cell unstructured time per week for a total of twenty (20) hours outof-cell time per week.
Findings:
Structured out-of-cell time: Please refer to section XV(a)(vi), above.
Unstructured out-of-cell time: Please refer to the findings under section XV(a)(vi)(H), above.
The 60-day requirement: As was reported in the first annual report, it remains a serious concern that this particular requirement of the Settlement only calls for increased out-of-cell time
35 Note: this refers to the second occurrence of a subsection (c), on pages 19 and 20 of the Settlement. 36 As above, this appears mislabeled in the Settlement but is carried forward here.
- 72 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 73 of 115
for offenders in segregation for more than 60 days. Any amount of segregation causes its own unique set of mental health issues. It can exacerbate preexisting mental health issues as well as causing new mental illness to occur.
During the current reporting period, the monitoring team noted that Stateville Proper is offering all mentally ill offenders in segregation structured out-of-cell time. Pinckneyville is offering structured out-of-cell time to mentally ill offenders in segregation after 55 days. The staff told me that they will attempt to offer structured out-of-cell time after 45 days in the future.
Segregation-like settings: The team has a similar concern regarding out-of-cell time for those inmates who, while not in formal segregation, are in segregation-like confinement for a prolonged period of time. Mentally ill offenders often stay in R&C units for longer than 60 days. This is a particular problem at the Stateville and Menard R&Cs. Efforts should be made to provide mentally ill offenders in R&C units the same amount of structured and unstructured out-of-cell time that is provided to offenders housed in control units.
XV(d): Specific Requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than four (4) years after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is struggling to meet the overall requirements of this section of the Settlement. The deadline for most of these provisions is 2.5 years in the future. The monitoring team will continue to closely review these issues moving forward.
XVI: SUICIDE PREVENTION
Summary: Crisis Intervention Teams had been established and trained at all facilities. There was no evidence that all crisis intervention team members participate in quarterly quality assurance meetings.
The expected policies have been demonstrated in nearly every facility and training requirements have been met.
Significant improvement was observed in the functioning of Crisis Intervention Teams and admission to crisis watch. Gatekeeping remains a concern. Psychiatric treatment is rare on crisis watch, and some crisis cells are still located in segregated housing units.
There were two completed suicides during the monitoring period. Although both will be the subject of psychological autopsies, there is no indication that the findings of the first one were disseminated throughout the system and used to inform practice changes, a critical function of such a review process.
(XVI)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures for identifying and responding to suicidal offenders as set out in Administrative Directive 04.04.102
- 73 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 74 of 115
and the section titled “Identification, Treatment, and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)). IDOC shall also ensure that Forms 0379 (“Evaluation of Suicide Potential”); 0377 (“Crisis Watch Record”); and 0378 (“Crisis Watch Observation Log”) are used in conjunction with these policies and procedures.
The section titled “Identification, Treatment and Supervision of Suicidal Offenders” from the IDOC Mental Health SOP Manual37 provides general guidelines for the handling of suicidal offenders. AD 04.04.102, however, provides a number of specific requirements:
II (F) Requirements: The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility shall: 1)Establish a Crisis Intervention Team. a. The Crisis Intervention Team shall consist of: (1) A Crisis Intervention Team Leader who shall be an MHP; (2) All facility MHPs and nursing staff; and (3) At least one member of the facility’s security staff of the rank of Lieutenant or above. NOTE: Other Crisis Intervention Team members may be chosen from facility staff upon the recommendation of the Team Leader to ensure at least one member is on site at all times. b. Prior to serving, all members of the Crisis Intervention Team shall receive training in accordance with Paragraph II.g.1. Crisis Intervention Team Members on leave of absence shall be required to make up missed training upon return and prior to resuming service on the Crisis Intervention Team. c. All Crisis Intervention Team Members shall participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.
(1) Meetings shall be held to: (a) Review all events involving offender suicide during the previous quarter; (b) Review the Facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan in accordance with Paragraph II.G; and (c) Assess the adequacy of the facility’s training program in relation to the facility’s needs
(2) Meetings shall be documented in writing and shall: (a) Include the date and minutes of the meeting, a list of all persons in attendance and any recommendations or issues noted; (b) Be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer, the respective Regional Psychological Administrator and the Chief of Mental Health
Findings: Crisis Intervention Teams had been established and trained at all facilities. There was no evidence, however, that “all crisis intervention team members shall participate in quality assurance meetings no less than once per quarter.”
2) Designate a Crisis Care Area. a. Crisis care areas shall be used to house offenders determined by an MHP to require removal from his or her current housing assignment for the purpose of mental health
37 The Settlement references “Mental Health Protocol Manual.” IDOC has changed the name of this manual to “Mental Health SOP Manual.”
- 74 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 75 of 115
treatment or observation. b. Excluding exigent circumstances as determined by the Director or a Deputy director, segregation units shall only be utilized for crisis care areas if no other crisis care areas are available, and only until alternative crisis care areas are available. c. Cells designated as crisis care areas shall: Allow for visual and auditory observation of the entire cell; Allow for prompt staff access; Control outside stimuli; Contain beds that are suicide resistant and constructed of a metal base, cinder block, concrete slab or herculite material; Contain a pass through or chuck holes that open out of the cell; Contain mesh coverings over all vents; Contain laminated glass over all windows or be safely and security glazed windows; and Be made appropriately suicide resistant and provide adequate lighting and temperature.
Findings: As reported in Section X(f) above, some crisis cells are still located in segregated housing units. These include North House at Pontiac, and Lawrence. There appears to be significant use of these units as overflow at Pontiac, and to a smaller extent at Stateville, Big Muddy River, Robinson, and Western Illinois.
II (G): Prevention and Intervention Plan
The Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the facility’s mental health authority, shall establish a written procedure for responding to, and providing emergency mental health services, including prevention and intervention of emergency mental health situations. The procedure shall be reviewed annually and shall be approved by the Chief of Mental Health and shall include, at a minimum, provisions for the following: training, referrals for emergency mental health situations, crisis intervention team response, crisis watch, response to self-inflicted injuries and suicide, and quality improvement reviews.
Findings: IDOC continues to meet this requirement at the majority of its facilities. The Monitor had previously received the Institutional Directive called for in this subsection of the Settlement from 22 of the IDOC facilities. IDOC had one year from the approval of the Settlement to address the requirements of this very important requirement.
1) Training The Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training shall establish standardized training programs that provide information on emergency mental health services. All training shall be provided by an MHP, or in the absence of the MHP, a current crisis team member and, where appropriate, shall include enhanced content specific to the facility. a. Level I Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all staff that have regular interaction with offenders, and shall include a minimum of one hour of the following: (1) Elements of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan; (2) Demographic and cultural parameters of suicidal behavior in a correctional setting, including incidence and variations in precipitating factors; (3) Risk factors and behavioral indicators of suicidal behavior; (4) Understanding, identifying, managing and referring suicidal offenders, including the importance of communication between staff; (5) Procedural response and follow-up procedures
- 75 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 76 of 115
including crisis treatment supervision levels and housing observation; and (6) Documentation requirements. b. Level II Training shall be required as part of annual cycle training for all personnel identified in the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan as having the authority to initiate a crisis watch. Level II training shall consist of a minimum of four hours of in-depth didactic and experiential training in assessing suicide risk and procedures for initiating a crisis watch. c. Level III Training shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members, excluding MHPs, and shall consist of 24 hours of advanced training in the philosophy of suicide prevention and continuous quality improvement of the facility’s Prevention and Intervention Plan.
(1) Crisis Intervention Team members shall also be trained by an MHP, designated by the Chief of Mental Health, in consultation with the Office of Staff Development and Training. This training will give the Crisis Intervention Team member the ability to instruct on the standardized training curriculum that provides information on emergency mental health services during cycle training, in the absence of the MHP. (2) Training shall be completed prior to active service with the Crisis Intervention Team. d. Clinical Continuing Education shall be required for all Crisis Intervention Team members and shall consist of a minimum of one hour per quarter of training to assist Crisis Intervention Team members in monitoring facility policy and procedure and in reviewing suicide attempts or completions. Clinical Continuing Education Training may be obtained through participation in the quarterly Crisis Intervention Team quality assurance meeting.
Findings: The training requirements specified in this subsection of the Settlement Agreement continue to be met.
2) Referrals for Emergency Mental Health Situations Staff shall immediately notify the Crisis Intervention Team, through his or her chain of command, of any situation whereby an offender exhibits behavior indicative of mental or emotional distress, imminent risk for harm to self or an attempted suicide.
Findings: Please refer to the findings under Section V(g), above.
3) Crisis Intervention Team Response a. At least one Crisis Team member shall be on site at all times. The designated Crisis Intervention Team Leader shall be available by phone when not on site. b. The Chief of Mental Health and the respective Regional Psychological Administrator shall be notified within 24 hours of the suicide of an offender, and within 72 hours of any attempted suicide. c. Upon notice of a potential crisis situation, a Crisis Intervention Team member shall: (1) Implement necessary means to prevent escalation and to stabilize the situation. (2) Ensure that the offender is properly monitored for safety. (3) Review the situation with the Crisis Team Leader or and MHP to determine what services
- 76 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 77 of 115
or referrals shall be provided. If the Crisis Intervention Team Leader is not on grounds and cannot be reached by telephone, and there are no MHPs on grounds, the Crisis Team member shall contact an alternative MHP and the review may be completed via telephone. (4) Initiate a crisis care treatment plan to monitor and facilitate the delivery of services, including referrals for mental or medical examination, and any additional recommendations of the MHP. The crisis care treatment plan shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Log, DOC 0377. Referrals for additional examination or services following the offender’s release from a crisis care treatment level of care shall be documented on a DOC 0377. (5) If determined that the offender does not need to be placed in the crisis care area, notify the Shift Commander of any additional care requirements for security staff.
Findings: IDOC is generally meeting the requirements of this section of the Settlement. In the overwhelming number of crisis cases reviewed, psychiatrists were not called in to evaluate the mentally ill offenders’ need for a medication adjustment. The only exception to this was at Sheridan where Dr. Yuan, the facility’s psychiatrist, sees everyone in crisis on Thursdays. If the offenders in crisis are discharged prior to his Thursday rounds, then Dr. Yuan attempts to see them at his next possible visit.
4) Crisis Watch a. A crisis watch shall be initiated when: (1) An offender exhibits behavior that is likely to cause harm to him or herself. (2) Mental health issues render an offender unable to care for him or herself. (3) Gestures, threats or attempts of suicide are made. (4) The Evaluation for Suicide Potential, DOC 0379, if administered, indicates need. (5) Less restrictive measures have failed or are determined to be clinically ineffective.
Findings: The department has significantly improved in meeting this requirement during the monitoring period. Please see Section V(g), above, for details. The monitoring team will continue to closely monitor this requirement as we keep on receiving multiple credible complaints of “gatekeeping” on the part of staff.
b. Determination to initiate a crisis watch shall be made by an MHP. If an MHP is not available, the following individuals, in order of priority, may initiate a crisis watch: (1) Respective Regional Psychologist Administrator, (2) Any Regional Psychologist Administrator, (3) Chief of Psychiatry, (4) Chief of Mental Health Services, (5) Chief Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Leader, (6) Back-up Duty Administrative Officer in consultation with a Crisis Intervention Team Member c. Offenders in crisis watch shall not be transferred to another facility unless clinically indicated and approved by the Chief of Mental Health or in the absence of the Chief of Mental Health, the Chief of Psychiatry. d. Upon initiation of a crisis watch, an MHP shall determine: (1) The appropriate level of supervision necessary in accordance with Paragraph II.E.; and (2) Allowable property, including the type and amount of clothing.
- 77 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 78 of 115
e. Unless medically contraindicated: (1) Water shall be available in the cell or offered at regular intervals. When water is not available in the cell, the offers shall be documented on the DOC 0377. (2) Meals not requiring utensils shall be provided in the cell or crisis care area. If contraindicated, alternative nutrition sources shall be provided. f. The offender’s vital signs shall be taken by health care staff within 24 hours of placement on crisis watch, or sooner if the offender has been placed in restraints for mental health purposes. g. Prior to placement in a designated crisis care area, the offender shall be stripsearched and the cell inspected for safety. h. Offenders shall be monitored at appropriate intervals, dependent upon level of supervision. All observations shall be documented within the appropriate staggered intervals, on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378, and shall include staff’s observation of the offender’s behavior and speech, as appropriate. i. The offender shall be evaluated by an MHP, or in his or her absence, a Crisis Intervention Team member, in consultation with the Crisis Team Leader, at least once every 24 hours. The evaluation shall assess the offender’s current mental health status and response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented on the DOC 0377. j. An offender’s crisis watch shall only be terminated by an MHP following the completion of an evaluation assessing the offender’s current mental health status and the offender’s response to treatment efforts. The evaluation shall be documented in the offender’s medical record and the termination of the crisis watch shall be documented on the DOC 0377.
Findings: The Department has improved in its response to this requirement during the monitoring period.
5) Response to Self-Inflicted Injury and Suicides a. Responses to medical emergencies shall be in accordance with AD 04.03.108, and shall include immediate notification of an MHP. b. In the event of attempted suicide, the preservation of the offender’s life shall take precedence over preservation of the crime scene; however, any delay in response due to security factors shall be noted in the Incident Report, DOC 0434.
Findings: The Monitor’s concerns, as reported in this subsection of the first annual report, persist during this monitoring period. That is, the Department continues to operate under this unofficial38 “10.0 hemoglobin rule.” This means that before an offender can be taken off crisis watch their hemoglobin level must at least be 10. This is dangerous medical practice that places mentally ill offenders with a history of self-injurious behavior at risk of death. Of note, the Department has yet to address these concerns.
6) Quality Improvement Reviews
38 The monitor was unable to locate any departmental policies regarding this issue.
- 78 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 79 of 115
a. Mortality Review: In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief of Mental Health shall designate an MHP to complete a psychological autopsy. The psychological autopsy shall be documented on the Psychological Autopsy, DOC 0375, and shall be submitted to the Chief of mental Health within seven working days of assignment. b. Administrative Review
(1) In the event of an offender’s suicide, the Chief Administrative Officer shall: (a) Establish a clinical review team who shall systemically analyze the event. The Review Team shall consist of: i. Mental health and medical staff, including an MHP, a psychiatrist and a registered or licensed practical nurse. Medical staff chosen for the clinical review team shall have no direct involvement in the treatment of the offender for a minimum of 12 months prior to the event. ii. A security staff supervisor. NOTE: Facility administrators or staff, whose performance or responsibilities maybe directly involved in the circumstances of the suicide, shall not be chosen for the review team. (b) Designate a clinical review team Chairman who shall ensure all relevant documentation pertaining to the offender and his or her treatment including, but not limited to, the master file, medical record, Medical Director’s death summary and the DOC 0375, if applicable, is available to the clinical review team. (2) Within ten working days following the suicide, the clinical review team shall complete a review to: (a) Ensure appropriate precautions were implemented and Department and local procedures were followed; and (b) Determine if there were any personal, social or medical circumstances that may have contributed to the event, or if there were unrealized patterns of behavior or systems that may have indicated earlier risk. (3) Upon completion of the review, the Chairperson shall submit a written report to the Chief Administrative Officer, the facility’s Training Coordinator, the Chief of Mental Health and the respective Deputy Director summarizing the review team’s findings and providing any recommended changes or improvements.
Findings: Sadly, two mentally ill offenders committed suicide during the monitoring period. The Administrative Review and Psychological Autopsy were only completed on one of the suicides prior to the submission of this midyear report. Therefore, this review is limited to one suicide.
As reported in the first annual report, the Administrative Review in this case makes recommendations, but they contain no clear corrective action plan that delineates who is responsible for following up on each recommendation, the time frame in which changes should be made, or the plan to reassess problem areas. IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.102 (Suicide Prevention and Intervention and Emergency Services) is also vague in this area, specifying no action beyond simply reporting the Administrative Review team’s findings to the Chief
- 79 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 80 of 115
Administrative Officer, Training Coordinator, and Chief of Mental Health. This is a critical flaw in IDOC’s suicide prevention strategy, rendering the mortality reviews essentially meaningless for affecting systemic change. Also, the psychological autopsy refers to the corrective actions in the administrative review. The net result is the lack of a systematic, departmental corrective action plan. This means that the lessons learned from this suicide remain at the particular institution.
These concerns were clearly stated in the first annual report with no real improvement noted during the monitoring period. This lack of improvement belies a serious problem within the Department. There appears to be a misunderstanding of what “corrective action” means. The issues gleaned from this tragedy should have been disseminated system wide, incorporated into the training curriculum, measured for effectiveness and then fed back to all of the facilities in the Department and then measured again for effectiveness. The results of this process could then result in modifications of existing Administrative Directives and SOPs. None of this occurred. Of note, these issues were presented to the Chiefs of Mental Health and Legal on August, 26, 2016. At that time, the Monitor directed IDOC leadership to reevaluate their suicide review process. Also, the absence of a functioning system-wide quality improvement program is partly responsible for these problems.
The problems with the suicide review process have been well known to the defendants since at least August 26, 2016. That being said, the real tragedy of this suicide is that it was a result of inadequate psychiatric care and medication management. The mentally ill offender in this case, although he was being prescribed medication, was not seen by a psychiatrist from 11/7/16 through 5/7/17. During this six-month period, he displayed poor medication compliance that was not reported to the prescribing physician. He was then seen on 5/7/17 by a psychiatrist. “The psychiatrist requested a one month follow-up appointment. This one month follow-up appointment should have been on 6/7/17, but was not scheduled on that date due to a significant backlog of psychiatric patients.”39(emphasis added.) The mentally ill offender, who was designated SMI, was scheduled on the 7/15/17 psychiatric clinic. He committed suicide on 6/14/17. Although I am unable to state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that this lack of timely follow up was the cause of his committing suicide, I absolutely can state that it was a significant contributing factor.
(XVI)(b): Specific requirements: IDOC shall ensure that the policies, procedures, and record-keeping requirements identified in (a), above, are implemented and followed in each adult correctional facility no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: IDOC has shown improvement in its ability to meet the requirements of this section of the Settlement during the monitoring period. Overall, however, IDOC falls short of being in substantial compliance. All the items in this section are of critical importance. Ongoing concerns about the responsiveness of the Crisis Intervention Teams requires constant supervision and training of all staff involved. The poor quality of psychiatric and medical services leaves mentally ill offenders at increased risk for suicide and contributes to their spending excessive periods of time in crisis. The administrative review process of offender suicides needs to be rethought. The current process does not allow for corrective action to be implemented throughout IDOC to prevent future suicides.
39 Administrative Review of offender suicide, June 21, 2017, page 4.
- 80 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 81 of 115
XVII: PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES
Summary: IDOC is generally meeting this requirement. Appropriate policies have been demonstrated at most facilities. Fewer than half of the institutions employed restraints, and the use was concentrated in three institutions.
All of the charts reviewed by the psychiatric members of the monitoring team indicated that the restraints were used in accordance with IDOC’s policies and for clinically appropriate reasons. The monitoring team did not find any evidence that physical restraints are being used to punish offenders.
Many of the lengths of orders were for short periods. Troublingly, two institutions applied restraints to some patients for lengthy periods and/or a great number of times. These suggest the need for a higher level of care than is being provided in those institutions.
(XVII)(a): Specific requirements: IDOC shall comply with its policies and procedures on the use of restraints, as documented in IDOC AD 04.04.103. These policies and procedures require documentation using IDOC Form 0376 (“Order for the Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes”). Records of restraint used on SMI offenders shall be maintained in log form at each facility and entries shall be made contemporaneously with the use of restraints.
IDOC AD 04.04.103 provides for:
II (G): Requirements
1. Restraints for mental health purposes shall be applied under medical supervision and shall only be used when other less restrictive measures have been found to be ineffective.
a. Under no circumstances shall restraints be used as a disciplinary measure.
b. Restraint implementation shall be applied by order of a psychiatrist, or if a psychiatrist is not available, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist. (1) If a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, a Registered Nurse (RN) may initiate implementation of restraints for mental health purposes. (2) The nurse shall then immediately make contact with the psychiatrist within one hour of the offender being placed into restraints, and obtain an order for the implementation. If the psychiatrist is not available, the nurse shall make contact with the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist.
2. Crisis treatment shall be initiated in accordance with AD 04.04.102.
a. The initial order for the use of restraints shall not exceed four hours.
- 81 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 82 of 115
b. Should subsequent orders become necessary, the time limit may be extended, but no subsequent order for restraint extension shall be valid for more than 16 hours beyond initial order. Documentation of the justification for extension of the restraint order shall be recorded in the offender’s medical chart.
c. If further restraint is required beyond the initial order and one extension, a new order must be issued pursuant to the requirements provide herein.
II (H): Orders for Restraints
1. Only a psychiatrist who has conducted a face to face assessment, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, who has conducted a face to face assessment, may order the use of restraints for offenders in a crisis treatment supervision level of continuous watch or suicide watch when the current crisis level does not provide adequate safeguards.
2. If a psychiatrist, physician or licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site, and the Crisis Team Member, after consultation with the on-call Crisis Team Leader or Mental Health Professional, in accordance with AD 04.04.102, has recommended the use of restraints, a RN may obtain an order from a psychiatrist or a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist via telephone.
3. The offender must be assessed, face to face by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist within one hour of being placed in restraints. If a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist is not physically on site within the hour time limit, a RN shall conduct a face to face assessment, and present that assessment to the psychiatrist, the physician or the licensed clinical psychologist via a telephone consultation, and document accordingly in the medical chart. Verbal orders shall be confirmed, in writing, by the ordering individual within 72 hours.
4. Orders for restraints shall be documented on the Order for Use of Restraints for Mental Health Purposes, DOC 0376, and shall include: a. The events leading up to the need for restraints, including efforts or less intrusive intervention; b. The type of restraints to be utilized; c. The length of time the restraints shall be applied; d. The criteria required for the offender to be taken out of restraints (e.g. the offender is no longer agitated or combative for a minimum of one hour, etc.; and e. The offender’s vital signs, checked by medical staff, at a minimum of every four hours. The frequency of vital signs checks for offenders with serious chronic health conditions may be required more frequently during the restraint period.
II (I) Implementation and Monitoring 1. Restraints shall be applied in a bed located in a crisis care area, or similar setting that
is in view of staff. Immediately following the placement of an offender in restraints for mental health purposes, medical staff shall conduct an examination of the offender to ensure that: a. No injuries exist; b. Restraint equipment is not applied in a manner likely to result in injury; and c. There is no medical contraindication to maintain the
- 82 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 83 of 115
offender in restraints. 2. Monitoring and documentation of visual and verbal checks of offenders in restraints
for mental health purposes shall be performed as a continuous watch status or a suicide watch status in accordance with AD 04.04.102. All checks shall be documented on the Crisis Watch Observation Log, DOC 0378. 3. Two hours after application of restraints, and every two hours thereafter, an offender may be allowed to have movement of his or her limbs. Movement shall be accomplished by freeing one limb at a time from restraints and for a period of time of approximately two minutes. Movement shall only be allowed if the freeing of the limb will not pose a threat of harm to the offender being restrained, or others. Limb movement shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart and by the watch officer on the DOC 0378. Denial of free movement and explanation for the denial shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart by medical staff. 4. Release from restraints for short periods of time shall be permitted as soon as practical, as determined by a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or clinical psychiatrist. 5. The amount of restraint used shall be reduced as soon as possible to the level of least restriction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the offender and staff. 6. Clothing shall be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with the application and monitoring of restraints. The genital area of both male and females, and the breast area of females shall be covered to the extent possible while still allowing for visual observation of the restraints. Females shall not be restrained in a position where the legs are separated. 7. Restraints shall be removed upon the expiration of the order, or upon the order of a psychiatrist, or in the absence of a psychiatrist, a physician or licensed clinical psychologist, or in the absence of one of the approved aforementioned professionals being physically on site, an RN who, based upon observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition, determines that there is no longer cause to utilize restraints. Observation of the offender’s behavior and clinical condition shall be documented in the medical chart. 8. Offenders shall remain in, at minimum, close supervision status for a minimum of 24 hours after removal of restraints. Should any other crisis level or care status be utilized, justification of the care shall be documented in the offender’s medical chart. 9. Documentation of the use of restraints for mental health purposes shall be submitted to the Agency Medical Director and shall include the DOC 0376 and subsequent nursing and mental health notes. 10. All events whereby the use of restraints has been issued shall be reviewed during quality improvement meetings in accordance with AD 04.03.125.
Findings: IDOC is generally meeting this requirement. All of the charts reviewed by the psychiatric members of the monitoring team indicated that the restraints were used in accordance with IDOC’s policies and for clinically appropriate reasons.
A detailed review demonstrated that institutions reported 236 applications of restraints for mental health purposes to date in 2017. More than half of the institutions did not make use of this method. Use was by far the heaviest at Pontiac, Logan, and Dixon. The distribution was:
- 83 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 84 of 115
§ Pontiac (108), Logan (58), Dixon (45) § Danville, Graham, Hill, Illinois River, Lawrence, Menard, Pinckneyville, Stateville,
Western: 1 to 6 each § 14 institutions did not use restraints
At Pontiac and Logan, many of the restraints uses were concentrated in a small number of inmates—some were subject to restraints 9, 11, or 19 times.
It was not possible to determine with precision the length of restraint application for all cases.40 Logs for the first half of the year showed more than 1/3 were limited to four hours, and the vast majority lasted 24 hours or less. The exception was Pontiac, which had a disturbingly high rate of lengthy restraints use--14 lasted two to four days; Dixon also had one man in restraints for a full week during this period; another man was in restraints in excess of 2,000 continuous hours in 2016.
The frequent and lengthy use of restraints at Pontiac, Logan and Dixon is a reflection of the severity of the mental illness suffered by these offenders as well as the insufficient nature of the mental health care delivery system to adequately address their needs. This problem has many causes. Although the Department represents that it is meeting the requirement for out-of-cell time, “offered” out-of-cell time does not equate to mentally ill offenders actually participating in these activities. The monitoring team observed that the most severely impaired individuals are often unable to participate in these activities due to the severity of their mental illness. This lack of participation then contributes to their further decompensation and acting out, often in a selfinjurious manner. This coupled with the lack of “aggressive mental health intervention” received by mentally ill offenders in crisis then results in their being placed in restraints. The absence of a RTU at Pontiac, the unhurried opening of the Joliet RTU, and the current lack of an inpatient facility all contribute to mentally ill offenders needlessly suffering due to being kept in restraints. These problems are only exacerbated by the inadequate number of staff, both clinical and custody.
(XVII)(b): Specific requirement: IDOC will continue to comply with 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 501.30, 501.40 and 501.60, and Administrative Directive 05.01.126. The Administrative Code sections are titled Section 501.30: Resort to Force; Section 501.40: Justifiable Use of Force; and Section 501.60: General Use of Chemical Agents.
IDOC AD 05.01.126 provides for:
II (F): The Chief Administrative Officer shall ensure a written procedure for the use and control of security restraints is established. The written procedure shall provide for the following:
Use of Security Restraints
(1) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints shall be used: (a) To prevent an offender from escaping. (b) To retake an offender who has escaped. (c) To prevent or suppress violence by an offender against another
40 Some institutions recorded the times while others only recorded dates.
- 84 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 85 of 115
person or property. (d) When transporting an offender outside the facility for the purposes of transfers, writs, etc., except when transporting offenders to assigned work details outside the facility, pregnant offenders for the purposes of delivery, or offenders assigned to the Moms and Babies Program on approved day release while transporting a minor child. (e) When transporting a transitional security offender for other than job related or programmatic activities directly related to successful completion of the transition center program. (2) Except as otherwise provided in AD 05.03.130 regarding pregnant offenders, security restraints may be used: (a) When moving an offender who is in disciplinary segregation or who is in segregation pending investigation within the facility; or (b) Whenever the Chief Administrative Officer deems it is necessary in order to ensure security within the facility or within the community. (3) Offenders on funeral or critical illness furlough shall be restrained in accordance with AD 05.03.127.
Inventory and Control
(a) A written master inventory of all security restraints, dated and signed by the Chief Administrative Officer, shall be maintained.
(b) All security restraints that have not been issued to staff shall be stored and maintained in a secure area or areas that are not accessible to offenders.
(c) A log documenting issuance and return of security restraints shall be maintained in a secure area or areas. The log shall include: (1) Date and time issued; (2) Receiving employees name; (3) Issuing employees name; (4) Date and time returned; and (5) Name of employee receiving the returned restraints.
(d) A written report shall be filed on lost, broken, or malfunctioning security restraints. The report shall be reviewed by the Chief of Security and maintained on file with the security restraints inventory records for no less than one year.
Findings: IDOC is meeting this requirement at the majority of its facilities. The Monitor had previously reviewed the Institutional Directives called for in this subsection of the Settlement Agreement for 21 facilities.
(XVII)(c): Specific requirement: Physical restraints shall never be used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload.
Findings: The monitoring team did not find any evidence that physical restraints are being used to punish offenders on the mental health caseload. The monitoring team did receive several credible complaints about mentally ill offenders being restrained with the arms above their head. This will be closely monitored by the monitoring team going forward.
- 85 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 86 of 115
(XVII)(d): Specific requirement: The provisions of this Section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: Due to the concerns listed above, the provisions of the section are not being fully implemented at this time.
XVIII: MEDICAL RECORDS
Summary: The required forms are in wide use in IDOC, although often there are blank pages containing no meaningful clinical information. It may be time to revisit these forms to determine if they can be modified to improve clinical care, as has begun with the treatment planning form.
The disorganized and incomplete condition of the medical records is often an impediment to treatment and continuity of care.
(XVIII)(a): Specific requirement: In recognition of the importance of adequate records to treatment and continuity of care, no later than sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully implement the use of the standardized forms it has developed to record offender mental health information and to constitute an offender’s mental health file, including IDOC Forms 0372 (Mental Health Screening); 0374 (Mental Health Evaluation); 0284 (Mental Health Treatment Plan); 0282 (Mental Health Progress Note); 0387 (Mental Health Services Referral); 0380 (Mental Health Segregation Rounds); 0376 (Order for Use of Therapeutic Restraints for Mental Health Purposes); 0379 (Evaluation of Suicide Potential); 0378 (Crisis Watch Observation Log); 0377 (Crisis Watch Record); 0371 (Refusal of Mental Health Services); and 0375 (Psychological Autopsy).
Findings: The monitoring team continues to find evidence that the above-listed forms are in wide use within the Department. As previously reported, the use of these standardized forms has contributed to “adequate records to treatment and continuity of care.” Although these forms are being utilized, a closer review reveals that they are often incompletely filled out, with many blank pages containing no meaningful clinical information. As the Mental Health Treatment Plan, form 0284, is currently under revision, it may be time to revisit these forms to determine if they can be modified to improve clinical care.
The condition of the medical records is often an impediment “to treatment and continuity of care.” That is, they are disorganized with items missing or misplaced which make it very difficult to adequately follow the course of a given offender’s treatment. There has been no improvement in the quality of the medical records since the submission of the first annual report.
(XVIII)(b): Specific requirement: No later than ninety (90) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall fully comply with Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(7), which requires an offender’s medical record, including any needed medication, to be transferred to any facility to which the offender is being transferred at the time of transfer.
- 86 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 87 of 115
AD 04.03.100, section II (E)(7): The medical record shall be transferred to the receiving facility at the time of offender movement.
(7)(a): In the event that an offender is transferred from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice to an IDOC facility, the entire original medical record shall be transferred with the offender. The transferring youth center may keep a copy of the medical record. Such movement shall be treated as a departmental transfer with regard to documentation.
(7)(b): The medical record and, if applicable, medication shall be sealed in a clear plastic envelope through which the offender’s name and ID number can be easily identified.
(1) If the information on the DOC 0090 is not urgent in nature, the DOC 0090 shall be placed inside the front cover of the medical record.
(2) If the DOC 0090 contains urgently needed medical or medication disbursement information, the following steps shall be taken: (a) The DOC 0090 shall be folded in half to promote confidentiality and a notation of “URGENT MEDICAL INFORMATION” shall be made in bold print on the exposed (blank) side of the DOC 0090. (b) The folded DOC 0090 with the notation side up shall be enclosed on top of the medical record inside the clear plastic so that these individuals can be immediately identified and evaluated upon arrival at a new institution. (c) Prior to transferring an offender who has significant medical problems as determined by the transferring facility Medical Director, the transferring Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing shall telephone the receiving Health Care Unit Administrator or Director of Nursing to advise of the transfer.
(7)(c): A member of the receiving health care staff shall complete the Reception Screening section of the DOC 0090. The DOC 0090 shall be placed chronologically in the progress notes section of the medical record; no progress note shall be required.
Findings: The monitoring team did not evaluate this requirement during the current monitoring period.
- 87 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 88 of 115
XIX: CONFIDENTIALITY
Summary: The information the Monitor has gathered to date about the Medical Information Confidentiality Statement and about training both appear promising.
Confidential mental health contacts continue to improve. A number of institutions have now demonstrated that they permit contacts in spaces with sound privacy in crisis care, on housing units, and in mental health offices. Some operate with the door ajar and activity nearby, but no officer posted. The exceptions were troubling, and included persistent examples of cell side crisis evaluations, custody staff standing within hearing distance, and groups held in open areas where custody staff routinely pass through.
The Monitor approved a new confidentiality form; otherwise, there was no evident progress on informed consent.
XIX(a): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, the IDOC shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Directive 04.03.100, § II(E)(10) as to the confidentiality of mental health records.
AD 04.03.100, section II (E) (10) provides: Offender medical and mental health records are confidential. Access to medical and mental health records shall be limited to health care staff, other Department personnel and outside State and federal agencies on a need-to-know basis as determined appropriate by the Facility Privacy Officer or the Health Care Unit Administrator. All staff having access to medical records or medical information shall be required to sign a Medical Information Confidentiality Statement, DOC 0269, and a new DOC 0269 shall be signed during cycle training annually thereafter. The most recent DOC 0269 shall be retained in the staff member’s training file.
Findings: The monitoring team had previously reviewed DOC 0269 from a subset of facilities. These forms from the remaining facilities were not reviewed for this midyear report. This will be accomplished for the second annual report.
Specific requirement: Additionally, IDOC shall take the following steps to promote the confidential exchange of mental health information between offenders and persons providing mental health services:
XIX(b): Specific requirement: Within six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop policies and procedures on confidentiality requiring mental health service providers, supervisory staff, and wardens to ensure that mental health consultations are conducted with sound confidentiality, including conversations between MHPs and offenders on the mental health caseload in Control Units. Training on these policies and procedures shall also be included in correctional staff training, so that all prison staff understand and respect the need for privacy in the mental health context.
- 88 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 89 of 115
Findings: IDOC modified AD 04.04.100 on May 4, 2017 to satisfy this requirement, although it wasn’t accomplished within the required timeframe.
The Monitor was assured that training regarding staff’s responsibility to ensure confidentiality has been occurring in IDOC.
(XIX)(c): Specific requirement: Confidentiality between mental health personnel and offenders receiving mental health services shall be managed and maintained as directed in the section titled “Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101, section II (E)(2)).
This section Medical/Legal Issues: 1. Confidentiality in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Confidentiality of the clinician-offender relationship is grounded in ethical and legal principles. It rests, in part, on the assumption that a patient will be deterred from seeking care and discussing the important matters relevant to therapy if there is not some guaranteed confidentiality in that relationship.   Clinicians should clearly specify any limits of confidentiality of the offender-clinician relationship. This disclosure should occur at the onset of treatment, except in emergencies. Notwithstanding these necessary limits on confidentiality, relevant guidelines should be adhered to, to the greatest degree possible.   36  
Requests from outside organizations for Mental Health-related information about offenders shall be referred to the Treating Mental Health Professional. The release of any Confidential Mental Health Records must be accompanied by a consent form or release of confidential information form signed by the offender on an Authorization for Release of Offender Mental Health or Substance Abuse Treatment Information, (DOC 0240). In addition, the CAO shall be notified of this request.
Offender disclosures made to a Mental Health Professional in the course of receiving Mental Health Services are considered to be confidential and privileged, with the following exceptions: Threats to physically harm self-and/or others; Threats to escape or otherwise disrupt or breach the security of the institution; Information about an identifiable minor child or elderly/disabled person who has been the victim of physical or sexual abuse; All other information obtained by a Mental Health Professional retains its confidential status unless the offender specifically consents to its disclosure;
In addition, when confidential offender mental health information is required to be disclosed to other correctional personnel as indicated in that section, such information shall be used only in furtherance of the security of the institution, the treatment of the offender, or as otherwise required by law, and shall not otherwise be disclosed.
Findings: Subsection II(F)(2)(b) of AD 04.04.100, as modified on May 4, 2017, states “All mental health services shall be conducted in a manner which ensures confidentiality and sensitivity to the offender regardless of status or housing assignment.” Throughout the course of this
- 89 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 90 of 115
monitoring period, the monitoring team found persistent examples of this requirement not being met. These include but are not limited to daily crisis evaluations being conducted cell side, custody staff standing within hearing distance of clinical encounters, and groups being held in open areas where custody staff routinely pass through.
Conducting cell side crisis contacts is especially problematic; this occurs at Dixon and the North House of Pontiac. At Robinson, the MHP conducts the encounter in the patient’s infirmary room, but an officer is posted in the room. To Pinckneyville’s and Big Muddy River’s credit, staff solved this problem during the round, and all crisis contacts now occur in a private setting unless the patient refuses. While inmates’ conditions in segregation are not as acute as on crisis watch, it is similarly problematic that Big Muddy River’s segregation rounds are conducted through the chuckholes with an officer immediately adjacent.
Confidentiality practices have improved at Dixon. In Dixon’s segregation units, construction has been completed on one confidential therapy/assessment room per wing, and an additional room is anticipated. The monitoring team was concerned in prior rounds about confidentiality of psychiatric assessments in the X House. It is a significant improvement that inmates and staff now report that these visits occur in a private office unless the inmate refuses to come out of his cell, which the staff estimated occurs about 1/3 of the time. In those cases, the psychiatrist sees the inmate cell-side to perform a mental status exam.
For general population contacts, the institutions monitored generally bring patients to the mental health offices, or an office is made available on each housing unit. Stateville staff says they keep the door slightly ajar, while all other institutions’ staff say they routinely meet with closed doors.41 The monitoring team observed that some of these offices are in very quiet, private areas. For others, there was enough unit activity nearby that people outside were unlikely to be able to discern clinical conversations, even if the door was ajar, and the sound was low enough to not impede the contact, though mentally ill offenders might be uncomfortable with how easily they can be viewed by other offenders and staff.
For segregation units, there was a range of spaces being employed. NRC uses a classroom; Stateville proper and Robinson bring patients to the main mental health offices. Hill, Pinckneyville, and Big Muddy River use on-unit offices under conditions similar to those described above. At Pontiac, staff and patients sit in large holding cages, or in an office, both out of view of unit activity. None required an officer in the room; some kept their doors slightly ajar.
Groups were held in classrooms or on-unit staging rooms;42 Stateville was especially creative in converting rooms into a welcoming environment with murals. Each of these particular locations was separate from traffic. Pinckneyville allows a closed door for groups with an officer posted outside; Stateville requires an officer in the room or nearby.
41 Staff were interviewed on this point at Big Muddy River, Hill, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, Robinson, and Stateville. 42 Big Muddy River, Lawrence, Pinckneyville, Stateville
- 90 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 91 of 115
(XIX)(d): Specific requirement: In addition to enforcing the consent requirements set forth in “Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual, incorporated by reference into the IDOC AD 04.04.101 section II (E)(2) within sixty (60) days after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall ensure that Mental Health Professionals who have a treatment/counseling relationship with the offender shall disclose the following to that offender before proceeding: the professional’s position and agency; the purpose of the meeting or interaction; and the uses to which information must or may be put. The MHP shall indicate a willingness to explain the potential risks associated with the offender’s disclosures.
Medical/Legal Issues: 2. Informed Consent in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual provides:
Before initiating psychotropic medication, the psychiatric provider must complete at least a brief history and Mental Status Examination to determine that the offender (a) has a basic understanding that he or she has a Mental Health Problem, (b) understands that medication is being offered to produce relief from that problem, and (c) is able to give consent to treatment. The clinician must also inform the offender about alternative treatments, the appropriate length of care, and the fact that he or she may withdraw consent at any time without compromising access to other Health Care. With the exception of Mental Health emergencies, informed consent must be obtained from the offender each time the Psychiatric Provider prescribes a new class of Psychotropic Medication.43
Findings: No real progress has been made in this area during the current monitoring period. The findings from the first annual report remain valid. That is, “throughout the monitoring period, this issue appears not to have received a lot of attention from the mental health and psychiatric staff. The lack of sufficient numbers of both mental health and psychiatric staff also contributes to the fact that the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement are not being met. The monitoring team has certainly reviewed medical records in which QMPs have documented their efforts at informed consent. Even when present, the documentation of these attempts at providing informed consent tend to be superficial. The problems are even worse for the psychiatrists. Due to the tremendous backlog of psychiatric visits, mentally ill offenders report they are not even given the opportunity to provide informed consent. In the cases where a psychiatrist sees mentally ill offenders, there is rarely documented evidence that informed consent was obtained in the manner specified in this subsection of the Settlement.”44
The Monitor approved a new confidentiality and consent form on 11/7/17. This form, “Confidentiality Disclosure and Consent for Mental Health Treatment,” describes the limits of confidentiality and is an omnibus consent form that will hopefully address this deficiency.
43 The Manual defines “Informed Consent”: “Informed Consent is defined as consent voluntarily given by an offender, in writing, after he or she has been provided with a conscientious and sufficient explanation of the nature, consequences, risks, and alternatives of the proposed treatment.” This section of the Manual also provides: “Offenders should be advised of the Limits of Confidentiality prior to their receiving any Mental Health Services.” This requirement is nearly identical to the requirement discussed above regarding confidentiality, so the team does not address it again here under Informed Consent. 44 First annual report, page 88.
- 91 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 92 of 115
XX: CHANGE OF SMI DESIGNATION
Summary: The monitoring team continues to receive reports that mentally ill offenders are losing their SMI status prior to disciplinary proceedings. These reports are unsubstantiated at this time. Staff interviews described some practices that would serve as a check on such a practice. The monitoring team will attempt to conduct a systematic review on this issue in the future.
Specific requirement: The determination that an offender, who once met the criteria of seriously mentally ill, no longer meets such criteria must be made by the offender’s mental health treatment team and documented in the offender’s mental health records. Until mental health treatment teams are established, this function shall be performed by a treating MHP.
Findings: The monitoring team found good practice on this requirement at Dixon; team members also spoke with the Psych Administrators at three institutions to learn their local practices. At Stateville, change in diagnosis or SMI status are both data points that are logged after every psychiatry appointment; in such cases, the full mental health team reportedly would meet to discuss whether they concur. Hill staff report they would consult the IDOC and Wexford regional administrators, and would follow the patients for three to six months after any such change in designation, particularly if the inmate was being considered for removal from the caseload.
The Pinckneyville Psych Administrator anticipates such changes would be rare, since they have not occurred during her tenure and she finds little disagreement among the department’s disciplines. She asserts that, should such a case occur, she would convene a case conference and would only approve the change if the entire treatment team agreed. When an offender requests to be seen only as needed or to come off the caseload, there are forms for department or Wexford approval and, like Hill, the staff would maintain the SMI designation while monitoring the inmate for a number of months.
This information serves as part of the picture concerning changes in SMI designation; the monitoring team has not undertaken a systematic investigation of this issue. The monitoring team continues to receive reports that mentally ill offenders are losing their SMI status prior to disciplinary proceedings. These reports are unsubstantiated at this time. The monitoring team will attempt to conduct a systematic review on this issue for the 2nd annual report.
- 92 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 93 of 115
XXI: STAFF TRAINING
Summary: IDOC timely submitted a staff training plan. The deadline for implementing that plan is in mid-2018.
XXI(a): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan and program for staff training as provided in subsection (b), below.
Findings: IDOC has met this requirement by submission of this plan and program for staff training to the monitoring within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
XXI(b): Specific requirement: Within two (2) years following the approval of this Settlement Agreement, all IDOC and vendor staff who interact with offenders shall receive training and continuing education regarding the recognition of mental and emotional disorders. As directed in the section titled “Training” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC Administrative Directive 04.04.101, § II(E)(2)), this training shall include material designed to inform the participants about the frequency and seriousness of mental illness, and how to treat persons who have mental illness or persons manifesting symptoms of mental illness. In addition to training on confidentiality as provided in Section XXII (a), above, this training shall incorporate, but need not be limited to, the following areas: i) The recognition of signs and symptoms of mental and emotional disorders most frequently found in the offender population; ii) The recognition of signs of chemical dependency and the symptoms of narcotic and alcohol withdrawal; iii) The recognition of adverse reactions to psychotropic medication; iv) The recognition of signs of developmental disability, particularly intellectual disability; v) Types of potential mental health emergencies, and how to approach offenders to intervene in these crises; vi) Suicide prevention; vii) The obligation to refer offenders with mental health problems or needing mental health care; and viii) The appropriate channels for the immediate referral of an offender to mental health services for further evaluation, and the procedures governing such referrals.
Findings: The deadline for this requirement is May 23, 2018.
XXI(c): Specific requirement: Within one (1) year following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, Mental Health Administrative Staff referenced in Section XI(d) of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall develop a written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff.
Findings: IDOC has developed this written plan for the orientation, continuing education, and training of all mental health services staff within one (1) year of the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
- 93 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 94 of 115
XXII: PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS
Summary: During both Dixon and Menard site visits, the monitoring team did not encounter any offenders who were denied access to programs within the prisons. To the extent early release programs are included in this requirement, some problematic practices were observed
(XXII)(a): Specific requirement: Unless contraindicated as determined by a licensed MHP, IDOC shall not bar offenders with mental illness from participation in prison programs because of their illness or because they are taking psychotropic medications. Prison programs to which mentally ill offenders may be given access and reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to, educational programs, substance abuse programs, religious services, and work assignments. Offenders will still need to be qualified for the program, with or without reasonable accommodations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, under the IDOC’s current policies and procedures.
Findings: This requirement was not evaluated by the monitoring team for the midyear report.
XXIII: TRANSFER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS FROM FACILITY TO FACILITY
Summary: MHPs are notified ahead of facility transfer, but do not always notify the receiving institution of the offenders’ mental health needs.
XXIII(a): Specific requirement: To ensure continuity of treatment, unless a SMI offender is being transferred to another facility for clinical reasons, IDOC shall make best efforts to ensure that the offender’s treating MHP is consulted prior to transfer. If such a consultation is not possible prior to transfer, the MHP shall be consulted no more than seventy-two (72) hours after effectuation of transfer. If a transfer is being made for security reasons only, the reasons for the transfer and the consultation with the offender’s treating Mental Health Professional shall be documented and placed in the offender’s mental health file.
Findings: IDOC is meeting the requirements of this subsection of the Settlement Agreement.
XXIII(b): Specific requirement: When a SMI offender is to be transferred from one prison to another, the sending institution, using the most expeditious means available, shall notify the receiving institution of such pending transfer, including any mental health treatment needs.
Findings: The monitoring team encountered several examples of this not occurring. These include a mentally ill offender being transferred from a 15-minute suicide watch and the receiving
- 94 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 95 of 115
facility not being informed, a mentally ill offender being transferred from crisis for cutting and the receiving facility not informed, and a mentally ill offender being transferred for fighting with staff and being suicidal without the receiving facility informed.
It is also noteworthy that there are significant communication breakdowns affecting continuity of care within an institution—Dixon—where general population, STC, and DPU operate almost autonomously. For example, if an offender in STC is moved to segregation, the QMHP in STC often does not know of the transfer and therefore does not provide any clinical information to the receiving QMHP. In fact, the staff reported that the offender’s treatment plans continue to be completed by the STC staff for the first 30 days of segregation placement, even though the STC staff has not seen or assessed the inmate during that time. Overall, the coordination of care between Dixon’s three settings is very poor.
XXIII(c): Specific requirement: The provisions of this section shall be fully implemented no later than one (1) year after the approval of this Settlement Agreement.
Findings: The Department is not currently meeting this requirement.
XXIV: USE OF FORCE AND VERBAL ABUSE
Summary: Use of force was concentrated in three institutions, was rare in many others, and reportedly did not occur at all in almost half of the facilities. Some institutions employed a practice of preventing and deescalating incidents, including involving MHPs in that process, and the results were an impressively low use of force rate. It would serve IDOC well to replicate this approach in the system.
Tactical teams operated professionally and according to policy, and more than onethird of their activations ended without using force. There were a small number of incidents in which the OC use or physical force appeared excessive or unnecessary; in one instance, mental health treatment and safety concerns would have been better served by deferring an action involving a psychotic inmate.
Single institutions yielded particular concerns. The consistency and frequency of offender complaints of physical abuse at one—the type of actions unlikely to be documented—were disturbing and merit further examination. Likewise, there were repeated complaints of verbal abuse at another institution, potentially affecting a large mental health caseload.
Specific requirements: IDOC agrees to abide by Administrative Directives 05.01.173 and 03.02.108(B)45 and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 501.30
Section 501.30 of the code, “Resort to Force,” provides: a) Force shall be employed only as a last resort or when other means are unavailable
or inadequate, and only to the degree reasonably necessary to achieve a permitted
45 AD 03.02.108(B) does not appear to be the correct citation. The monitoring team believe the Settlement contemplated AD 03.02.108(I)(B).
- 95 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 96 of 115
purpose. b) Use of force shall be terminated as soon as force is no longer necessary. c) Medical screening and/or care shall be conducted following any use of force, which
results in bodily injury. d) Corporal punishment is prohibited.
AD 05.01.173, “Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions” provides:
F. General Provisions
1. Use of force shall be terminated as soon as the need for force is no longer necessary.
2. Nothing in this directive shall preclude staff from immediately using force or applying restraints when an offender’s behavior constitutes a threat to self, others, property, or the safety and security of the facility.
3. Restraints shall be applied in accordance with Administrative Directive 04.04.103 or 05.01.126 as appropriate.
4. Failure by the offender to comply with the orders to vacate is considered a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution and may result in the use of chemical agents in accordance with Department Rule 501.70
5. Unless it is not practical or safe, cell extractions shall be video recorded from the time circumstances warrant a cell extraction until the offender is placed in the designated cell.
NOTE: Any interruption in recording, including but not limited to changing a video tape or battery shall orally be documented on the video tape.
6. Use of force cell extractions shall be performed by certified Tactical Team members as designated by the Tactical Team Commander. The Tactical Team Commander shall designate one or more members who may function as the Tactical Team Leader.
G. Equipment
1. The following equipment items shall be available to and used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Orange jump suits; b. Protective helmets and full-face shields; c. Knife resistant vests; d. Protective gloves; e. Restraints minimally including hand cuffs and leg irons; f. Protective convex shields; g. Batons (36-inch length by 1.5 inches in diameter of oak or hickory); h. Gas masks; i. Leather boots, purchased by the employee, a minimum of 8 inches high for ankle protection; and j. Video camera with a minimum of two batteries and a video tape.
2. Chemical agents shall be available and may be used in accordance [with] Department Rule 501.70.
501.70: Use of Chemical Agents in Cells (Consent Decree) provides:
- 96 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 97 of 115
a) This Section applies only to the transfer of a committed person who has refused to leave his cell when so ordered. The transfer of a committed person shall be undertaken with a minimal amount of force. Only when the individual threatens bodily harm to himself, or other committed persons or correctional officers may tear gas or other chemical agents be employed to remove him.
b) Prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents, the committed person shall be informed that such tear gas or other chemical agents will be used unless he complies with the transfer order.
c) The use of tear gas or other chemical agents may be authorized only by an officer the rank of Captain or above. (For purposes of this rule, the shift supervisor or higher authority in the Juvenile Division may authorize the use of tear gas or other chemical agents.)
d) Precautionary measures shall be taken to limit the noxious side effects of the chemical agents. In addition, the following procedures shall be followed whenever tear gas or other chemical agents are used to compel a committed person to leave his cell:
1) If circumstances allow, ventilation devices, such as windows and fans, shall be readied prior to the use of tear gas or other chemical agents. In any event, these devices shall be employed immediately after tear gas or other chemical agents are used. The purpose of this procedure is to minimize the effect of tear gas or other chemical agents upon other committed persons located in the cell house.
2) Gas masks shall be available for use by correctional officers at the time the tear gas or other chemical agent is used.
3) When a gas canister is placed inside a committed person’s cell, the gas will quickly take effect and correctional officers shall enter the cell as soon as possible to remove the individual.
4) The committed person shall be instructed by the correctional officer to flush his eyes and skin exposed to the chemical agent with water. If the individual appears incapable of doing so, a member of the medical staff present shall perform this task. If no member of the medical staff is present, the correctional officer shall undertake this procedure.
e) An incident report shall be prepared immediately after the use of the chemical agent. This report shall be signed by each correctional officer involved in the transfer, who may indicate disagreement with any fact stated in the report.
f) The Chief Administrative Officer shall examine these incident reports to ensure that proper procedures were employed. Failure to follow proper procedures will result in disciplinary action.
- 97 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 98 of 115
g) Before Section 501.70 is modified, legal staff must be consulted. This Section was promulgated pursuant to Settlement litigation by order of the court. It may not be modified without approval of the court.
3. The following equipment items may be used by Tactical Team members when conducting a calculated use of force cell extraction. a. Throat protectors (cut resistant); and b. Elbow, groin, knee, and shin protectors
H. Tactical Team Structure for Calculated Use of Force Cell Extractions
The Tactical Team shall consist of six certified Tactical Team members for a single offender cell extraction and seven certified Tactical Team members for a multiple offender cell extraction. One member of the team shall serve as the Tactical Team Leader; however, the team leader shall not be the person responsible for video recording the incident.
1. For a single offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the offender against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. Two members (also known as Number 2 and 3 persons) shall secure the offender’s arms and hands and place restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. c. A member (also known as Number 4 person) shall secure the doorway with a baton to prevent the offender from escaping, and if necessary, to assist in the application of restraints. d. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; remain outside of the cell with a baton in the event the offender should attempt to escape from the cell; and deploy chemical agents if necessary. e. The video recording member (also known as Number 6 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
2. For a multiple offender cell extraction, the Tactical Team Commander shall designate members who shall be responsible for following functions. a. The shield person (also known as Number 1 person) shall use a shield and be the first member to enter the cell; secure the first offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. b. The assistant shield person (also known as Number 2 person) shall use a shield; secure the second offender encountered against the wall, bed, or floor; secure the offender’s head and upper body; and orally communicate with the offender. c. A member (also known as Number 3 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member in most need of assistance by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. d. A
- 98 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 99 of 115
member (also known as Number 4 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team member with the other offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands and placing restraints on the offender’s wrists and ankles. e. A member (also known as Number 5 person) shall provide immediate back-up to the team members with the most combative offender by securing the offender’s arms and hands for placement of restraints. f. A member (also known as Number 6 person) shall provide direct orders to the offender prior to the extraction; open the cell door to initiate the extraction; secure the doorway with a baton to prevent an offender from escaping, and if necessary, deploy chemical agents and assist in the application of restraints. g. The video recording member (also known as Number 7 person) shall remain outside of the cell and video record the extraction including but not limited to: the warnings to the offender prior to the use of force; the issuance of three direct orders to vacate the cell; the notification that failure to comply constitutes a threat to self, others, and the safety and security of the institution; removal of the offender from the cell; escorting the offender for and treatment of medical care; and placement of the offender in a designated area.
I. Calculated Use of Force Cell Extraction Procedures
1. Once an officer has ordered an offender to move from the cell and the offender refuses, the officer shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
2. The Lieutenant or above shall again order the offender to vacate the cell. If the offender refuses, the Lieutenant or above shall report the refusal through the chain of command.
3. On site personnel shall begin video recording the offender’s actions.
4. When time and circumstances permit, the Shift Commander shall obtain the approval of the Chief Administrative Officer for calculated use of force cell extractions. In all other situations, the Shift Commander or above shall approve the cell extraction.
5. If the decision is made to proceed with a cell extraction, the Shift Commander shall activate the Tactical Team.
6. The Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Secure the area by removing all non-involved staff and non-secured offenders; b. Ensure the video camera is present and recording the offender’s actions; and c. Notify medical staff of the pending cell extraction.
7. Upon notification of a pending cell extraction, Health Care staff shall check the offender’s medical file for pertinent medical information and be present in a secure area that is close to, but not in the immediate vicinity of the cell extraction.
8. Upon arrival of the Tactical Team, the Zone Lieutenant or above shall: a. Brief the Tactical Commander of pertinent information; b. Ensure the transfer of the video tape to a designated Tactical Team member to continue recording; c. Notify the Duty Administrative Officer of the incident, pending cell extraction, and other information as it becomes available; and d. Be available, if needed, but remain out of the immediate area of the cell extraction.
- 99 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 100 of 115
9. Prior to the use of force, the Tactical Team leader shall: a. Orally attempt to obtain the offender’s voluntary compliance to vacate the cell or area prior to the use of force. In cells or areas with two or more offenders, each offender shall be given the opportunity to comply and be voluntarily removed. Whenever possible, offenders who comply shall be placed in restraints and removed prior to action being taken. b. Issue three direct orders for the offender to comply. c. Advise the offender that failure to comply with the orders to vacate may result in the use of chemical agents.
10. If the offender does not vacate the cell voluntarily, the Tactical Team shall remove the offender from the cell.
11. Following removal from the cell, the Tactical Team shall escort the offender to a designated area to be examined by Health Care staff.
12. Following the completion of the cell extraction including medical care, the Tactical Team member who video recorded the incident shall: a. Label the video tape with the date and location of the incident, offender name(s) and number(s), and the name of the employee who recorded the incident; b. If available, activate any security measures such as breaking the security tab on the VHS (Video Home System) video tape to prevent the video tape from being erased or recorded over; c. Tag the video tape as evidence and process it in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.112.
13. Unless otherwise directed to maintain longer, the video tape shall be retained in a secure area designated by the Chief Administrative Officer for three years following the date of the extraction.
14. Each employee who participated in the cell extraction or who was otherwise involved shall complete an Incident Report and other appropriate reports documenting the incident in its entirety. When necessary, the incident shall be reported in accordance with Administrative Directive 01.12.105. (AD 01.12.105 provides general instructions on the reporting of “unusual incidents.”)
15. The Shift Commander shall ensure: a. A search of the involved area is completed after removal of the offender; b. The area is decontaminated if chemical agents were used; and c. Appropriate reports are completed and processed.
16. The Shift Commander or above shall debrief with the Tactical Team.
Findings: Assistant Monitor Ginny Morrison conducted a data-driven review of use of force incidents46 based on the following materials:
• Logs of incidents produced by IDOC; these were represented as capturing all incidents involving inmates on the mental health caseload. Logs were generally
46 This report will use the term “use of force” to include takedowns, physical restraint beyond ordinary handcuffing and not for mental health purposes, use of oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, and activations of the Tactical team, even if physical force was not used in any of these events.
- 100 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 101 of 115
produced for incidents in July, August, and September 2017.47 A few institutions provided logs for all of 2017. • Videos of 13 incidents involving the tactical team • Reports for 26 incidents; these appear to be complete • One-page summaries, or partial reports, of 33 incidents • Log entries for an additional 36 incidents, generally detailed • Interviews of offenders on segregation and/or crisis watch status at Pinckneyville and Pontiac.
Thus, a total of 95 incidents was reviewed, drawing on one or more sources. As with several other key requirements of this Settlement, logs indicate that use of force rarely, if ever, occurs with the mentally ill at most institutions, and is heavily concentrated at Pontiac, Logan, and Dixon. Among reviewed cases, the distribution was:
• Pontiac (67), Logan (51), Dixon (32) • 12 institutions whose use of force incidents were in the single digits48 • 11 institutions with no use of force in the review period49
The Monitor received numerous credible reports from mentally ill offenders at Pontiac that custody staff were physically abusing them. The reports were all similar in nature in that these episodes would occur in the evenings or at night when clinical staff was not present. They were occurring primarily in North House and South Mental. The Monitor takes these reports very seriously and will personally spend time at Pontiac during off hours during the next monitoring period.
On the other hand, the monitoring team appreciates those institutions who deescalate incidents, thus avoiding the need for force. Lawrence leadership—both custody and mental health—emphasized their ethic of using force as a last resort, and the low number of incidents would seem to support that. By established practice, a series of staff attempt to deescalate the event, including an MHP and several members of the custody chain of command. This appears to be effective at Lawrence, and the monitoring team has seen it serve well in other correctional systems. Should IDOC choose to implement a similar policy system wide, this strategy would move IDOC toward substantial compliance on this requirement. A Major at Pontiac expressed a similar outlook, noting that he integrates mental health and clinical services staff into a segregation team approach, and that mental health staff are sometimes consulted as incidents begin. It also speaks to the therapeutic milieu at Dixon that, despite housing more than 960 of some of the highest need offenders in the system, there were only 32 force incidents logged.
47 For the most part, IDOC institutions provided incident logs for July through September, 2017. There was some variability in the time periods covered by the logs, and some question of whether only SMI or all on the mental health caseload are included in some logs. The monitoring team reviewed in detail the July and August incidents, portions of June and September incidents, and the first half of 2017 for Pontiac alone. 48 Stateville, Vandalia, Sheridan, Pinckneyville, Shawnee, Big Muddy River, Danville, Graham, Illinois River, Western Illinois 49 Centralia, Decatur, East Moline, Jacksonville, Kewanee, Lawrence, Lincoln, Menard, Robinson, Southwest Illinois, Taylorville, Vienna
- 101 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 102 of 115
It is also the case that, even when the Tactical team is activated, a substantial number of these incidents—38% of the Tactical team activations reviewed--ended without the team using OC or force. This was noted in logs; the monitoring team viewed videos for a subset of these events, and the videos demonstrated this. This welcome outcome is one factor in favor of finding that unnecessary force is not taking place.
Tactical team activations were by far the most frequently logged type of force incident (99). These methods were commonly used to stop self-harming, for enforced medication injections and, of course, for cell extractions. The teams viewed on video followed required procedures. Not all actions were visible, but the video quality was generally good. Reports indicated that procedures were followed and that the force was necessary. No inmate injuries were recorded in the reports. With a few exceptions that will be noted below, force did not appear to be excessive or unnecessary.
There were 60 uses of OC, either as part of the Tactical team intervention or independently. Quantities were not described in the reports, so it was not possible to make a judgment about whether that aspect was excessive. In another 29 events, offenders were taken to the ground, restrained against the wall, or otherwise physically managed so as to require an incident report.
A small number of exceptions to the good practices surfaced. There were one to two examples of each, so they do not constitute patterns. They do illustrate, however, the reasons that use of force requirements are included in mental health lawsuits, and as such, bear watching by IDOC administration.
Unnecessary • An inmate in crisis watch was visibly psychotic, talking in garbled words unrelated to staff’s conversation, and unable to follow orders. Staff wanted to move him between crisis watch cells for administrative reasons, but his actions did not cause the need for a move and he was not aggressive, just not complying as he did not understand the orders. The team used OC and extracted him. This event inflicted the pain of OC unnecessarily; there was no reason the cell move could not have been reinitiated when conditions for his compliance might have improved. • An offender had covered his cell window, but removed the obstruction by the time the Tactical team arrived. In the space of 40 seconds, the team sprayed OC three times and went into the cell to extract the man and there was a struggle (or a fight, it was difficult to see). Some would argue that uncovering the window solved the problem, rendering an extraction unnecessary. At the least, the team did not give the OC an opportunity to work; under ordinary circumstances, that generates compliance and the struggle/fight would have been prevented. • An offender refused to give his ID and took a fighting stance; the officer used OC in response. Then the offender ran, and the officer used OC again once the offender was captured. • Decontamination: in some cases, the use of OC appeared warranted, but decontamination may not have been offered, or was delayed. In some, the offenders were placed back in the cells from which they were extracted and there is not a mention that the cell was decontaminated. One offender was sprayed in order to get
- 102 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 103 of 115
compliance with his enforced medication; he was not decontaminated until after the injection. Excessive • In two events at two institutions, an officer responded to an offender’s aggression by punching him in the face. In one of them, the report suggests that the lieutenant continued to punch the offender after his initial reaction and while the offender was on the ground (and fighting). This is not a management technique. The offender emerged with multiple puncture wounds in his lip and the lieutenant sought medical treatment for his hand. • There is a striking number of offenders already in handcuffs, being escorted by multiple officers, who are either taken down or who fall along with the officer(s). While a large majority of force practices look promising, further review will be necessary to develop more information about patterns, gain information from more diverse sources, and follow up to determine whether the problematic practices above continue. Professional Conduct AD 03.02.108(I)(B), “Standards of Conduct” provides: The Department shall require employees to conduct themselves in a professional manner and, whether on duty or off duty, not engage in conduct that is unbecoming of a State employee or that may reflect unfavorably on or impair operations of the Department.
Findings: Inmates in Dixon’s X House, continued to report verbal abuse by officers, particularly those who work infrequently with SMI offenders. The mental health staff echoed this sentiment, saying that the day shift officers were generally very good at managing SMI offenders and working with mental health, but that weekend and evening staff were variable. Staff abuse and neglect was a complaint raised in a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel by a mentally ill offender who committed suicide during the monitoring period. This issue was otherwise not specifically evaluated for this midyear report.
- 103 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 104 of 115
XXV: DISCIPLINE OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
Summary: Segregation is not being used as a punishment for SMI offenders for 300and 400-level infractions at any IDOC facility, and Adjustment Committees consistently receive and review input from Mental Health regarding SMI inmates.
Only two institutions performed face-to-face assessments as part of the MHPs’ review; all others relied on chart review and/or discussion amongst the mental health staff. It appeared that the required form was completed in all cases involving SMI offenders, but the quality of the documentation varied greatly between facilities and MHPs. The rationale for MHPs’ conclusions and recommendations were sometimes unclear, and recommendations varied widely among facilities and individual MHPs.
At one institution, every single form contained identical language, and every single one determined that the inmate’s mental illness did not contribute to the offense behavior; it is extremely unlikely that the purpose of this review is being accomplished at that institution.
Inmates sometimes received harsh sanctions for actions related to their mental health, such as refusing or hiding medication. Mental health staff did not appear to pick up cues for needed follow-up, such as ascertaining the reason for the medication refusals that were the subject of discipline.
XXV(a): Specific requirement: IDOC has implemented system-wide policies and procedures governing the disposition of disciplinary proceedings in which SMI offenders face potential segregation terms as a result of a disciplinary hearing for a major offense as defined in 20 Ill. Admin. Code section 504.50(d)(3). Those policies and procedures are contained in AD 05.12.103.
AD 05.12.103 provides:
G. Requirements
The Chief Administrative Officer of each facility that houses SMI offenders shall:
1. Establish and maintain a list of offenders identified as SMI. This list shall be made available to the Adjustment Committee upon request.
2. Ensure all members of the Adjustment Committee receive training on administration of discipline and hearing procedures.
H. Disciplinary Process
1. When an offender, who has been identified as SMI, is issued an Offender Disciplinary Report, DOC 0317, for a major offense where the disciplinary action may include
- 104 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 105 of 115
segregation time:
a. The shift commander shall, within 24 hours, notify the facility’s Office of Mental Health Management.
b. The facility Mental Health Authority shall assign a reviewing MHP who shall review the offender’s mental health record and DOC 0317 and, within 72 hours of the original notification, provide a completed Mental Health Disciplinary Review, DOC 0443 to the hearing investigator who shall consider the report during his or her investigation in accordance with Department Rule 504. The DOC 0443 shall, at a minimum, provide:
(1) The reviewing MHP’s opinion if, and in what way, the offender’s mental illness contributed to the underlying behavior of the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued.
(2) The reviewing MHP’s opinion of overall appropriateness of placement in segregation status based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs; including, potential for deterioration if placed in a segregation setting or any reason why placement in segregation status would be inadvisable, such as the offender appearing acutely psychotic or actively suicidal, a recent serious suicide attempt or the offender’s need for immediate placement in a Crisis Treatment Level of Care; and
(3) Based on clinical indications, recommendations, if any, for a specific term of segregation, including no segregation time, or specific treatment during the term of segregation.
2. In accordance with Department Rule 504: Subpart A, all disciplinary hearings shall be convened within 14 days of the commission of the offense; however, if the MHP provides the offender is unable to participate due to mental health reasons, a stay of continuance shall be issued until such time the reviewing MHP determines the offender available to participate.
a. The Adjustment Committee shall take into consideration all opinions provided on the DOC 0443 and may request the reviewing MHP to appear before the committee to provide additional testimony, as needed.
b. If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations.
c. If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chef Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO shall:
(1) Review the recommendations of the reviewing MHP and the Adjustment Committee;
- 105 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 106 of 115
(2) Consult with the reviewing MHP regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action recommended by the Adjustment Committee; and
(3) Provide his or her final determination. Any deviation from MHP’s recommendation shall be documented in writing on the Adjustment Committee Summary, DOC 0319, and shall be maintained as a permanent part of the offender’s disciplinary file.
d. In accordance with Department Rule 504.80, a copy of the DOC 0317 and DOC 0319 shall be forwarded to the CAO for review and final determination. If the Adjustment Committee’s final disposition recommends a term of segregation, the CAO shall compare the recommendation to that of the 0443.
e. All information, including the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and disciplinary action imposed, shall be documented in the Disciplinary Tracking System.
3. No later than the last day of the month following that being reported, the Adjustment Committee shall compile and submit to the respective Deputy Director a summary of the Adjustment Committee hearing of offenders identified as SMI, who were issued a DOC 0317 for a major offense for which the disciplinary action included segregation time.
a. The summary shall include the offense for which the DOC 0317 was issued, reviewing MHP’s opinions and recommendations, and outcome and disciplinary action imposed by the Adjustment Committee.
b. Any recommendations by the Deputy director to change imposed disciplinary action shall be discussed with the Chief Administrative Officer, treating and reviewing MHP, and as necessary, the Adjustment Committee. Approved adjustments shall be made accordingly.
4. A copy of the DOC 0319 shall be provided to the offender.
Findings: Assistant Monitor, Reena Kapoor, M.D., conducted a data-driven analysis of 10 facilities for the months of June and July 2017, regarding their adherence to the requirements contained in Administrative Directive 05.12.103. Her results follow:
Overall Findings
1. Segregation is not being used as a punishment (for SMI offenders) for 300- and 400-level infractions at any IDOC facility. This is consistent with IDOC’s revised policies and the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Adjustment Committee consistently receives and reviews input from Mental Health regarding SMI inmates. This is also consistent with IDOC policy.
3. Although the DOC 0443 form was completed in all cases involving SMI offenders, the quality of the documentation varied greatly between facilities and MHPs. In particular, the rationale for MHPs’ conclusions and recommendations was not always clear.
- 106 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 107 of 115
4. Only at Jacksonville and Shawnee are MHPs performing face-to-face assessments of SMI offenders after they are charged with disciplinary infractions; at all other facilities, the 0443 form is completed based on a chart review and/or discussion amongst the mental health staff.
5. Additional training for the mental health staff across IDOC regarding how/why to recommend particular disciplinary sanctions to the Adjustment Committee may be helpful, as it appears that recommendations vary widely among facilities and individual MHPs, with no clinical rationale for the differences. The MHPs at Lawrence and Graham appear to be doing a particularly poor job of reviewing disciplinary cases and making appropriate recommendations to the Adjustment Committee (see details below).
6. Inmates appear to be receiving harsh sanctions for refusing or hiding medication (e.g., 13 months in segregation for one misappropriated pill). In addition, mental health followup to ascertain the reason for the medication refusal is inadequate.
7. At Pontiac, every single Mental Health Review (0443) form contained identical language, and every single one determined that the inmate’s mental illness did not contribute to the offense behavior. This raises concerns about the adequacy and individualized nature of the MHPs’ 0443 assessments.
Individual Facility Findings
1. Big Muddy River
There were just two incidents involving SMI offenders in July 2017, both involving verbal threats made by inmates. Both cases appeared to have been reviewed by the MHP, and the Adjustment Committee then followed the MHP’s recommendations. In one case, the inmate was given time served and returned to an RTU setting because it was clear that he was psychotic and unstable during the offense, threatening to “blow up Trump Plaza.” In the other case, the inmate was given 9 days of segregation, which amounted to time served, and then 45 days of C-grade after making threats to harm another inmate.
2. Centralia
12 incidents involving SMI offenders were reported between June 29 and July 25, 2017. In 8 of these cases, Mental Health recommended a lesser sanction than the Adjustment Committee. In 7 of the 8 cases, the Final Disposition was identical to the Adjustment Committee’s recommendation, seemingly disregarding the Mental Health input. After reviewing the documents, it was not clear whether IDOC’s Administrative Directive (05.12.103, Section H.2) to resolve differences between these two groups was followed. The policy states, in relevant part:
If the MHP recommended, based on clinical indications, a specific segregation term, that no segregation time be served, or that a specific treatment during
- 107 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 108 of 115
segregation is necessary, the committee shall adopt those recommendations (emphasis added).
If the Adjustment Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the reviewing MHP and recommends a more restrictive disciplinary action, the Adjustment Committee shall submit an appeal to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).
Complete documentation for only 2 of the 12 disciplinary incidents was provided for review. The Adjustment Committee’s report in both of these cases contains the CAO’s signature, but it does not have any explanation for why the CAO thought it was appropriate to disregard the MHP’s recommendation (or if the CAO even knew that there was a dispute).
3. Graham
Documentation for one incident was provided for review. On 7/24/17, a mentally ill offender was caught by the nurse trying to secret away one pill of Buspar 15 mg in his hand during the med line (rather than swallowing it). The inmate was charged with Possession of Drugs/Paraphernalia and Disobeying a Direct Order. The 0443-form indicated that the inmate’s mental health status played no role in his behavior, and he should be sentenced to “no more than 3 months in segregation.” He was ultimately sentenced by the Adjustment Committee to 1 month of segregation and several lesser sanctions. No documentation was provided to indicate whether anyone from the mental health staff ever asked the inmate why he refused to take his medication, nor was any follow-up with the psychiatrist recommended. In my opinion, both of these measures should clearly be taken when an inmate refuses psychotropic medication or tries to mislead staff into thinking he has taken it. In addition, 3 months of segregation is a very harsh punishment for one hidden pill (even if deliberately stolen), so the mental health staff at Graham may need additional training regarding recommendation of sanctions.
4. Jacksonville
Documentation of one incident was provided for review. An SMI inmate allegedly blew a kiss at a nurse and called her “Casper” on 7/20/17. He was charged with Sexual Misconduct, Intimidation or Threats, and Insolence. The 0443-form indicated that mental health did not play a role in the behavior, and “up to 3 months” of segregation was recommended. After reviewing video of the incident, the kiss-blowing was unsubstantiated, and the two most serious charges were dropped. The inmate was released from segregation after 2 days and given a C-grade sanction for the Insolence charge.
5. Lawrence
Documentation related to four incidents was provided for review. One of the incidents involved an inmate in segregation refusing to comply with procedures to remove his cuffs, pulling an officer’s hand though the door trap. Another involved fighting. A third
- 108 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 109 of 115
involved an inmate jumping off the tier in an effort to kill himself. A fourth involved an inmate refusing to return to GP after crisis watch placement.
Curiously, in all cases, the mental health staff recommended more severe sanctions than the Adjustment Committee ultimately issued. In no case did the MHP interview the inmate or inquire directly into the circumstances of the event, even in the case involving a reported suicide attempt. In the suicide attempt case, the MHP noted that the inmate had had 3 recent crisis watch placements but concluded that the inmate had “only minimal mental health symptoms” and should sentenced to 6 months in segregation (the Adjustment Committee decided on 21 days). In the incident involving the inmate who refused to return to GP after crisis watch, the mental health review in this case was cursory and did not inquire into the reasons for the inmate’s housing referral. Instead, mental health recommended “up to 3 months of segregation,” and the Adjustment Committee sentenced the inmate to 1 month of segregation. At no point did anyone look into the reasons for the inmate’s refusal (e.g. fear of another inmate in GP, gambling debts, inability to follow routine, etc.).
6. Menard
21 incidents involving 14 different SMI offenders were adjudicated in July 2017. The charges included Sexual Misconduct (handing an officer a letter with sexually inappropriate comments, masturbating in front of a nurse), Contraband Property (two MP3 players), Refusing Direct Orders (to move cells), and Fighting. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee issued a sanction that was less severe or the same as the recommendation from Mental Health.
Complete documentation for 5 incidents was provided for review. In all 5 cases, the MHP concluded, based on a chart review, that the inmate’s mental health status was unrelated to the offense conduct. The MHP typically noted that the inmate had been seen for routine appointments and had been compliant with medications, so therefore the inmate’s mental health status was stable at the time of the offense. However, based on my site visits to Menard, inmates’ clinical status and medications are not monitored carefully, and the charts are woefully incomplete. Therefore, drawing conclusions on the 0443-form based on chart review alone is inadequate.
7. Pinckneyville
Documentation related to 5 incidents was reviewed. In each case, the Adjustment Committee followed the MHP’s recommendation regarding segregation placement; in 2 of the 5 cases no segregation was ordered because of the inmate’s unstable mental status. After reviewing the details, I am concerned only about one case in which an SMI inmate accepted a single “brown pill” from another inmate and refused to turn it over to the nurse when caught. This incident resulted in 3 months of segregation, and it does not appear that a psychiatrist ever followed up with the inmate to see why he wanted the other person’s medication. Although it is possible that the inmate simply wanted to “get high,” it would be important to rule out another reason before deciding upon sanctions.
- 109 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 110 of 115
8. Shawnee
7 incidents involving SMI offenders were reported. In all cases, the Adjustment Committee followed the recommendations from Mental Health regarding segregation placement, though frequently additional sanctions (e.g. C-grade, GCC, visit restrictions) were added in addition to segregation placement. Detailed documentation for only 2 of the incidents was provided for review, but in both cases IDOC’s policies appeared to be followed appropriately. In one case, an inmate reported hearing voices that told him to get out of his cell (he was charged with Refusing a Direct Order to return to his cell), but the MHP spoke with him about the incident, documented a normal mental status exam, and concluded that he was not psychotic. In the other case, the MHP interviewed the inmate, noted active symptoms of psychosis, and recommended against segregation placement.
9. Vienna
This facility only provided the 0443 forms for review; there were no Adjustment Committee reports or descriptions of the offense conduct (DOC 0317) for me to review. Therefore, I could not draw any conclusions about the facility’s compliance with the SMI Discipline policy. A review of the 0443 forms indicates that reviewing MHPs base their conclusions upon chart review and consultation with the inmate’s treating MHP. In 1 out of 6 cases, the inmate’s illness was found to have contributed to the offense behavior.
10. Pontiac
Pontiac had 88 disciplinary incidents in the one-month review period—significantly more than the other 9 facilities combined. In all cases, the sanction imposed by the Adjustment Committee fell within the range recommended by Mental Health (e.g. 0-30 days). One of the 88 inmates was given a sentence of 6 months in segregation; all others were sentenced to 3 months or less.
Perhaps because of the large number of disciplinary infractions to process, the 0443 documents from Pontiac are much more formulaic and cursory in their assessments than at other facilities. In fact, every single 0443 form I reviewed contained the same language:
It is the opinion of this MHP that the offender’s mental illness did not contribute to the behavior of the offense for which the DOC0317 was issued. It is this MHP’s opinion that consideration for segregation placement of this offender is appropriate based on the offender’s mental health symptoms and needs. However, it should be noted that lengthy segregation for the SMI population is not recommended.
It was not clear to me that the MHP had performed a meaningful review of each individual case and offender. In addition, no rationale for the MHP’s recommendations
- 110 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 111 of 115
for segregation placement (e.g. 1-2 months vs. 15-30 days) was ever documented, making it impossible to determine how these decisions were being made.
I. Observation and Follow-up
1. Observation of offenders in segregation shall be conducted in accordance with existing policies and procedures.
2. Referrals for mental health services and response to offenders with serious or urgent mental health problems, as evidenced by a sudden or rapid change in an offender’s behavior or behavior that may endanger themselves or others if not treated immediately, shall be handled in accordance with AD 04.04.100.
3. If, at any time, clinical indications suggest continued placement in segregation status poses an imminent risk of substantial deterioration to the an [sic] offender’s mental health, the information shall be reviewed by the facility mental health authority.
4. Any recommendations by the mental health authority for reduction in segregation time or termination of segregation status shall be discussed with the CAO.
5. The CAO shall adjust the segregation term in accordance with the recommendations or, if the CAO does not agree with the recommendation of the mental health authority, he or she shall submit the issue to the respective Deputy Director for final determination.
Findings: The requirements of this subsection were not being met during the reporting period.
(XXV)(b): Specific requirement: No later than one (1) year after approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop and implement policies and procedures to provide that, for mentally ill offenders, (i) punishment for self-injurious behavior (e.g., suicide attempts or self-mutilation) is prohibited; (ii) punishment for reporting to IDOC staff or vendor staff feelings or intentions of self-injury or suicide is prohibited; and (iii) punishment for behavior directly related to self-injurious behavior, such as destruction of state property, is prohibited unless it results in the creation of a weapon or possession of contraband.
Findings: To date, the Monitor has not been asked to consult with IDOC staff on this issue. The monitoring team continues to receive reports of mentally ill offenders’ being punished for self-injurious behavior. The monitoring team will attempt to perform a data-driven analysis of this issue for the 2nd annual report.
(XXV)(c): Specific requirement: For any offender who is in RTU or inpatient treatment for serious mental illness, the disciplinary process will be carried out within a mental health treatment context and in accordance with this Section. Discipline may include loss of privileges or confinement to cell on the treatment unit for a specified period, but may not entail ejecting an offender from the treatment program.
Findings: The monitoring team did not review this requirement for the midyear report.
- 111 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 112 of 115
(XXV)(d): Specific requirement: No later than six (6) months after the approval of this Settlement Agreement, IDOC, in consultation with the Monitor and the IDOC’s designated expert, shall develop and implement a pilot Behavior Treatment Program (“BTP”) at Pontiac CC for SMI offenders currently subject to sanction for a serious disciplinary infraction. IDOC will review this pilot and consider implementation at other facilities.
Findings: To date, the Monitor has not been asked to consult with IDOC on this issue. The Monitor was given, however, a draft outline of the Behavioral Management Unit program for the RTU at Joliet.
XXVI: CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CQI)
Summary: The monitor has approved a draft Administrative Directive governing a mental health CQI program, which incorporates by reference the Settlement requirements. IDOC intends to implement that program once all of its Psych Administrators are hired. In the meantime, IDOC is conducting some CQI activity under a broader, pre-existing CQI policy, but it is not as robust as expected under the Settlement.
No significant changes were observed in the mental health CQI process during this reporting period.
(XXVI)(a): Specific requirement: IDOC shall fully implement the requirements of IDOC Administrative Directive 04.03.125 (Quality Improvement Program), together with the program described in the section entitled “Mental Health Quality Assurance/Continuous Quality Improvement Program” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual (incorporated by reference into IDOC AD 04.04.101 (Eff. 8/1/2014), section II (E)(2)) and the process described in the section entitled “Peer Review Process” in the IDOC Mental Health Protocol Manual. As part of this implementation, there will be particular focus on ensuring that any deficiencies identified by the required information-gathering and committee review become the basis of further actions to improve the quality of mental health services at each facility throughout IDOC.
Findings: As reported in the first annual report, AD 04.03.125 addresses the broad medical CQI program, which includes mental health as a small piece among many other pieces. The cited portion of the SOP Manual relates specifically to a new mental health CQI program. This SOP Manual also cites an AD on a mental health CQI program, 04.04.104. The Monitor has approved that AD but it is yet to be implemented. Chief Hinton explained that he is waiting to implement this department-wide CQI program until all facilities have an assigned mental health authority. At the time of this report, six facilities were without a mental health authority. They included Danville, Western, Graham, Vandalia, Robinson and Illinois River. The monitoring team was not provided with a date when AD 04.04.104 would be implemented.
For both the broader CQI program and the mental health-specific CQI program, the requirements incorporated by reference in the Settlement include committee composition and
- 112 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 113 of 115
meetings, CQI studies to be conducted, data to be reviewed, and suicide reviews. The Settlement includes additional provisions that emphasize corrective action and create a new statewide CQI Manager position.
Nothing has significantly changed in the mental health CQI process during this reporting period. Based upon this current six-month review of various aspects of IDOC’s CQI system, several points stand out. IDOC has been utilizing AD 04.03.125 as its CQI guide for the ongoing, systematic evaluation of offender care practices, professional or clinical performance, and offender care services in primary care and mental health services. This AD does not embody the robust CQI policy intended by this section of the Settlement Agreement. The overall requirements of AD 04.03.125, however, are generally being accomplished in that facility-based CQI committees are formed and mental health-specific data is being collected. AD 04.03.125 will continue to be used until such time as AD 04.04.104, Mental Health Continuous Quality Improvement Program, is implemented throughout IDOC. The monitoring team looks forward to consulting with IDOC’s clinical leadership in the implementation of AD 04.04.104. The goal will be to develop a much more comprehensive CQI policy which utilizes the specific mental health data obtained in a manner to actually improve the quality of the mental health services.
XXVI(b): Specific requirement: The statewide CQI Manager (Section XI(b), above) shall have the responsibility of ensuring that the steps identified in subsection (a), above, are taken.
Findings: The Department’s Quarterly Report of 10/23/17, Section XXVI, “Continuous Quality Improvement Program (CQI)” states “IDOC hired Jeff Sims to be CQI manager. Dr. Sims has started performing duties related to his role as CQI Manager in addition to regional administrator tasks. He estimates that he spends approximately 25% of his time on work related to CQI.” There is no provision in the Settlement for this arrangement. As such, IDOC is not in compliance with this section of the Settlement.
XXVII: MONITORING
Only three specific requirements of this section will be discussed in detail.
XXVII(d): Specific requirement: Should IDOC, during the life of this Settlement Agreement, deny any request of the Monitor relating either to the budget or staff he believes are required for the monitoring, IDOC shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ counsel of the denial.
Findings: The Monitor made requests to IDOC in June 2017 for an increase in his budget. To date there has been no formal response to either the Monitor or plaintiffs’ counsel.
XXVII(f)(iv): Specific requirement: The Monitor may make recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies and procedures related to the provision of adequate mental health care to class members. Such recommendations should be justified with supporting data. IDOC shall accept such recommendations, propose an alternative, or reject the recommendation.
Findings: The Monitor has made a variety of specific recommendations for modifications or improvements to IDOC operations, policies and procedures related to the provision of adequate
- 113 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 114 of 115
mental health care to class members. To date the Monitor has not received any formal response to these recommendations. These recommendations include but are not limited to:
• Modifications to the administrative review process regarding suicides; • A variety of issues regarding the use of Telepsychiatry; • Multidisciplinary team involvement in treatment planning • Psychiatric involvement for mentally ill offenders in crisis • Implementation of a statewide CQI program
XXVII(f)(v): Specific requirement: The Monitor shall strive to minimize interference with the mission of IDOC, or any other state agency involved, while at the same time having timely and complete access to all relevant files, reports, memoranda, or other documents within the control of IDOC or subject to access by IDOC; having unobstructed access during announced onsite tours and inspections to the institutions encompassed by this Settlement Agreement; having direct access to staff and to offenders; and having the authority to request private conversations with any party hereto and their counsel.
Findings: The Department has generally been responsive to these issues. Lately, however, some data requests made to Legal have not been timely honored. In particular, this refers to the supporting data regarding structured and unstructured out-of-cell time and data related to the disciplinary process of SMI offenders.
XXVIII: REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Summary: Quarterly reports ae being prepared. The some of the content of these reports is not supported by the available data or the actual practices within IDOC.
Specific requirement: Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after the approval of the Settlement Agreement, IDOC shall submit to Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor, within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter during the life of this Settlement Agreement, a quarterly progress report (“quarterly report”) covering each subject of the Settlement Agreement. This quarterly report shall contain the following: a progress report on the implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, including hiring progress as indicated in Section IX (d), supra; a description of any problems anticipated with respect to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and any additional matters IDOC believes should be brought to the attention of the Monitor.
Findings: IDOC does provide a quarterly report. As noted above, some of its content does not appear supportable.
- 114 -

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 1646 Page 115 of 115

CONCLUSION

IDOC continues to slowly improve the quality of the mental health services offered to the offender population. Areas of improvement include: a greater number of structured out-of-cell activities are being offered to those mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation; the RTU at Joliet began accepting mentally ill offenders on 11/6/17; treatment planning at the STC at Dixon is being accomplished by a multidisciplinary staff; and, the RTU at Logan has a capacity for 118 mentally ill women offenders.

Tremendous problems exist with the quantity and quality of psychiatric services. They include: problems with the continuation of medications upon entry into IDOC; lack of timely medication follow-up; dangerous practices related to the use of medication including those offenders receiving enforced medications; problems with managing medication side effects and poor medication compliance; lack of timely psychiatric evaluations; non-participation in multidisciplinary treatment planning; not following protocols for laboratory and medical/neurological evaluations; and, lack of timely follow up for offenders in crisis beds and segregation. These problems pervade almost every aspect of IDOC’s mental health delivery system. Furthermore, the problems with the psychiatric services contribute to IDOC being found non-compliant in almost every aspect of the Settlement.

I trust that IDOC will take the experiences of the first 18 months of the Settlement Agreement to heart and move in a much more expeditious manner to address the ongoing suffering of the mentally ill offenders that have been placed in their care.

Respectfully submitted, Pablo Stewart, M.D.50

Dated: November 22, 2017

Pablo Stewart, MD

50 Indicates electronic signature

- 115 -

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 1 of 7

E-FILED
Friday, 15 November, 2019 02:42:56 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ROB JEFFREYS, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael Mihm ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DECEMBER 20, 2018 INJUNCTION AS REISSUED AND MODIFIED ON APRIL 23, 2019
Injunctions are to be obeyed unless they are stayed. The Court denied Defendants’
motion to stay the injunction, which was first issued October 30, 2018 without a remedy,
December 20, 2018 with remedy and reissued as modified on April 23, 2019. Dkt. 2460, 2516,
2579, 2633. The Court of Appeals was never asked for a stay.
We begin with the basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal. Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect.
Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458, 95 S. Ct. 584, 591 (1975). of Bahá-ís of U.S., Inc., 628
F.3d 837, 846 (7th Cir. 2010) As the Seventh Circuit explained in McNaughton v. Harmelech,
932 F3d 558, 565 (7th Cir. 2019), “regardless of whether MacNaughton agreed with the
Holderman Order, he had to follow it unless and until it was undone through proper channels,
such as reconsideration by the district judge or vacatur by us … . MacNaughton served as his

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 2 of 7
own attorney but not as his own judge.” (citing Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458, 95 S. Ct. 4. 584 (1975).)
Defendants have not obeyed this court’s injunction despite being on notice of their failure to provide constitutional care since at least the time the court issued a preliminary injunction in May 2018. The preliminary injunction itself required defendants to provide a schedule of personnel necessary to provide constitutional care. The defendants provided such a schedule on July 2018, which called for a net increase of 93.35 FTE mental health staff (consisting of administrative staff, nurses, BHTs and QMHPS) to the then-existing staffing plan. Pursuant to the permanent injunction order, Defendants again assessed staffing and, in April 2019, issued a plan calling for an additional increase to reach a total of 515.85 FTE mental health staff. The Court’s permanent injunction required staffing to meet the levels the IDOC committed to in 2014 as necessary to “deliver constitutional care,” an aggregate of 449.5 FTE1 As the IDOC admitted in its October 2019 Quarterly report Dkt. 2782; p. 1254, its total staffing is 373.338 FTE. This means the system is severely understaffed, short 75.162 FTE from the Court ordered levels and 142.5 FTE short of the IDOC’s own staffing plan. More troubling, the report of a staffing expert hired this year to assess IDOC’s staffing practices found that turnover will continue under the current system and IDOC will continue to lose upwards of a hundred staff in the coming year. Dkt. 2782, p. 3; Ex. A, p. 48.
1 These are aggregate, across-discipline staffing numbers. It should be noted however, that following the 2014 Staffing Plan, in 2016, IDOC unilaterally reduced the number of psychiatric providers it contracted for (from 85.5 to 65.75). IDOC’s more recent staffing plans have left that number at 65.75, while increasing other FTE mental health positions. While the more recent IDOC staffing plans call for aggregate increases above the 2014 staffing levels, some positions have been decreased.
-2-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 3 of 7
The IDOC cannot deliver constitutional care when it remains 152,000 hours a year short of its 2014 commitment (2000 x 76). The high historical turnover rate means that IDOC staffing levels remain basically static.
With the present staff the IDOC itself admits that 15% of the mental health population is not receiving care in the individual prison reports attached to their Compliance report. The 85% level, however, is not compliance with the Court’s order, or even substantial compliance under the Settlement Agreement. 2 Even the 85% compliance level is belied by the IDOC’s own internal audits as the auditor acknowledged: “I cannot certify that the Department has met the threshold of 85% compliance in each of the areas audited at each of the facilities” and that the compliance ratings do not assess qualify of care. IDOC Quarterly Report - Order Attachment 4, Dkt. 2781 at159-160.
The IDOC’s vendor trumpets to the world its ability to provide adequate staffing: “Thanks to our dedicated internal staffing department and our innovative recruitment programs, Wexford Health is the industry leader in position fill rates throughout the country. This allows us not only to maintain continuity and quality of patient care, but also to control labor costs by minimizing our use of expensive Agency personnel.” Ex. B. Yet, the IDOC has been grossly understaffed for at least 8 years.
The Court’s monitor Pablo Stewart has opined that the Department is not in compliance with the Court’s injunction Order in his July 2019 Report on compliance with the injunction: “As noted in the body of this report, the Department still has a long way to go to be in substantial
2 Under the Settlement Agreement, Sect. II (t), “[t]he Defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exact terms of the Agreement. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance can be found for obligations imposed under this Settlement Agreement either IDOC-wide or at specific facilities.”
-3-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 4 of 7
compliance with the Court’s Orders. Staffing remains a critical roadblock to the Department’s ability to be in substantial compliance.” Dkt. 2715 at 27. Vital Care Health Strategies, a new expert hired by the IDOC as part of the Court of Appeals mediation process, has confirmed that the Department has inadequate staff in the five key facilities Vital examined: Pontiac, Logan, Dixon, Joliet and Pinckneyville.
Logan is staffed at 56%: “A consistent message heard from employees at all levels is that they are significantly understaffed.” Pontiac is at 48%: “With the current staffing levels, staff report they are barely covering the basics. Some staff report that they were fully staffed one year ago, but they lost 13 MH staff in about 6 months. It was reported that Pontiac lost 32 people in a 3year period.” Dixon is at 64%: Joliet is at 77.5%: Pinckneyville is at 80.3%: Ex. A, pp. 10, 12, 18, 19, 24, 27, 33, 40. The IDOC acknowledges that the various backlogs persist. Dkt. 2781, p. 3, 5, 7-8. Inmates on crisis care are neither treated nor promptly removed from crisis care. Inmates in segregation are not provided with required mental health care. Accounts of Class Members and Plaintiffs’ counsels’ monitoring visits have also confirmed that little progress is being made in the actual delivery of the much needed care required by the Court’s Order. Class Members are suffering from the impact of the staffing vacancies and frequent turnover of clinical staff. They receive far too little mental health treatment: virtually no one receives one-on-one therapy. Instead, groups – which are not helpful or appropriate for all patients – are the only method of therapy. Pinckneyville and Pontiac (which together have custody of more than 1500 Class Members) have recently reduced group therapy. What treatment is provided is often poor
-4-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 5 of 7
in quality; many of the groups are non-substantive and psychiatry continues to be plagued with serious medication mismanagement. Plaintiffs have reported these observations to the IDOC.
Subjective good faith of the IDOC is not a defense to contempt. “Parties cannot be insulated from a finding of civil contempt based on their subjective good faith.” Taggart v. Lorensen, 139 S.Ct. 1795 (2019). The Illinois Department of Corrections has no more right to ignore this Court’s orders than Mr. MacNaughton had to ignore Judge Holderman’s order.
The injunction has not been obeyed as to staffing, crisis care, segregation, medication management and treatment planning.
The parties’ settlement agreement contemplates the failure to comply with an enforcement order.
“If Plaintiffs contend that defendants have not complied with an order entered under the preceding paragraph, they may, after reasonable notice and a meeting with defendants, move for further relief from the Court to obtain compliance with the Court’s prior orders.” Amended Settlement XXIX (i). Notice was given to Defendants of Plaintiffs’ intention to move for civil contempt as to the IDOC’s failure to comply with the Court’s order as attested to by the Court’s monitor in his July 17, 2019 report; confirmed by the more recent VitalCore report; and witnessed by Plaintiffs throughout this period. See Ex. C, Sept. 27, 2019, letter. The parties met on October 12 pursuant to that notice as required by the Settlement Agreement. The IDOC made no concrete proposals then, or since, to create a prompt path to achieve compliance with the Court’s injunction. The time has come to hold the IDOC in contempt for its failure to obey this Court’s December 20, 2018 and April 23, 2019 injunction orders. We believe settled principles of
-5-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 6 of 7

contempt law permit the court to find the Department in contempt. The rule of law requires that finding of contempt.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By:

/s/ Harold C. Hirshman

One of the attorneys for Plaintiffs

Harold C. Hirshman (ARDC# 1226290) DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 Facsimile: (312) 876-7934 harold.hirshman@dentons.com
Amanda Antholt Samantha Reed Equip for Equality, Inc. Suite 300 20 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 341-0022 (phone) (312) 541-7544 (fax) amanda@equipforequality.org Samantha@equipforequality.org

Alan Mills Nicole Schult Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alan@uplcchicago.org Nicole@uplcchicago.org

-6-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2790 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on this 15th of November 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR CONTEMPT was served upon counsel of record via the Court’s electronic case filing system.
/s/ Harold C. Hirshman Harold C. Hirshman

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 1 of 8

E-FILED
Friday, 16 August, 2019 03:59:04 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH ) ) Judge Michael M. Mihm ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ JULY QUARTERLY REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

On July 23, 2019, Defendants submitted their second required quarterly report

regarding compliance with this Court’s injunctive relief order.

The compliance picture is dismal. The Court’s Order required 182 new Full Time

Equivalent (FTE) clinical mental health staff, but since August 2018 the system has

added only 13.4. It should be obvious that the even more significant hiring required by

IDOC’s own July 2018 Staffing Plan and its latest April 2019 Staffing Plan of 515.85

FTEs, have not been reached. Staffing is stalled in the 350 FTE range. More than half of

IDOC facilities are missing a quarter or more of the staff needed to provide care.

Unfortunately, the Court’s Order to increase staffing levels has not achieved that result

any more than did the IDOC’s own solemn commitments.

This summary chart shows the numbers required by the Court Order compared to

those reported as filled in Defendants’ Attachment 1, July 22, 2019 WHS Staffing Plan

Update.1

1 The numbers used here for the filled WHS staff, taken from the July 22, 2019 WHS report (Quarterly Report Attachment 1) are slightly higher than the numbers contained on the WHS June 30,

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 2 of 8

Site MH Service Dir.

MH Unit Director

Staff Psychologist

QMHP

BHT

RNMH

Staff Assistant

DON Psychiatrist Psych
Nurse

Rec. Therapist

Court Order

7

Filled WHS

FTEs as of

7

Aug. 2018

Filled WHS

FTEs as of July 22,

7

2019

12

16

142.5 102 54.5

24

85.5

1

5

4

13.03

115 64 20

54

49.86

2

5

4

12.325

105 82 24.5

53

54.438

2

3

Once again the Defendants point to the pipeline of newly hired (but not started) staff to fulfill their obligations, but this last year demonstrates yet again that the pipeline fails to fill the bucket. If the new hires in the pipeline could be relied upon, the 2014 staffing plan would have been surpassed years ago. The increase in filled positions of only 13.4 demonstrates that not all of these individuals actually go to work in our facilities and many other staff continue to leave the system. The holes in the bucket have not been filled, and the system continues to lose as many, or more, than it hires.
Defendants’ report also does not give an accurate picture of the vacancies on a facility level. Six of the ten facilities that Defendants say have no clinical vacancies, do in

2019 Report (Attachment 5) used in Defendants’ summary chart in the Quarterly Report, at a total of 347.26 FTEs. The specific numbers of filled positions tend to go up and down from month to month. The July 22, 2019 report shows slightly more BHTs, nurses, and recreational therapists, but losses of Clinical Psychologists, a Unit Director, Psychiatric Providers, and a QMHP from the June 30, 2019 Report.
Defendants also rely upon IDOC clinical staff, summarized in Attachment 2, to increase their staffing numbers. Plaintiffs focus here on the WHS staffing, as was the focus at trial, and because Plaintiffs are not clear on the nature and function of these state employees. At least some of these state positions are in administrative positions and, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, do not regularly provide direct patient care as part of their job function.
-2-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 3 of 8

fact have vacancies.2 Defendants say ten other facilities have one or fewer vacancies, but

that is only true for three of those facilities.3 Even the vacancies at those three facilities

are important impediments to care. While “only” one vacancy at Decatur may appear

insignificant on paper, it leaves only 3.2 clinical staff available for a mental health

caseload of 508 women. Jacksonville is allocated 3.75 budgeted positions for its caseload

of 209, so a vacancy of .45 psychiatrists is quite meaningful. Even the 0.125 vacancies at

Kewaunee, means 50% of that facility’s budgeted mental health positions are vacant.

Behind each of these vacancies, no matter how “small” on paper, are many Class

Members who are not receiving care they need.

Listed below are all of the facilities with their actual number of vacant budgeted

positions. Those without any vacancies are highlighted in blue. Those with more than a

quarter of the budgeted positions vacant are highlighted in red.

Facility: Big Muddy River Centralia Danville Decatur Dixon East Moline Elgin Graham Hill Illinois River Jacksonville JTC Kewaunee Lawrence Lincoln Logan Menard Murphysboro Pinckneyville

Number of Vacancies 4 3 2.75 1 26.5 0 6 2.3 1 4 0.45 15.15 .175 3.25 1 33.26 17.5 0 6.98

Total # of MH Staff 10.5 7 9 4.2 42.5 3.75 21 11 12 12.25 3.75 65 .3 18.5 3.5 77 35 2.25 22.5

2 Centralia, Elgin, Hill, Lincoln, Stateville NRC and Vienna. (See Attach. 1 to Quarterly Report.) 3 Decatur, Jacksonville and Kewaunee. (See Attach. 1 to Quarterly Report.)

-3-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 4 of 8

Pontiac Robinson Shawnee Sheridan Southwestern Stateville Stateville NRC Taylorville Vandalia Vienna Western

23.7 1.5 3.7 0 .2 8.450 2 1.5 0 2 4.2

46 5 10.425 7.25 2.45 27 18 5 5 4.5 10.7

For Dixon, Menard and Pontiac – each of which houses large populations of SMI Class Members – the vacancies are 50% or more of their budgeted mental health staff that IDOC has contracted for with Wexford.
The Monitor’s July 22, 2019, Report on Compliance with the Injunctive Orders, finds that the Defendants have failed to implement the Court’s order in each of the five substantive areas, as well as in staffing. (ECF No. 2715.)
Substantial backlogs persist in the three areas reported by IDOC. As of July 5, 2019, mental health evaluations were backlogged by 440 appointments, treatment planning by 557, and psychiatric appointments by 667. By way of comparison, as of the permanent injunction trial, Defendants showed backlogs of 194 in mental health evaluations, 682 in treatment planning, and 809 in psychiatry. (DX-1D, 8/17/18.)
Defendants’ own quality assurance audit (Quarterly Report, Attachment 4), posits 85% as full compliance. Plaintiffs reject that notion. Failing to deliver care to 15% of the mental health caseload – nearly two thousand people – is simply unacceptable. Plaintiffs’ counsel continue to meet and correspond with Class Members, as well as tour facilities. Most recently, Plaintiffs’ counsel toured Logan’s mental health units (July 10th),

-4-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 5 of 8
Pontiac’s South Mental Health Unit (July 16th), and Dixon’s X-House (August 14th) speaking with Class Members in those units about the care they are receiving.
Unfortunately, as in Plaintiffs’ May 15, 2019 status report (EFC No. 2647), these visits continue to confirm that little progress is being made in the actual delivery of much needed care. Class Members are suffering from the impact of the staffing vacancies and frequent turnover of clinical staff. They receive far too little mental health treatment: virtually no one receives any one-on-one therapy. Instead, groups – which are not useful or appropriate for all patients – are the sole vehicle for any sort of therapy. What treatment is provided is often poor in quality; many of the groups are non-substantive and psychiatry continues to be plagued with serious medication mismanagement.
Our observations lead us to believe that the Court’s directives for mental health care in crisis and segregation, medication management, treatment planning and evaluations are not being followed. The only bright spot is that Plaintiffs have observed increases in structured out-of-cell time for Class Members in segregation for more than 60 days. Although why Defendants continue to keep mentally ill prisoners in segregation for such an extended period remains a mystery given the uncontested evidence that such long term segregation is harmful.
At Pontiac, however, security staff are interfering with the provision of out-of-cell time in numerous ways, including by limiting the number Class Members who can attend groups thereby making it impossible to provide adequate out-of-cell time, since there are not enough staff to run additional groups.
At both Pontiac and Dixon, we encountered many Class Members who appeared to be deteriorating or exhibiting symptoms of mental illness, including a number of
-5-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 6 of 8
individuals with open wounds from recent self-harm (even while on watch). Despite their deterioration, these Class Members were not being provided with any additional care and out-of-cell time.
Although the Treatment Plan forms appear to be updated more often than previously, they remain largely generic and ineffective. Class Members most frequently report that their treatment plans are not helpful because they are either not individualized or are simply not followed. At Dixon’s X-House, Class Members consistently report that they only see their Treatment Plan when the QMHPs present them at cell-front for signature. Those on crisis watch are told they have to sign the plan in order to get off of crisis.
Alarmingly, Logan, Pontiac and Dixon continue to ignore the permanent injunction and only provide people on crisis watch with one daily session with a QMHP and a psychiatric referral. On weekends, those sessions are still only a brief, cell-front check. Many prisoners on crisis watches are suffering and are often on crisis watch for weeks at time, yet they receive no treatment other than the brief daily sessions, which are not consistent with the Court’s Order. At Dixon’s X-House, on August 14, 2019, multiple class members who have been on crisis watch for weeks reported that when they ask to speak to the counselor (outside of their daily 15 minute session), they are denied because they “are already on watch.” Apparently, no treatment beyond the watch placement itself is available, even in the face of further deterioration while on watch.
In addition to lack of treatment for people on crisis watch, at Logan we observed several women who were placed on watch because of their request for medication, but without a co-occurring severe mental decompensation. This is a direct violation of the
-6-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 7 of 8
express terms of Sect. 2(a) of Court’s Order, limiting the use of crisis watch to when no other less restrictive treatment options exist.
At both Pontiac and Dixon, we found multiple Class Members who were on crisis watches either continuously for many months, or on-and-off again for the better part of the last year, and were not moved to a higher level of care. They also were not receiving the more aggressive treatment required for anyone on a short term crisis watch under Section’s 2(b)(d) and (g) of this Court’s Order.
Staffing Plans: In addition to meeting the 2014 staffing levels, the Court Order, Sect. 1(c), required Defendants to submit a new staffing plan. Defendants submitted their new staffing plan in April, which gives a significant increase in clinical staff hours overall. (Quarterly Report, at 2 and Attach. 2 at 64-65.) That plan decreases the number of required psychiatrists, while increasing other clinical providers such as psychologists and QMHPs. On April 24, 2019, the Monitoring team submitted a facility-by-facility staffing analysis recommending additional staff. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs provided Defendants and the Monitor with their position and objections to parts of IDOC’s 2019 Staffing Plan based on review of the plan together with the Monitor’s recommendations and all available facility data. A copy of Plaintiff’s response to the proposed staffing plan is attached as Exhibit A. Section 1(b) gave Defendants 180 days to submit a report as to whether their staffing is sufficient. Section 1(d) of the Court’s Order states that, after the report, the
-7-

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2739 Page 8 of 8

Court will consider whether any modification to the Defendants’ staffing is necessary, which Plaintiffs believe will necessitate a hearing.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Harold C. Hirshman DENTONS US LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 Facsimile: (312) 876-7934 harold.hirshman@dentons.com

/s/ Harold C. Hirshman One of the attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Mills Nicole Schult Uptown People’s Law Center 4413 N Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769-1410 (phone) alan@uplcchicago.org nicole@uplcchicago.org

Marc R. Kadish Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 701-8747 (phone) (312) 706-8774 (fax) mkadish@mayerbrown.com

Barry C. Taylor Laura J. Miller Amanda Antholt Samantha R. Reed Equip for Equality 200 N. Michigan Ave. , Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 341-0022 (phone) (312) 541-7544 (fax) amanda@equipforequality.org samantha@equipforequality.org

-8-

 
 1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 1 of 27

E-FILED
Monday, 22 July, 2019 01:49:51 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

ASHOOR RASHO et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
DIRECTOR JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1298-MMM-JEH

)

)

)

Judge Michael M. Mihm

)

)

Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.

)

Hawley

)

)

)

REPORT OF MONITOR CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH INJUNCTION ORDERS

1

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 2 of 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND……………………………………………………… 3 METHODOLOGY/MONITORING ACTIVITIES……………………3 COMPLIANCE RATINGS………………………………………….... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………….....4 DETAILED FINDINGS………………………………………………. 6 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS AT THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT. 8 OF CORRECTIONS. CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PLACED ON A MENTAL………... 10 HEALTH CRISIS WATCH. CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PLACED IN SEGREGATION……. 14 CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESCRIBED PSYCHOTROPIC… 19 MEDICATION. TREATMENT PLANS………………………………………………...23 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS…………………………………...27 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………. 27
2

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 3 of 27
BACKGROUND_______________________________________________________________
The Court has entered several orders regarding the Rasho matter. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent injunction and entered an Order finding that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the mental health needs of mentally ill inmates in custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court deferred entering specific injunctive relief, instead allowing Defendants an opportunity to submit a proposal to address their constitutional deficiencies. On November 13, 2018, Defendants submitted their proposed remedy order. On November 20, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted their memorandum in support of their proposed remedy order. On December 4, 2018 Defendants submitted their reply. On December 13, 2018, the above motions and proposed orders came before the Court for oral argument. The Court entered an order on December 20, 2018 specifying five areas of constitutional violation:
• Staffing requirements at the Illinois Department of Corrections • Class members who are placed on mental health crisis watch • Class members who are placed in segregation • Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication • Treatment plans
The Court also ordered “The appointed independent monitor, Dr. Pablo Stewart, will monitor the Defendants’ compliance with this Order consistent with the monitor’s existing duties and functions.” This report is submitted to comply with this portion of the Court’s Order.
The Court has subsequently entered several Orders regarding this matter: February 26, 2019; March 19, 2019, and; March 28, 2019. The Seventh Circuit issued an order on April 15, 2019. Finally, the Court issued an Order on April 23, 2019 “to memorialize the Court’s Orders dated October 30, 2018, December 20, 2018 and February 26, 2019. This report follows the requirements listed in the April 23, 2019 Order.
METHODOLOGY / MONITORING ACTIVITIES_________________________________
This report was prepared and submitted by Pablo Stewart, MD, Virginia Morrison, JD, Reena Kapoor, MD, and Miranda Gibson, MA.
To accomplish the monitoring obligations, the monitoring team sought information in a variety of ways. The monitoring team conducted 18 site visits of 15 different IDOC facilities, where interviews of administrators, staff, and offenders were conducted. While on site, the monitoring team would meet with the administrative and clinical leadership of the facility and then tour the facility. The tour would include observing general population units, segregated housing units, crisis care units, infirmary areas including medical records and restraint rooms, working spaces for the clinical staff, group therapy areas (if present), as well as any other area associated with the provision of mental health services. The monitoring team also toured the Residential Treatment Units at Logan, Joliet and Dixon. The team also requested and analyzed systemwide data, and a sampling of health care or master file records, as to some requirements.
3

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 4 of 27

1. Danville 2/13/19

Ms. Gibson

2. Decatur

4/2/19

Ms. Gibson

3. Dixon

2/7-2/8/19 Dr. Kapoor

4. East Moline 4/8/19

Ms. Gibson

5. Elgin

1/16/19

Dr. Stewart

6. Graham

2/22/19

Ms. Gibson & Dr. Stewart

7. Illinois River 3/4-3/6/19 Ms. Morrison

8. Joliet

3/22/19

Dr. Stewart

9. Logan

12/27/18 Ms. Gibson & Dr. Stewart

10. Menard

1/8/19

Ms. Gibson & Dr. Stewart

11. Robinson 3/6/19

Ms. Gibson

12. NRC

3/21/19

Ms. Gibson & Dr. Stewart

13. Western

1/28/19

Ms. Gibson & Dr. Stewart

14. Pinckneyville 6/13/19

Ms. Gibson

15. Pontiac

12/28/18 Dr. Stewart

1/22-1/24/19 Ms. Morrison

3/22/19

Dr. Stewart

6/25/19

Ms. Gibson

COMPLIANCE RATINGS______________________________________________________
The following compliance ratings will be applied in this report:
• Substantial Compliance: The defendants will be in substantial compliance with the terms of the Court Orders if they perform its essential, material components even in the absence of strict compliance with the exacts terms of the Court Orders. Substantial compliance shall refer to instances in which any violations are minor or occasional and are neither systemic nor serious. Substantial compliance will be found only for the Department as a whole and not for individual facilities.
• Partial Compliance: “Partial Compliance” is defined as making substantial progress on a particular requirement without fully meeting the rigorous obligations of the Court Orders.
• Non-Compliance: This rating will be applied if the defendants’ do not satisfy the definitions of substantial compliance or partial compliance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY______________________________________________________
This report covers the period from 12/20/18 through 6/20/19. The Department is found to be non-compliant in the following areas: staffing, crisis watch, segregation and treatment plans. The major contributing factor to these non-compliance ratings is the lack of an adequate number of staff. The following is a summary of the findings for crisis watch, segregation, treatment plans

4

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 5 of 27
and medications:
• Crisis Watch: Crisis watches are being used for the correct patient population but the stays are not consistently employed for the shortest duration possible. Appropriate mental health treatment to protect against decompensation is still lacking. A daily, 20-minute visit with an MHP, when it occurs, is not sufficient to protect against decompensation given the austere nature of crisis watches. Reasonable treatment reevaluations were generally not occurring. Daily, confidential meetings with an MHP are becoming more common although certain facilities still struggle to consistently meet this requirement. Reviewing the treatment plan with the patient is occurring more consistently but the content of these discharge treatment plans doesn’t always contain the required elements. Significant numbers of patients exceed an acceptable length of stay without a plan for transfer to a higher level of care. Sufficient, documented out-of-cell time does not consistently occur. Finally, excessive delays in accomplishing an actual transfer remain a problem when an offender is referred to a higher level of care.
• Segregation: The Department is more consistently performing evaluations of class members who are transferred to segregation. Reviewing treatment plans of class members who are transferred to segregation is not consistently occurring throughout the Department. Weekly rounds are generally occurring although plaintiffs’ counsel expressed their concerns regarding the professional level of the staff who are actually performing the rounds. Continuation of class members’ mental health treatment plan with such treatment as necessary to protect from any decompensation is not occurring.
• Treatment plans: Treatment planning continues to be a problematic area for the Department. Although some improvement in treatment planning has occurred, the Department remains very far from meeting the requirements of the Court’s Orders. A major impediment is the fact that there still is a backlog of uncompleted treatment plans. Treatment planning is very staff intensive. The ongoing lack of an adequate number of mental health staff prevents the Department from ever being substantially compliant with this requirement.
Mental health evaluations are equally problematic. Backlogs exist and the Department’s largest Receiving and Classification Unit, NRC, is unable to perform all necessary mental health evaluations due to a lack of staff.
• Psychotropic Medication: Timely psychiatric follow up for class members prescribed psychotropic medications is not consistently occurring. A significant contributing factor to this deficiency is the presence of a backlog of psychiatric follow up visits at certain facilities. Medication distribution remains problematic, notwithstanding the Department’s efforts to improve it. The charting of side effects, medication efficacy, laboratory monitoring and compliance monitoring is improved over previous reviews but much more improvement is needed to be in substantial compliance. Although the overall tenor of this
5

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 6 of 27

summary sounds very negative, the Department is much improved in this area since monitoring began in May 2016.
The rating for the psychotropic medication section falls somewhere between noncompliance and partial compliance. The overall quality of psychiatric care regarding the use of psychotropic medication continues to improve under the leader of the Chief of Psychiatry, Dr. Puga.
Of note, the Department is meeting all of the requirements of section 6, Compliance Requirements.
The Monitor has met with Director Jeffries and has been assured that the Department will be creating corrective action plans based on the findings of the Monitoring Team’s reports. As Monitor, I am confident that this new approach will greatly hasten the Department’s progress in meeting the requirements of the Court’s Orders.

A summary of compliance findings is as follows:

Requirement
1: STAFFING REQUIREMENTS AT THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
1(a) 1(b) 1(c) 1(d)
2: CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PLACED ONA MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS WATCH
2(a) 2(b) 2(c) 2(d) 2(e) 2(f) 2(g)
3: CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PLACED IN SEGREGATION

Compliance Status
Overall: Non-compliance
Subfindings supporting overall findings:
Non-compliance Non-compliance Substantial compliance No rating assigned
Overall: Non-compliance
Subfindings supporting overall findings:
Partial compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance
Overall: Non-compliance

6

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 7 of 27

3(a) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d)(i) 3(d)(ii) 3(d)(iii) 3(d)(iv) 3(d)(v) 3(d)(vi) 3(e) 3(f) 3(g)

Subfindings supporting overall findings: Partial compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Non-compliance Substantial compliance Non-Compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Non-compliance

4: CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESCRIBED PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION

Overall: Non-compliance/partial compliance Subfindings supporting overall findings:

4(a) 4(b)(i) 4(b)(ii) 4(b)(iii) 4(b)(iv) 4(b)(v) 4(b)(vi)

Non-compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance No rating Non-compliance

5: TREATMENT PLANS

Overall: Non-compliance

5(a) 5(b) 5(c) _____________________________________ 6: COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Subfindings supporting overall findings: Non-compliance Non-compliance Partial compliance _____________________________________ Overall: Substantial Compliance

Subfindings supporting overall findings:

6(a)

Substantial compliance

6(b)

Substantial compliance

6(c)

Substantial compliance

7

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 8 of 27
1: STAFFING REQUIREMENTS AT THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Summary: The lack of adequate numbers of mental health staff prevents the Department from fully meeting the requirements of the April 23, 2019 Order. Per the requirements of this Order, the Department is only compliant with submitting a proposed amended staffing plan to the parties, Monitor and the Court. The Monitoring Team is also aware that a professional staffing analysis is underway in the Department. The Monitoring Team is working very closely with the professional staffing analysis personnel and will be reviewing their findings before it is submitted to the Court. Finally, the Monitoring Team is aware that negotiations regarding staffing are ongoing between the parties.
1(a): Specific requirement: Within 90 days of this order, Defendants must employ additional staff sufficient to meet the staffing requirements of their 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan.
Finding: The Defendants submitted a report to the Court on April 23, 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Court’s Order dated December 20, 2018. In this report, Defendants outline their opinions regarding their obligations to and compliance with the Court Order of December 20, 2018. Regarding 1(a) the Defendants report:
“The Order requires the defendants to employ staffing to the level of the “2014 Remedial Staffing Plan” within 90 days of the Order. Defendants have noted that the full “2014 Remedial Staffing Plan” is not in evidence and particular staffing levels from the 2014 Staffing Plan are not contained in the Court’s Order. Defendants believe the 2014 Staffing Plan called for 450.75 full-time equivalent (FTE) mental health positions through the Department’s facilities. The Department works with its vendor, Wexford, to assign the appropriate number of mental health staff to its facilities. As of March 31, 2019, Wexford employed 373.27 FTEs, in additional to prn (as needed) staff.”
IDOC has not met the requirements of 1(a). Within 90 days of the Court’s Order, IDOC has not employed 450.75 FTE mental health positions as called for in the 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan. A rating of non-compliance will be assigned to this subsection.
1(b): Specific requirement: Within 120 days of this order, Defendants shall evaluate whether their staffing plan is sufficient to provide mental health treatment consistent with constitutional law in the areas of treatment planning, medication management, mental health care on crisis watches, mental health care in segregation, and mental health evaluations.
Finding: The Defendants submitted a report to the Court on April 23, 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Court’s Order dated December 20, 2018. In this report, Defendants outline their opinions regarding their obligations to and compliance with the Court Order of December 20, 2018. Regarding 1(b) the Defendants report:
“Although the Department believes it has the staffing and procedures in place to protect mentally ill prisoners from substantial harm and to comply with minimal constitutional requirements, the Department and Wexford have complied with this portion of the
8

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 9 of 27
Court’s Order by conducting a detailed evaluation of current mental health staffing levels to identify the number of additional positions the Department would like to have in place to enhance its delivery of constitutional care and make it easier for staff to meet not only minimal constitutional requirements, but also to meet all of the requirements provided in the Department’s Standard Operating Procedures Manual and Administrative Directives pertaining to mental health care.”
IDOC has not complied with 1(b). In their April 23, 2019 response to the Court, the Department refers to “minimal constitutional requirements” as well as meeting the requirements of the Standard Operating Procedures Manual and Administrative Directives. No specific mention is made about providing mental health treatment consistent with constitutional law in the areas of treatment planning, medication management, mental health care on crisis watches, mental health care in segregation, and mental health evaluations. Of note, the backlog data as of June 14, 2019 reveals:
• 479 treatment plans backlogged • 679 medication visits backlogged • 387 mental health evaluations backlogged • The Department does not provide backlog data for:
o Mental health care on crisis watches o Mental health care in segregation The presence of this backlog contradicts the Department’s opinion that “it has staffing and procedures in place to protect mentally ill prisoners from substantial harm and to comply with minimal constitutional requirements.
IDOC will be found non-compliant with 1(b) until such time as they address the backlogs that exist and the specific concerns of the Court.
1(c): Specific requirement: Within 180 days of this order, Defendants shall report their findings and submit a proposed amended staffing plan to the Court, the monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel.
Finding: The Defendants submitted a report to the Court on April 23, 2019 pursuant to paragraph 6(a) of the Court’s Order dated December 20, 2018. In this report, Defendants outline their opinions regarding their obligations to and compliance with the Court Order of December 20, 2018. Regarding 1(c) the Defendants report:
“The Court ordered IDOC to provide its findings and proposed staffing plan to the Court, monitor and parties within 180 days of the order. The Department provided its new staffing plan to the appellate court mediator and plaintiffs’ counsel on April 5, 2019. The plan was provided to the monitor on April 9, 2019.
The defendants have met the requirements of 1(c). Please note, a rating of substantial compliance does not imply approval of the Department’s proposed staffing plan.
1(d): Specific requirement: After the report, the Court will consider if any modification to the Defendants’ staffing is necessary.
9

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 10 of 27
Finding: No rating assigned.
2: CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PLACED ON A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS WATCH
Summary: Crisis watches are being used for the correct patient population but the stays are not consistently employed for the shortest duration possible. Appropriate mental health treatment to protect against decompensation is still lacking. A daily, 20-minute visit with an MHP, when it occurs, is not sufficient to protect against decompensation given the austere nature of crisis watches. Reasonable treatment reevaluations were generally not occurring. Daily, confidential meetings with an MHP are becoming more common although certain facilities still struggle to consistently meet this requirement. Reviewing the treatment plan with the patient is occurring more consistently but the content of these discharge treatment plans doesn’t always contain the required elements. Significant numbers of patients exceed an acceptable length of stay without a plan for transfer to a higher level of care. Sufficient, documented out-of-cell time does not consistently occur. Finally, excessive delays in accomplishing an actual transfer remain a problem when an offender is referred to a higher level of care.
2(a): Specific requirement: Crisis watches should only be used for patients exhibiting behavior dangerous to self or others as a result of mental illness and may only be ordered upon a finding by an appropriately trained and licensed mental health professional that no other less restrictive treatment is appropriate. When used, crisis watches are to be employed for the shortest duration possible.
Finding: It is the monitoring team’s experience that crisis watches are consistently used for patients exhibiting dangerousness to themselves or others, or who are gravely disabled. An admission is always ordered by an MHP; the monitoring team has not encountered examples of crisis watch being used when less restrictive treatment would have been preferable.
In a substantial number of cases, however, it is not clear that the duration of the crisis watch was the shortest possible. The Settlement Agreement sets an expectation that these admissions will be 10 days or less, a threshold commonly used by prison systems for this type of treatment setting. Crisis watch logs indicate that 14% of crisis watches exceeded that threshold.1 There are circumstances in which this is reasonable for some patients, but it is one factor to consider when deciding whether stays are the shortest duration possible.
A few of these were explained by patients waiting for a higher-level care after staff made a timely referral. There was another subset, however, where staff did not initiate referrals until weeks or months into the crisis admission; these stays were problematic and certainly not the shortest duration possible. 2 See below for more discussion of referrals.
1 This analysis is based on a review of 4 months (January through April 2019) of crisis watch logs from all IDOC institutions except Elgin. Thus, this analysis considered 2,145 crisis watches. It seems unlikely that Elgin should be expected to keep its crisis watches to 10 days since there is no higher level of care to which Elgin can refer. It is not feasible to assess, at any scale, whether stays less than 10 days are the shortest possible for those individuals. 2 Times to referral ranged from 1 to 58 days. In 14 cases, the time to initiate exceeded two weeks and the most typical times fell in the 3- to 5-week range.
10

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 11 of 27
Most disturbing were the 61 people who stayed in crisis watch one month or more; these presumptively fail to meet the standard set in 2(a) and are an inappropriate use of this treatment setting. Rather, these patients require a higher level of care. This practice was widespread, occurring at 12 institutions, though it was most prevalent at Dixon, Pontiac, and Stateville. Shockingly, among that group, 8 patients were in this setting for 3 months to more than 1 year.
Thus, 3% of the crisis watches in this period definitely were not the shortest duration possible—indeed, most were very troubling lengths—and there are indicia that this population could be as much as 14%.
2(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall provide appropriate mental health treatment to stabilize the symptoms and protect against decompensation.
Finding: IDOC clinicians continue their practice of daily MHP meetings with the patient, and IDOC leadership has strongly encouraged that these be longer interactions so that more substantial treatment can take place. During the monitoring team’s visits, the team observed contacts ranging from 5 to 40 minutes, though most typically they followed IDOC’s directive of 20 minutes or more. The content of the contacts varied quite a bit; some provided therapeutic guidance to stabilize symptoms and protect against decompensation, but many still resembled an assessment alone.
IDOC has also brought attention to increasing psychiatry contacts during crisis watch, a welcome addition. In the systemwide, four-month crisis watch study cited above, 28% of patients saw a psychiatric provider by the day after admission, the standard the Monitor would expect for a crisis setting. Another 34% were seen within one week. There were indications that other patients were not seen until weeks into the admission, or had no contact at all, but this could not be quantified.3 At some institutions,4 psychiatric contact appeared only to occur at the discharge decision, so did not seemingly affect the course of care in crisis watch.
Treatment planning did not do much to support the provision of treatment to stabilize symptoms and protect against decompensation. IDOC has put significant work into treatment planning in the last year and improvement is evident, but there is further to go. The monitoring team reviewed treatment plans during each site visit. Additionally, the team conducted a systemwide study of 299 recent crisis watch treatment plans.5 It revealed that nearly every patient received a new treatment plan on admission, but these were not decided by a multidisciplinary team, a minority identified patient-specific problems and goals, and, for treatment, nearly all merely named the standard number of contacts but said nothing about what the treatment would be or how the clinician and patient would move toward meeting the goals. Multidisciplinary
3 A great deal of the admissions could not be analyzed because this data was not captured or the log recorded information from outside the crisis watch period. 4 This was particularly evident at East Moline, Menard, and Shawnee. 5 The sample was drawn from all 26 institutions that had crisis watches in February 2019. The sample consisted of all crisis watches, or a sample reportedly chosen by random selection method, depending on the number of watches at an institution. An additional set was provided to demonstrate updates during lengths of stay longer than one week. The sample total was 147 watches; since most patients had more than one treatment plan during the watch, 299 plans were reviewed.
11

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 12 of 27
engagement in treatment planning improved to over half in those crisis watches lasting more than one week, though documents had the same content problems.
2(c): Specific requirement: Reevaluations of treatment and medication will occur as needed and mental health treatment shall be determined and any necessary interventions to stabilize individuals shall occur.
Finding: In the 299-treatment plan study described above, the approaches did not appear to change over time, nor to respond to the fact that the patient had been in this acute setting for weeks or months (in applicable cases). In onsite chart reviews, MHP progress notes almost never captured reevaluations of treatment for patients with extended stays. Psychiatric reevaluations were evident more often, though they were in the minority as well. 6
2(d): Specific requirement: Daily assessment in a confidential setting of the patient's progress to determine if the patient is moving towards stability, whether other or additional treatments are indicated, or if transfer to a higher level of care is required.
Finding: Daily MHP meetings continue with the patients.7 The monitoring team’s review of 11 facilities8 determined that the overwhelming majority of daily crisis contacts were conducted in confidential settings. The monitoring team has noted a decrease in cell side contacts, which previously were an accepted method for delivering mental health services. Menard has installed glass doors/windows in the interview rooms which greatly facilitates confidentiality between the mentally ill offenders and the mental health staff.
The meetings the team observed do tend to take the form of assessment, and progress notes were nearly universal in noting whether the patient was moving toward stability. Consideration of additional treatment needs, or methods used to address them, were much less common in the documentation, and progress notes almost never showed consideration of a higher level of care.
2(e): Specific requirement: Prior to discharge from crisis watch, a multidisciplinary team (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan.
Finding: Requirement removed in the February 2019 Order.
2(e): Specific requirement: No later than at the time of discharge from crisis watch, an appropriate mental health professional (with the patient) shall review and update the treatment plan which will apply after discharge from crisis watch. The updated treatment plan will address causes which led to the deterioration and the plan for risk management to prevent relapse.
6 This is based on stays of 8 days or more, assuming that reevaluations may not have been necessary in stays shorter than that. 7 Notably, there were gaps in the daily contacts for half of the reviewed admissions at Illinois River, and in 20% of those reviewed at Pontiac. 8 East Moline, Menard, Stateville-NRC, Dixon, Pontiac, Western, Robinson, Graham, Decatur, Illinois River, and Danville. These are the institutions visited since this Order was issued.
12

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 13 of 27

Finding: The language of this requirement was updated, as indicated in italics, in the February 2019 Order. For the most part, staff updated treatment plans for discharge, but there were notable exceptions. In the systemwide study described above, 12% of discharged patients apparently had no plans created at that time.

In terms of addressing the causes of admission and preventing relapse, there is some improvement but there is further to go. On problems and goals, 32% of the plans captured these well.9 Another 28% were adequate but had minimal content and minimal tailoring to the patient. Fully 40% were insufficient. These reflected issues such as missing a key problem of the patient’s, omitting goals altogether, content that appeared unrelated to the patient, and boilerplate that would not appear to assist in treating the patient. The interventions described in the plans lagged much further behind. Here, only 19% in the study captured these well, and another 7% were adequate. The vast majority were insufficient. This principally took the form of naming the Rasho-required contacts but not discussing what treatment would take place during them. Some omitted one or more of the problems that led to the crisis watch, contained content inapplicable to that patient, or omitted interventions altogether.

The monitoring team used onsite chart reviews to assess whether staff reviewed the updated plans with the patients. It appeared that patients universally were informed of their discharge treatment plans, based on the monitoring team observing the patient’s participation, a progress note describing it, and/or the patient’s signature on the plan.

2(f): Specific requirement: For anyone who does not stabilize sufficiently to be discharged from crisis watch, the treatment team must establish a plan to provide a higher level of care, which may include transfer to a higher level of care facility, or explain in writing why establishing such a plan is not appropriate.

Finding: Crisis watch logs indicate that 14% of crisis watches exceeded 10 days--an approximate measure established in the Settlement Agreement to signal the timing for stability or a higher level of care decision. Disturbingly, 61 of those patients stayed in crisis watch one month or more. Yet few were referred to a higher level of care.10 Those referrals can be summarized as:

Length of stay
11-29 days 1 – 3 months 3 months - >1 year

Number of people
242 53 8

Referred to higher level of care
26 12 0

Multiple crisis watches, close in time, may also implicate questions of stability and the need to consider a higher level of care.

9 This includes clearly tailored problems and goals, and instances where the language is standardized but clearly fits the patient’s situation and would be helpful in reducing his or her acute symptoms sufficient to discharge to less intensive care. 10 According to the monitoring team’s review of logs from all institutions showing referrals to RTU and Elgin for the same period, January through April 2019.
13

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 14 of 27
There is also an indication that these cases are not fully explained as a deliberate judgment that a higher level of care is not needed. In a complementary study of treatment plans in crisis watches exceeding 10 days, only 19% contained any documented consideration of another level of care.11
2(g): Specific requirement: Out of cell time for confidential counseling and groups, psychiatric care, therapeutic activities, and recreational or leisure activities, unless contraindicated.
Finding: The language of this requirement was updated, as indicated in italics, in the February 2019 Order. In the monitoring team’s onsite reviews, patients often received confidential counseling and psychiatric care out of cell. Occasionally, group was provided.12 It appears no other therapeutic activities were offered. The monitoring team did not review the provision of recreational or leisure activities during this monitoring period.
3: CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PLACED IN SEGREGATION
Summary: The Department is more consistently performing evaluations of class members who are transferred to segregation. Reviewing treatment plans of class members who are transferred to segregation is not consistently occurring throughout the Department. Weekly rounds are generally occurring although plaintiffs’ counsel expressed their concerns regarding the professional level of the staff who are actually performing the rounds. Continuation of class members’ mental health treatment plan with such treatment as necessary to protect from any decompensation is not occurring.
3(a): Specific requirement: Promptly after placement into segregation, a mental health professional shall assess the class member to establish a baseline against which any future decompensation can be measured. Such review shall be documented in the patient’s mental health records in a manner that facilitates access and review by subsequent treatment staff.
Finding: The Department has brought attention to this important requirement and substantial improvement is evident. To accomplish this, IDOC has reported reconfiguring staff schedules; considering alternative staffing for the task; and incorporating this requirement in a major policy document, Departmental Rule 504, to reinforce its importance. This reconfiguration of staff schedules, however, has resulted in some unintended negative consequences, especially at the RTU located at Dixon. As reported on pages 34 & 35 of the 3rd Annual Report:
“Dr. Kapoor has made six site visits to Dixon over the life of the Settlement Agreement. Her most recent visit occurred on February 7 & 8, 2019. Based on her experience and expertise, she is in a unique position to report on the status of RTU-level treatment at Dixon. Dr. Kapoor noted that short-staffing—particularly of psychiatrists—and high staff turnover remain significant problems
11 This is a portion of the systemwide study of crisis watch treatment plans. Among the 26 patients with stays exceeding 10 days and for whom a treatment plan update was provided, only 19% made any mention of other levels of care. Progress notes were not part of this review, and this is not the same data set as the one used to identify crisis watches longer than 10 days, so this figure is not definitive, but it serves as one part of the picture. 12 For example, among 19 crisis watches at IL River and Pontiac after this Court’s Order, 4 showed the patient participating in 1 or 2 group sessions.
14

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 15 of 27
at Dixon. Because of inadequate staffing, Dixon has had to choose parts of the Settlement Agreement on which to focus its efforts, recognizing that full compliance is impossible at current staffing levels. Accordingly, as the facility has tried to comply with the requirements for Segregation and Crisis Watch, programming in RTU settings has decreased substantially. Many of the front-line mental health professionals resented the directive from IDOC to focus on offenders in segregation, feeling that their sickest patients (those in the RTU) were being neglected in order to care for a few chronically problematic offenders. Overall, even the most dedicated mental health professionals were growing frustrated with both IDOC leadership and the Rasho litigation, believing that little improvement in care was being made.”
A systemwide sample in early 2019 showed 89% of the records contained a baseline assessment that was completed within 4 days, which the monitoring team considers prompt. Compliance would be 82% if one considers the Settlement Agreement’s timeframe for this responsibility. Either way, this improvement is an impressive accomplishment.13
3(b): Specific requirement: A mental health professional shall review and recommend any clinically necessary modifications to the prisoner’s individual treatment plan.
Finding: Dr. Kapoor reported that at Dixon, treatment plans were not updated upon entry into segregation for any offender, and the monitoring team finds that this is consistently the norm at other institutions. Illinois River had the best practice among the facilities reviewed, with an updated plan in essentially all monitored cases, but these were completed two to three weeks after placement.
3(c): Specific requirement: Rounds shall be conducted by appropriate mental health staff, which may include behavioral health technicians.
Finding: Rounds are well-established; during the monitoring team visits, all institutions have demonstrated that they have systems in place and designated staff to accomplish this. Nevertheless, interruptions to the system were occasionally observed, with gaps in the rounds’ performance—either all patients missed for a week, or sporadic misses for individual patients.14
The plaintiffs’ counsel has also raised a question about whether behavioral health technicians are sufficiently qualified to conduct these rounds.
3(d): Specific requirement: Class members who are in a Control Unit for periods of sixteen days or more shall receive care that includes, at a minimum:
13 The team reviewed a snapshot from February 2019. The sample totaled 161 new Segregation placements; these concentrate on SMI patients and were drawn from 23 institutions, exempting only those that had no such placements and one facility that appeared to misunderstand the request. Both the date of placement and the next mental health paperwork were provided for each person in the sample. For some institutions, all such placements were included; where there were large numbers of placements, IDOC provided a subset reportedly using random selection method. It is not practical to determine the total number of mental health caseload patients placed in segregation in a given period, so the sample percentage has not been determined, but this does provide a substantial sample of overall practice. 14 This review controlled for patients who were not on the unit because they were in crisis watch.
15

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 16 of 27

(i): Continuation of their mental health treatment plan with such treatment as necessary to protect from any decompensation.

Findings: Several measures have been employed to assess IDOC’s compliance with section 3(d)(i). These measures include an analysis of the backlog data, a multi-site chart review of offenders placed in segregation and Dr. Kapoor’s review of Dixon. A recent review of the backlog data regarding treatment planning is as follows:

• 4/19/19 • 4/26/19 • 5/3/19 • 5/10/19 • 5/17/19 • 5/24/19

545 Department wide 604 Department wide 528 Department wide 457 Department wide 463 Department wide 440 Department wide

161 at Pontiac 156 at Pontiac 142 at Pontiac 136 at Pontiac 123 at Pontiac 107 at Pontiac

This data suggests that at Pontiac, a significant number of mentally ill offenders, many of whom are placed in segregated housing, are either without a treatment plan or an updated treatment plan.

A chart review at Pontiac revealed that it generally could not be discerned whether the treatment plan was being continued while the offender was in segregation. This was due to the fact that the treatment plan was vague in its treatment recommendations or that the treatment only called for MHP contacts every 60 to 90 days and that time had not passed. In the handful of charts where a determination could be made, three did not continue the full treatment plan and only one did. There were similar findings at Illinois River, but there, it was clear that the MHP contacts had not fulfilled the treatment plan. In a few instances, there was no treatment plan in the chart with which to make an assessment. In her review of 3(d)(i) at Dixon, Dr. Kapoor noted “To the extent that any offender’s treatment plan is continued, it would occur either by chance or by habit, as no concerted effort to assess the offender’s needs is made.” Reviews at other institutions have yielded similar results.

Based on these measures IDOC is non-compliant with 3(d)(i).
(ii): Rounds in every section of each Control Unit at least every seven days by appropriate mental health staff.

Findings: Please refer to the findings of 3(c), above.

(iii): Pharmacological treatment (if applicable).

Findings: Please refer to the findings of 4(a), below, for a discussion of the psychiatric backlog. This backlog means that a number of mentally ill offenders, some of whom are placed in segregation, who are prescribed psychotropic medications are not being evaluated by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards.

The Monitoring Team has found, however, notwithstanding the backlog, pharmacologic treatment generally does occur when an offender is placed in segregation. This finding reflects the

16

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 17 of 27
emphasis that the Department has placed upon meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
(iv): Meeting with MHP or multidisciplinary team meetings to the extent necessary.
Findings: The Monitoring Team found that this occurs episodically. When it does occur, it is usually for only 15-30 minutes monthly.
(v): MHP or mental health treatment team recommendations to post-segregation housing.
Findings: This is consistently occurring throughout the Department.
(vi): Structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect against decompensation. Structured out of cell time includes therapeutic, educational and recreational activities that involve active engagement by their participants for the duration of the activity.
Findings: Of note, all of the requirements in this section begin after 16 days. The Department struggles to meet this requirement for class members assigned to a control unit for more than 60 days. (please see section 3(e) below for a discussion about this 60-day requirement. At the time of this report, the Department is not providing “Structured out of cell time sufficient to protect against decompensation.” The Department performs slightly better with unstructured out of cell time. That is, yard and showers are offered on a more consistent basis than structured activities. Even in the area of unstructured activities, showers and yard are not necessarily offered to the degree “sufficient to protect against decompensation.”
3(e): Specific requirement: Class members in any Control Unit for periods longer than sixty days shall be provided with structured and unstructured out of cell time sufficient to protect against decompensation unless clinically contraindicated. If an inmate refuses out of cell time, an MHP shall follow-up with the inmate to determine whether or not there is a risk of further decompensation.
Finding: At this time, the Settlement Agreement requires at least 8 hours of structured and 8 hours of unstructured activities per week for mentally ill offenders housed in a control unit for longer than 60 days. This could be considered a measure for what is commonly needed to protect against decompensation.
It is consistently the case that 12 or fewer institutions house patients in a control unit for this length of time and thus are subject to this requirement. The monitoring team analyzed IDOC’s systemwide tracking of out-of-cell time for this population.15 According to these logs, the average hours offered were exactly what they should be – 8 hours of structured and 8 hours of unstructured activities per week. Similarly, the April IDOC Quarterly Report provides a list showing the hours
15 The team analyzed the logs for February 2019. Where feasible, the review included all relevant cases for an institution. Where the relevant population is larger, the reviewer employed random selection method of every 4th, 6th, 10th, or 15th case, depending on the population size. In total, 63 cases were reviewed. The analysis controls for length of time each patient was in a control unit during the reviewed month, adjusting for releases to general population and time off unit for writs, crisis watch, etc.
17

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 18 of 27
offered at each institution, with each meeting or exceeding the requirement, with one exception. That list was not consistent with logs maintained and provided by IDOC, for unknown reasons.16
Moreover, the averages do not reveal distinct differences in what the individuals are offered; 32% of patients were not offered the required amount. This occurred consistently at Big Muddy River, Dixon, Menard, Shawnee, and Western Illinois. Menard has a large long-term segregation population and was particularly troubling; nearly every patient in the sample had a multiple-week stretch where the only unstructured time offered was one or two showers per week, and sometimes not even that.
IDOC also has a very high rate of refusals for all types of out-of-cell time. In total, only 4 patients in the sample, or 7%, actually received the required number of hours. And when the hours fell short, they did not just miss the mark; on average, patients received half of the requirements. Incremental improvement over previous reviews was evident in structured therapeutic time to, on average, 4.3 hours per week,17 a welcome advance.
IDOC indicates that MHPs meet with patients who refuse and document the reasons for the file. The monitoring team has noted refusal forms but these contained nothing about the patient and give the impression that they are only used to collect the patient’s signature. The team has not encountered anything approximating the Court’s order to determine whether there is risk of further decompensation.
No correctional system can guarantee full attendance in programming and patients will invariably refuse some programming. However, when 93% are either not being offered, or are refusing so often, that they commonly receive only half of the required hours, this is a systemic problem that IDOC is obligated to work on to reduce. Of note, in the Monitor’s experience, this elevated percentage of refusals strongly suggests that the structure out-of-cell activities are not considered helpful to the class members and should be reviewed for their clinical efficacy.
3(f): Specific requirement: Mental health staff shall assess class members in Control Units to determine if a higher level of care is necessary and if so, to make proper recommendations to facility authority.
Finding: This is a complex issue for the Department. Mental health staff do assess class members in control units to determine if a higher level of care is necessary. The fact remains, however, it is difficult to actually move a decompensated class member from segregated housing to an RTU facility. The major source of the difficulty is that the RTU units at Joliet are only
16 The monitoring team compared the Hours Offered data from individuals on the most recent log analyzed by the team (February) to the March data cited in the Quarterly Report, and the log matched or exceeded the report contents for only 2 institutions. The comparison was possible for 10 institutions; the others had no caseload patients in segregation longer than 60 days on the log, not surprisingly. The offerings could certainly vary from February to March, but the monitoring team has no information that would suggest a substantial change occurred in that time period. 17 Unstructured time appeared to decline, although this may be a product of more accurate reporting of time associated with some activities. Taking structured and unstructured time together, however, the net was very similar: In June, the average hours received per person was 7.7, while that figure was 7.56 in February.
18

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 19 of 27

operating at approximately one-third of their required capacity. So, the mental health staff often assess class members in control units to determine if a higher level of care is necessary, but functionally there is no place to send them in a timely manner.

The RTUs at Logan and Dixon are located in the same facility as the segregate housing units. The above-described problem doesn’t exist at this facility.

3(g): Specific requirement: Continued treatment by mental health professional and/or psychiatric provider to the extent clinically indicated.

Finding: The challenges facing the Department in meeting this requirement are detailed in 3(d)(iii), (iv), (vi) and 3(e). The only consistent treatment that is continued is psychotropic medication.

4: CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESCRIBED PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION

Summary: Timely psychiatric follow up for class members prescribed psychotropic medications is not consistently occurring. A significant contributing factor to this deficiency is the presence of a backlog of psychiatric follow up visits at certain facilities. Medication distribution remains problematic, notwithstanding the Department’s efforts to improve it. The charting of side effects, medication efficacy, laboratory monitoring and compliance monitoring is improved over previous reviews but much more improvement is needed to be in substantial compliance. Although the overall tenor of this summary sounds very negative, the Department is much improved in this area since monitoring began in May 2016.

4(a): Specific requirement: Class members who are prescribed psychotropic medication shall be evaluated by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards.

Finding: The psychiatric backlog data must be taken into consideration when evaluating

IDOC’s performance regarding 4(a). The following is the total number of psychiatric visits

backlogged throughout the Department:

• 1/18/19

1558

• 2/15/19

1126

• 3/15/19

793

• 4/12/19

752

• 5/17/19

696

• 6/14/19

679

The current backlog of 679 represents 7% of the total psychiatric case load. This 7% total is

somewhat deceiving in that some facilities have little to no psychiatric backlog while others have

a very large psychiatric backlog. For example, Dixon is a facility that houses a large number of

SMI offenders, many of whom are assigned to the RTU level of care. The following is the total

number of psychiatric visits backlogged at Dixon during the same time period:

• 1/18/19

265

• 2/15/19

215

• 3/15/19

234

19

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 20 of 27

• 4/12/19 • 5/17/19 • 6/14/19

320 220 out of a total psychiatric caseload of 888 (25%)18 121 out of a total psychiatric caseload of 893 (14%)

Backlog, however, is only one indication of IDOC’s performance regarding this requirement. The Monitoring Team conducted a data-driven analysis of IDOC’s performance in meeting the requirements of 4(a). This consisted of chart reviews for 68 mentally ill offenders from seven facilities19 who were prescribed psychotropic medication. This analysis revealed that only 35 of the 68 charts reviewed demonstrated that the mentally ill offenders were evaluated by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals consistent with constitutional standards, as measured by the intervals required by the Settlement Agreement. This was a compliance rate of only 51%. The most common deficiency was that 90-day follow ups were occurring without the patient being psychiatrically stable.

Given the problems associated with the psychiatric backlog and that only 51% of the reviewed charts demonstrated timely psychiatric follow up, a rating of non-compliance will be assigned.

4(b): Specific requirement: IDOC shall accomplish the following in psychiatric services:
(i): Administer medications to all class members in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that prescribed psychotropic medications are actually being delivered to, and taken by, the offenders as prescribed.
Findings: Some institutions showed difficulty with delivering medication timely. In chart reviews at Illinois River and Pontiac, for example, more than half of the patients had interruptions when orders lapsed, or when 3 to 10 days elapsed between writing the order and delivering the medication.
As I reported in the 3rd Annual Report, I have been very critical of IDOC’s lack of progress regarding this specific requirement in the past.20 Since this midyear report, however, IDOC has made a concerted effort to address this critical issue. These endeavors include:
• IDOC reports that facilities actively identify those mentally ill offenders who have a history of “cheeking” medication. Hill is offered as an example of such a facility and a robust procedure is described. The monitoring team looks forward to learning about other facilities undertaking similar practices.
• Using better lighting to inspect the mouths of offenders in restricted housing settings. Almost half of institutions report upgrading in-cell lighting and/or using flashlights.
• Pulling patients out of their cells—either on to the tier, in a holding cell, at an officer’s desk, or in the health care unit or other pill window--where they can be
18 IDOC has only recently been reporting the psychiatric case load numbers. 19 Elgin, Western, Graham, Logan, Stateville NRC, Illinois River, and Pontiac 20 Midyear Report, dated 11/30/18, page 48.
20

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 21 of 27
better observed while taking their medications. Seven institutions have instituted this as routine practice, and another seven employ this method when necessary. • Illinois River and Shawnee utilize a “crush and float” method of medication administration. • Changing the formulary to address this issue (i.e. introducing oral-disintegrating tablets of the antipsychotic and mood stabilizer, Zyprexa; moving to daily dosing of certain medications.)
Nine institutions report using the normal procedures, without enhancements, and the belief that that is sufficient in their circumstances.
All of these changes, however, are not without challenges. In an email to Chief Lindsay on 4/19/19, plaintiffs’ counsel reported that on a recent site visit to Menard “We received many concerns from Class Members that their psychiatric medications on order for ‘crush and float’ are passed out already crushed with no assurance to them that the crushed medications are in fact their own prescribed medications.” The monitoring team has received similar concerns from mentally ill offenders while touring facilities during the current reporting period.
Reena Kapoor, M.D. conducted her sixth visit to Dixon on February 7th & 8th, 2019. She noted that hoarding and misappropriation of medications is a problem at Dixon, contributing indirectly to the suicide of an offender in 2018. As one method to manage this issue, Dixon reports it has replaced metal screens with plexiglass in its segregation units, a valuable change that should greatly improve visibility during cell-side medication administration.
The efforts of IDOC to address this very difficult issue are duly noted and appreciated, however, this efforts are not enough to warrant a rating partial compliance.
(ii): The regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects.
Findings: The Monitoring Team conducted a data-driven analysis of IDOC’s performance in meeting the requirements of 4(b)(ii). This consisted of chart reviews for 68 mentally ill offenders from seven facilities21 who were prescribed psychotropic medication. This analysis revealed that 50 of 68 (74%) charts reviewed had evidence of “the regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects.”
This finding is generally consistent with an aggregate of three studies conducted by the Monitoring Team during year three of the Settlement Agreement. In those studies, 94 of 153 charts reviewed (63%) had evidence of “the regular charting of medication efficacy and side effects.” The data from these aggregate studies will not be used to determine IDOC’s performance of 4(b)(II) as some of the data predated the December 20, 2018 Court Order.
Solely based on the 2019 data of 74% compliance, the Department will be assigned a rating of partial compliance. The Department will be found in substantial compliance when they can document a compliance rate of 85% for at least two consecutive monitoring periods.
21 Elgin, Western, Graham, Logan, Stateville NRC, Illinois River, and Pontiac.
21

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 22 of 27
(iii): Take necessary steps to ascertain side effects.
Findings: As reported for 4(b)(ii), the Monitoring Team determined, through a chart review from seven facilities, IDOC has a 74% compliance rate for this subsection. As in 4(b)(ii), the Department will receive a rating of partial compliance.
(iv): The timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results.
Findings: A review of 69 charts from seven facilities22 revealed that “the timely performance of lab work for these side effects and timely reporting on results” occurred in 52 of the charts reviewed (75%). This 75% compliance rate represents an improvement over the past three years. This rate, however, can only result in a finding of partial compliance.
(v): The class members for whom psychotropic drugs are prescribed receive timely explanations from appropriate medical staff about what the medication is expected to do, what alternative treatments are available, and what in general are the side effects of the medication; and have an opportunity to ask questions about this information before they begin taking the medication.
Findings: 4(b)(v) is a challenging item to accurately monitor. The Department has implemented an omnibus consent form aimed at addressing this issue. The Monitoring Team, however, frequently encounters psychiatric providers utilizing outdated forms to obtain informed consent. There is also a “check box” on the psychiatric progress note form which also is designed to address the requirements of 4(b)(v). Providers do typically check that box, and sometimes include a sentence indicating they have had the conversation. Notwithstanding the use of these forms, the Monitoring Team regularly interviews mentally ill offenders who are prescribed psychotropic medications who are unaware of what medications they are taking or what symptoms the medications are meant to address. At this time, no rating will be given for 4(b)(v).
(vi): That class members, including offenders in a Control Unit who experience medication noncompliance, as defined herein, are visited by an MHP. If, after discussing the reasons for the offender's medication noncompliance said noncompliance remains unresolved, the MHP shall refer the offender to a psychiatric provider.
Findings: As in its response to the requirements of 4(b)(v), the Department has placed a “check box” on the psychiatric progress note form to partially address this concern. This check box only indicates, however, if the psychiatric provider has reviewed the patient’s most current Medication Administration Record (MAR). This is meant to inform the psychiatric provider if their patient has been compliant with their psychotropic medications. In a review of 29 charts from Stateville-NRC, Western, Graham, and Logan, the Monitoring Team found that only 16 of the 29 had the “compliance box” checked. This is a rate of 55%.
22 Elgin, Western, Graham, Logan, Stateville NRC, Illinois River, and Pontiac.
22

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 23 of 27

In the charts reviewed at those institutions, Illinois River, and Pontiac, there were only eight examples of medication non-compliance that would cause the MHP to get involved. Nearly all contained problems.
• Referral: in three cases it appeared no referral was made to Mental Health staff and in another case the referral was made only after a lengthy period of non-adherence.
• MHP follow-up: in two of the cases, the MHP involved did not follow up with their noncompliant patient.
• Referral to psychiatry: in one case, the MHP did follow up with their non-compliant patient but did not refer the patient to the psychiatric provider when the non-compliance continued. In two other cases, the psychiatry response was timely.

The Department will be assigned a rating of non-compliance for 4(b)(vi).

5: TREATMENT PLANS

Summary: Treatment planning continues to be a problematic area for the Department. Although some improvement in treatment planning has occurred, the Department remains very far from meeting the requirements of the Court’s Orders. A major impediment is the fact that there still is a backlog of uncompleted treatment plans. Treatment planning is very staff intensive. The ongoing lack of an adequate number of mental health staff prevents the Department from ever being substantially compliant with this requirement.

Mental health evaluations are equally problematic. Backlogs exist and the Department’s largest Receiving and Classification Unit, NRC, is unable to perform all necessary mental health evaluations due to a lack of staff.

5(a): Specific requirement: All class members shall have a treatment plan that is individualized and particularized based on the patient's specific needs, including long and short-term objectives, updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest extent possible.

Finding: An analysis of the treatment planning backlog data must occur before a discussion regarding treatment plans being “individualized, particularized, including short and long-term goals, and updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest extent possible” can occur. Basically, if treatment plans are backlogged, then those affected mentally ill offenders are without any up to date documents that direct their care. These mentally ill offenders, without an up to date treatment plan, are without plans that are “individualized, particularized, including short and long-term goals, and updated and reviewed with the collaboration of the patient to the fullest extent possible.”

A sample of the treatment planning backlog data for 2019 follows:

• 1/18 508 treatment plans backlogged throughout the Department

o Illinois River 46

o Pinckneyville 18

o Pontiac

214

• 2/15 523 treatment plans backlogged throughout the Department

23

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 24 of 27

o Illinois River 61

o Pinckneyville 29

o Pontiac

174

• 3/15 572 treatment plans backlogged throughout the Department

o Illinois River 77

o Pinckneyville 33

o Pontiac

156

• 4/12 544 treatment plans backlogged throughout the Department

o Illinois River 125

o Pinckneyville 50

o Pontiac

176

• 5/17 463 treatment plans were backlogged throughout the Department

o Illinois River 100

o Pinckneyville 55

o Pontiac

123

• 6/14 479 treatment plans were backlogged throughout the Department

o Illinois River 105

o Pinckneyville 48

o Pontiac

65

As reported in the 3rd Annual Report, the overall assessment of the status of treatment planning within the Department is that the Monitoring Team has noted some improvement but more work is needed to meet the requirements of 5(a). There still exists treatment plans created only by the psychiatric provider which only list medications. Similarly, MHP-only treatment plans were noted in which no reference was made to medication management. The Monitoring Team did encounter well-prepared treatment plans at the RTUs at Logan and Joliet as well as the STC at Dixon. Of note, these are relatively well staffed facilities. This demonstrates that if the Department were appropriately staffed, good quality, multidisciplinary treatment plans would be the norm.
As for crisis watch treatment plans, clinicians do, for the most part, use a form formatted to call for goals, frequency and duration of treatment activities, and the staff responsible. Rarely in the systemwide sample, staff instead offered a progress note to demonstrate their treatment planning. In that study, Illinois River and Jacksonville seemed to have the strongest practice. Hill, Sheridan, and Vandalia showed the greatest need to improve.
IDOC training has emphasized the need to complete these fields and the monitoring team observes some improvement in this regard. The greatest improvement is evident in recording patients’ problems and goals: in the systemwide study, 34% of the plans captured these well.23 Another 22% were adequate but had minimal content and minimal tailoring to the patient. Fully 23% were insufficient. These reflected issues such as missing a key problem of the patient’s,

23 This includes clearly tailored problems and goals, and instances where the language is standardized but clearly fits the patient’s situation and would be helpful in reducing his or her acute symptoms sufficient to discharge to less intensive care.
24

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 25 of 27

omitting goals altogether, content that appeared unrelated to the patient, and boilerplate that would not appear to assist in treating the patient.24

The interventions described in the plans lagged much further behind. Here, only 12% in the study capture these well, and another 9% were adequate. The vast majority were insufficient. This principally took the form of naming the Rasho-required contacts but not discussing what treatment would take place during them. Some omitted one or more of the problems that led to the crisis watch, contained content inapplicable to that patient, or omitted interventions altogether.
5(b): Specific requirement: Mental health evaluations shall be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that individuals in need of treatment, or re-evaluation of existing treatment, are evaluated without undue delay.

Finding: A persistent backlog of uncompleted mental health evaluations continues to impair the Department’s ability to satisfy the requirements of 5(b). The following is a sample of the backlog data for 2019:

• 1/25 308 backlogged throughout the Department • 2/22 300 backlogged throughout the Department • 3/29 292 backlogged throughout the Department • 4/26 395 backlogged throughout the Department • 5/24 297 backlogged throughout the Department • 6/21 414 backlogged throughout the Department • Total 2006

177>14 days late (57%) 152>14 days late (51%) 174>14 days late (60%) 256>14 days late (65%) 197>14 days late (66%) 217>14 days late (52%) 1173>14 days late (58%)

Over the first six months of 2019 there were over 2000 mental health evaluations backlogged with the majority of them being more than 14 days late.

As reported in the 3rd Annual Report25, it is important to note that mental health evaluations are not routinely completed at the NRC. This is due to their tremendous workload of new intakes and having to house a large number of offenders on writs. While workload may make this understandable, it is a significant compliance issue. IDOC’s April Quarterly Report states that offenders stay at the NRC for an average of 18 days if they do not have pending court or medical matters. What it does not say is that those exceptions involve hundreds of people.
In a visit on October 10 & 11, 2018, the team analyzed caseload lengths of stay for the population onsite at the time. Using IDOC’s data and applying very conservative measures,26 169 people had been at NRC longer than the stated average that week, and staff said there was nothing

24 These percentages do not add to 100% because, in the remaining subset, a plan was required but the monitoring team received no indication that one was completed; for example, a patient might have a plan on admission but not on discharge. 25 Pages 18 & 19 26 The team reviewed the Mental Health Database maintained by NRC staff. Calculating from the date a patient is added to the caseload, the team included those patients onsite and on the caseload 3 weeks or more—not the 2-week requirement—to allow for short delays in evaluation practice, filing, and/or data entry. Thus, the 169 total is reached using these more flexible criteria.

25

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 26 of 27
unusual about the population at the time. Over a year’s time, of course, this total would multiply. Staff appropriately attempted to prioritize higher acuity patients for evaluations, to mitigate these circumstances, but were only successful in a slight majority of such cases onsite at the time. Of note, this data was collected prior to the Court’s order of December 20, 2018. A follow up visit to the NRC on March 21, 2019 confirmed that this October 2018 data was still valid in 2019.
The mental health evaluation backlog data for 2019 combined with the problems encountered at the NRC demonstrate that the Department is not meeting the requirements of 5(b).
5(c): Specific requirement: Treatment plans shall be reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically necessary to assess the progress of the documented treatment goal and update the plan accordingly.
Finding: As reported in 5(a) above, persistent problems with treatment planning backlogs impair the Department’s ability to meet the requirements of 5(c).
The Department has the responsibility of reviewing and updating treatment planning for mentally ill offenders in a variety of clinical settings. These include outpatient, crisis, inpatient, RTU and segregation:
• Outpatient: The Monitoring Team determined that treatment plans for mentally ill offenders assigned to the outpatient level of care are generally “reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically necessary.” These plans, however, tend to be more generic and boiler plate in nature and do not generally “assess the progress of the documented treat goal(s).”
• Crisis: The Monitoring Team determined that treatment plans for mentally ill offenders assigned to the crisis level of care are overwhelmingly “reviewed and updated” upon admission to crisis care. Only a minority of these plans are “reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically necessary to assess the progress of the documented treatment goal(s) and update the plan accordingly.”
• Inpatient: The staff at the inpatient unit at Elgin are 100% in compliance with the requirements of 5(c).
• RTU: The staff at the RTU’s at Logan, Joliet and the STC at Dixon are meeting the requirements of 5(c). The RTU located in the X-house at Dixon is not meeting these requirements.
• Segregation: The Monitoring Team determined that for those mentally ill offenders assigned to segregation, their treatment plans were not “reviewed and updated at regular intervals as clinically necessary to assess the progress of the documented treatment goal(s) and update the plan accordingly.” A minority of the cases reviewed demonstrated that the treatment plans were updated and reviewed upon entrance into segregation and even fewer had their plans reviewed and updated at regular intervals.
The inability of the Department to consistently meet the requirements of 5(c) is due to having an insufficient number of mental health staff. Taking the inpatient unit at Elgin as an example, this unit is appropriately staffed. The requirements of 5(c) are being met without fail. My opinion as Monitor is that 5(c), as well as other staff-intensive requirements of the Court’s December 20, 2018, would be easily met with the proper amount and type of mental health staff.
26

1:07-cv-01298-MMM # 2715 Page 27 of 27
6. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 6(a): Specific requirement: A quarterly report created by IDOC shall certify each facility’s compliance with the above requirements.
Findings: The Department created and distributed its first quarterly report on April 23, 2019. The next quarterly report is scheduled for distribution the week of July 22, 2019. 6(b): Specific requirement: On a regular basis (no less than every 90 days). Defendants shall provide the results of their own quality assurance audit. These results shall include an accompanying certification of the Defendants’ CQI Manager of whether compliance has been reached with Defendants’ quality assurance requirements.
Findings: The Department is meeting this requirement. Their quality assurance audit and certification by the Defendants’ CQI Manager appeared as Attachment four to the quarterly report of April 23, 2019. 6(c): The appointed independent monitor, Dr. Pablo Stewart, will monitor the Defendants’ compliance with this Order consistent with the monitor’s existing duties and functions.
Findings: This report is the result of monitoring accomplished by the independent monitor and his staff. CONCLUSIONS
As noted in the body of this report, the Department still has a long way to go to be in substantial compliance with the Court’s Orders. Staffing remains a critical roadblock to the Department’s ability to be in substantial compliance. I meet with Director Jeffries and am encouraged that this change in leadership will hasten the Department’s meeting the requirements of the Court’s Orders. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Pablo Stewart, M.D. Pablo Stewart, M.D. Rasho Monitor
27

 
 PABLO STEWART, M.D. Psychiatric Consultant 824 Ashbury Street
San Francisco, CA 94117 415 264-0237 Fax 753-5479
E Mail pab4emi@aol.com
October 1, 2017
Dr. Melvin Hinton Chief of Mental Health Illinois Department of Corrections
Re: IDOC's continuing emergency due to its lack of adequate psychiatric services for the mentally ill offender population
Chief Hinton, This is to formally notify the Illinois Department of Corrections of its continuing
emergency due to the lack of adequate psychiatric services for the mentally ill offender population. As I stated in my report to the Court of May 22 , 2017:
"Despite the substantial improvements to the mental health care delivery system, IDOC continues to have challenges in meeting the first-year requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Among IDOC" s challenges is the grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services. This overwhelming shortage and lack of standards undermines all of the efforts of IDOC to meet the first-year requirements of the Settlement. These psychiatric services deficiencies include but are not limited to problems with the proper continuation of medications for offenders entering lDOC, lack of timely follow-up for offenders prescribed psychotropic medication, lack of following standard protocols for ascertaining side effects, extreme delays in obtaining psychiatric evaluations, non-participation of psychiatrists in the treatment planning process. lack of timely follow up for offenders assigned to crisis beds, and problems related to those offenders designated as requiring inpatient level psychiatric services. Of note. the overall quality of the psychiatric services provided to the mentally ill offenders of IDOC is exceedingly poor and often times dangerous.'' 1
Unfortunately. during the first four months of the 2nd year of the Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team has determined that the above-described conditions persist in the facilities inspected.
As you are aware. I have met with you and your vendor and have offered concrete
1 First Annual Report of Monitor Pablo Stewart, M.D .. pg. 10.

recommendations to address this psychiatric emergency. To date, I have not been presented with any viable plan by the vendor or !DOC detailing an approach to deal with this critical problem.
It is my opinion that Telepsychiatry can play a role in addressing this emergency. Telepsychiatry, however, has many limitations. These include but are not limited to:
• unauthorized for initiating treatment or for evaluating patients in crisis; • only used for medication renewals; • unauthorized in treating patients requiring language translation services; • unauthorized in treating patients with speech, vision, hearing or cognitive disabilities. In addition, procedures need to be established to ensure: • all Telepsychiatry encounters occur in confidential settings; • mentally ill offenders give informed consent to participate in Telepsychiatry and can
opt out if they would rather be seen in person; • Telepsychiatry providers have thorough access to the mentally ill offender's medical
record; • the record of the Telepsychiatry encounter is filed in the mentally ill offender's
medical record in real time.
As stated above. Telepsychiatry is part of an overall solution but is not the solution in and of itself. Any solution to this emergency necessarily involves the hiring of additional psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners and/or primary care physicians.
I must reiterate that IDOC is in a state of emergency regarding its provision of psychiatric care. It is exceedingly imperative that IDOC immediately appoint a Director of Psychiatric Services who has the authority to hire, fire and redeploy the current psychiatric staff. This Director must also have the authority to set rates of compensation for psychiatric providers. Finally, this Director must be available to consult with practitioners in the field as they provide care to the mentally ill offender population of IDOC.
I remain available, as I have throughout my tenure as Monitor in this matter, to consult with IDOC staff regarding strategies to address this emergency situation .
Yours truly.
Pablo Stewart, M.D. Rasho Monitor
2

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 1 of 306
59,APPEAL,CONSOL,LEAD,PRISONER,PROSE
U.S. District Court CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (Peoria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−01298−MMM

Rasho et al v. Walker et al Assigned to: Judge Michael M. Mihm Related Case: 1:11−cv−01308−MMM Case in other court: CA7, 16−02476
CA7, 16−02477 Seventh Circuit, 19−01145 Seventh Circuit, 19−01375 Seventh Circuit, 19−01978 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff
Ashoor Rasho

Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alan Mills UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 (773) 769−1411 Fax: 773−769−2224 Email: alan@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC Suite 300 20 N Michigan Chicago, IL 60602 312−895−7330 Fax: 312−541−7544 Email: amanda@equipforequality.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC 235 S 5th St PO Box 276 Springfield, IL 62705−0276 217−544−0464 Fax: ext 6015 Email: barryl@equipforequality.org TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC Suite 300 20 N Michigan Chicago, IL 60602 312−341−0022 Fax: 312−541−7544 Email: barryt@equipforequality.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC Suite 300 20 N Michigan Chicago, IL 60602 312−895−7209

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 2 of 306
Fax: 312−541−7544 Email: brianp@equipforequality.org TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Camille E Bennett ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU INC Suite 600 150 N Michigan Ave Chicago, IL 60601−7401 312−201−9740 Email: cbennett@aclu−il.org TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth N Mazur UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER 4413 N. Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 773−769−1411 Fax: 773−769−2224 Email: liz@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold C Hirshman DENTONS US LLP Suite 5900 233 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606−6306 312−876−8000 Fax: 312−876−7934 Email: harold.hirshman@dentons.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyle Joseph Steinmetz MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312−701−8547 Fax: 312−706−9178 Email: ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura J Miller EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC Suite 300 20 N Michigan Chicago, IL 60602 312−341−0022 Fax: 312−341−0295 Email: laura@equipforequality.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc R Kadish MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312−701−8747 Fax: 312−706−8774 Email: mkadish@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew V Wargin MAYER BROWN LLP

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 3 of 306

71 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606 312−701−8635 Fax: 312−706−8764 Email: mwargin@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER 4413 North Sheridan Chicago, IL 60640 773−769−1411 Fax: 773−769−2224 Email: nicole@uplcchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed EQUIP FOR EQUALITY INC Suite 300 20 N Michigan Chicago, IL 60602 312−895−7307 Fax: 312−541−7544 Email: samantha@equipforequality.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone BUSH SEYFERTH & PAIGE PLLC Suite 600 3001 W. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084 248−822−7805 Fax: 248−822−7001 TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patrice Daniels

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 4 of 306

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address)

Laura J Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address)

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gerrodo Forrest

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address)

Laura J Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address)

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 5 of 306

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lynda Smith TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address)

Laura J Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address)

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Laterial Stinson TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address)

Laura J Miller

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 6 of 306

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address)

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Keith Walker

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address)

Laura J Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Phillip L Abraham TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 7 of 306

Plaintiff Otis Arrington

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc R Kadish MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606 312−701−8747 Fax: 312−706−8774 Email: mkadish@mayerbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry G Lowy

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 8 of 306
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 9 of 306

Kenneth Bakalik TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donald Collins

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 10 of 306

TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph Herman

represented by

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 11 of 306
Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 12 of 306

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Henry Hersman

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 13 of 306

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rasheed McGee

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille E Bennett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 14 of 306

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fredricka Lyles

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 312−701−8635 Fax: 312−706−8764 Email: mwargin@mayerbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 15 of 306

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Clara Plair

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 16 of 306

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Desiree Hollis

represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 17 of 306

Plaintiff Crystal Stoneburner

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda C Antholt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry G Lowy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry C Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura J Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc R Kadish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew V Wargin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 18 of 306

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Frederick Walker B34246 ILLINOIS RIVER Illinois River Correctional Center Inmate Mail/Parcels PO Box 999 Canton, IL 61520 309−647−7030

represented by Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth N Mazur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold C Hirshman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Rae Schult (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha R Reed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Roger E Walker, Jr Director of IDOC TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

represented by Heidi Hildebrand ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S Second St Springfield, IL 62706 217−782−9056 Fax: 217−782−8767 TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christopher L Higgerson ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S Second St Springfield, IL 62706

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 19 of 306

217−782−1841 Fax: 217−782−8767 Email: chiggerson@atg.state.il.us

Defendant
Eddie Jones Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center

represented by Heidi Hildebrand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christopher L Higgerson (See above for address)

Desiree K Kumar OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62706 217−785−4555 Fax: 217−782−8767 Email: dkumar@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura K Bautista ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 S Second St Springfield, IL 62706 217−557−0261 Fax: 217−524−5091 Email: LBautista@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12th Floor 100 W Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 312−814−3498 Fax: 312−814−3589 Email: drees@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terence J Corrigan CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP Suite 200 111 North 6th Street Springfield, IL 62701 217−572−1714 Fax: 217−572−1613 Email: tcorrigan@cassiday.com TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dr Willard Elyea Medical Director

represented by Heidi Hildebrand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christopher L Higgerson (See above for address)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 20 of 306

Desiree K Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura K Bautista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terence J Corrigan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dr Wendy Blank Chief of Medical Health Services of IDOC

represented by Heidi Hildebrand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christopher L Higgerson (See above for address)

Desiree K Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura K Bautista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terence J Corrigan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dr. Sylvia Mahone Pontiac Medical Director TERMINATED: 08/17/2011

represented by Theresa M Powell HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN 3731 Wabash Avenue PO Box 9678 Springfield, IL 62791 (c)217−836−7534 &522−8822 Fax: 523−3902(F) Email: tpowell@heylroyster.com TERMINATED: 08/16/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Brian Michael Smith HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN Suite 505 301 North Neil Street PO Box 1190 Champaign, IL 61820 217−344−0060

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 21 of 306

Fax: 217−344−9295 Email: bsmith@heylroyster.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Walter DAVID M. WALTER ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 1325 Jacksonville, IL 62650 217−652−8747 Fax: 618−551−2822 Email: retlawmd@gmail.com TERMINATED: 06/15/2012

Defendant
Dr. John Garlic Pontiac Supervising Clinical Psychologist

represented by Heidi Hildebrand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher L Higgerson (See above for address)

Laura K Bautista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dr. Michael F Massa Pontiac Psychiatrist of South Medical Unit at Pontiac TERMINATED: 08/17/2011

represented by Theresa M Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Michael Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Walter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/15/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Department of Corrections a public entity under state and federal law TERMINATED: 05/04/2009

represented by Brian Michael Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Melody Ford Chairperson Administrative Review Board I.D.O.C.

represented by Heidi Hildebrand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 22 of 306

Christopher L Higgerson (See above for address)

Laura K Bautista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Roberta Fews Deputy Director

represented by Heidi Hildebrand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher L Higgerson (See above for address)

Laura K Bautista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wexford Health Sources Inc TERMINATED: 04/15/2011

represented by Theresa M Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/16/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Michael Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John R Baldwin Director

represented by Desiree K Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura K Bautista (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Douglas Rees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terence J Corrigan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miscellaneous Party David M Walter

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 23 of 306

Date Filed 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007
11/09/2007 11/14/2007 11/16/2007
11/16/2007 11/16/2007 12/17/2007 12/21/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4)(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
2 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and Complaint against all defendants, filed by Ashoor Rasho.(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 11/26/2007 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
4 Letter from CDIL Clerk to PCC requesting trust fund ledgers for Inmate Ashoor Rasho for the period 6/7/07 thru 11/7/07. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
MERIT REVIEW ORDER: This case is set for merit review. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A to ''screen'' the plaintiff's complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it ''(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.'' The plaintiff must be prepared to identify each of his claims and defendants during the hearing. The clerk is to notify the plaintiff's place of incarceration and to issue a writ for the plaintiff's participation in the video conference call. Merit Review Hearing set for 12/17/2007 01:30 PM before Judge Harold A. Baker. Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/9/07. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
5 WRIT of Video issued for Ashoor Rasho B38970 for hearing before Judge Baker on 12/17/07 at 1:30 PM. (Writ faxed to PCC, Urbana Video Clerk and IDOC Video Scheduler). (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
6 Prisoner Trust Fund Ledgers submitted by Trust Fund Office of Pontiac Correctional Center on behalf of Ashoor Rasho for the period from 6/7/07 through 11/7/07, showing a negative trust fund balance of −$858.27. (ML, ilcd) Modified on 11/16/2007 to reflect negative balance.(ML, ilcd). (Entered: 11/16/2007)
TEXT ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 11/16/07 granting 2 Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff`s trust fund ledgers indicate he has no funds to make an initial partial payment of the filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(4), the initial partial filing fee is waived. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month`s income credited to Plaintiff`s account to the Clerk of Court. The agency having custody of the plaintiff shall forward these payments each time Plaintiff`s account exceeds $10, until the filing fee of $350 is paid in full. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff`s place of confinement, to the attention of the Trust Fund Office. (cc: plaintiff/Correctional Center Trust Fund Office/Fin Adm) (ML, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
7 Request for production of documents by Ashoor Rasho (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
8 Letter from plaintiff requesting copy of complaint be sent back to him. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker: Merit Review Hearing held on 12/17/2007. Appearance of plaintiff pro se. Case management order to be entered. Court will not appoint counsel at this time. Court will reconsider at a later date. (Tape #UR B; 1:37.) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
9 MERIT REVIEW AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/21/07. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:(1). The petition to proceed in forma pauperis [d\e 2] is allowed and the clerk is directed to notify the trust officer at the plaintiffs place of incarceration to withhold appropriate payments from the plaintiffs trust fund until the court fees are paid in full;(2). The motion for appointment of counsel [d\e 3] is denied at this time but may be renewed once the defendants have answered and scheduling has been established;(3). The complaint states a claim for relief within notice pleading requirements for violation of the Eighth Amendment rights to be free from indifference to a serious medical need

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 24 of 306

12/26/2007 01/29/2008
01/30/2008
01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/30/2008 02/05/2008 02/06/2008

and cruel and unusual punishment. And the case shall proceed on that basis unless the parties can articulate a different claim to the court;(4). The case is assigned to the Magistrate Judge for scheduling and provision for entries of appearance and waiver of process. (cc: plaintiff/IDOC)(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
10 MOTION to reconsider to award plaintiff damages and sue defendants in their individual capacities by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 1/14/2008 (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
11 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/29/08. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The case is assigned to the magistrate judge for scheduling and for an order that the filing fee be collected from the plaintiff's trust fund as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1915; (2) The clerk shall send notice of suit and waiver of process to the litigation coordinator at Pontiac for service on Melody Ford; (3) On the court's own motion 07−1298 and 08−1008 are consolidated and all docketing shall be done in the 07−1298 case; (4) The clerk is directed to schedule these combined cases for further Rule 16 hearing as soon as practicable after the entry of appearance of Mark Kadish, Esq. as pro bono counsel for the plaintiff; (5) All pending motions in 08−1008 [d/e 2, 3, 4] are denied as rendered moot by this order.(cc: Plaintiff)(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
12 PRISONER SCHEDULING ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 1/30/08. Clerk is directed to prepare for each deft a notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service of summons and waiver of service of summons. Clerk to mail said forms, a copy of the complaint, and this scheduling order to each defendant. Cause set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 1:30 p.m. on 4/29/2008 by video conference (court to initiate conference) before Judge Harold A. Baker.Plaintiff to notify the court of any change in his mailing address and telephone number. Failure to notify the court of any change in the mailing address will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice. Clerk to notify parties of their option to consent to disposition of this case before the U.S. Magistrate Judge (form enclosed). (cc: plaintiff/IDOC/Records Dept) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
13 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Roger E Walker, Jr. on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
14 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Eddie Jones, Warden on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
15 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr Willard Elyea on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
16 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr Navarro, Chief Medical Health Services of IDOC on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
17 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr. Sylvia Mahone on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
18 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr John Garlic on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
19 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr Michael F Massa on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
20 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Department of Corrections on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
21 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Melody Ford, Chairperson Administrative Review Board IDOC (08−1008) on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
22 Letter re: information (address etc ) on the attorney appointed for plaintiff. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed on defendant Roger E Walker, Jr. Roger E Walker, Jr waiver signed on 2/5/2008, answer due 4/7/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 25 of 306

02/14/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/20/2008 02/22/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/11/2008 03/17/2008 03/26/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008
04/21/2008 04/21/2008

02/06/2008)
24 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Defendant Roger E Walker, Jr. Defendant served 2/5/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Michael F Massa. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
26 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Eddie Jones. Defendant Eddie Jones served on 2/7/2008, answer due 4/7/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
27 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by John Garlic. Defendant John Garlic served on 2/13/2008, answer due 4/14/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
Waiver of Service Returned Unexecuted as to Melody Ford. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
28 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Melody Ford on 2/20/08 to new address in Springfield, IL. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
29 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Melody Ford. Melody Ford waiver sent on 2/20/2008, answer due 4/21/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
30 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed on Dr. Willard Elyea. Dr. Willard Elyea waiver sent on 1/30/08, executed on 2/12/2008, answer due 4/14/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
31 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed on Sylvia Mahone. Sylvia Mahone waiver sent on 1/30/08, served on 2/14/2008, answer due 4/14/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
32 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Theresa M Powell on behalf of Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
33 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by David M Walter on behalf of Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa (Walter, David) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
34 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa.(Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
35 MOTION for Protective Order HIPAA by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. Responses due by 3/28/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A)(Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
36 MOTION to Continue/Reschedule Video Conference by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 4/3/2008 (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3)(HK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
37 Letter re: Plaintiff from inmate at PCC (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
38 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic.(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
39 ANSWER to 1 Complaint 07−1298 consol w/ 08−1008 by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic.(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
40 MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Answer to Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic. Responses due by 4/17/2008 (Attachments: # 1 proposed Amended Answer)(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
41 TRANSFER WRIT issued for Plaintiff to attend video hearing at 1:30 p.m. on 4/29/08 at Stateville Corr Ctr Video Room. Rule 16 Hearing before Judge Baker. (cc: PCC/Stateville Corr Ctrs) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
42 VIDEO WRIT issued for Plaintiff to attend Video Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on 4/29/08 (at Stateville Corr Ctr) before Judge Baker. (cc: IDOC Scheduler/PCC and Stateville

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 26 of 306

04/25/2008 04/29/2008
04/29/2008
04/29/2008
04/29/2008 05/28/2008
05/29/2008 06/12/2008 09/08/2008 11/05/2008 11/05/2008 11/24/2008
12/01/2008

Corr Ctrs) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
43 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 5/12/2008 (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/29/08. Before the court is the plaintiff's motion "to reconsider to award plaintiff damages and sue defendants in their individual capacities" 10 . The court performed a merit review of the plaintiff's complaint on December 10, 2007 and allowed him to proceed against the defendants. This lawsuit proceeds against the defendants only in their individual capacities. The court cannot award the plaintiff damages. That issue will be determined by a jury if this case goes to trial. The plaintiff's motion is denied as to his request that this court reconsider awarding damages to him and rendered moot as to his request that he be allowed to proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities 10 .(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker: Scheduling Conference held on 4/29/2008. Appearance of plaintiff pro se. Appearances for defendants by Theresa Powell and Joe Rupcich. Court informs parties that pro bono counsel will be entering an appearance for the pro se plaintiff. Further hearing to be scheduled after pro bono counsel files their appearances. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff. (Tape #UR B; 1:35 P.M..) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/29/08. Before the court is the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 43 . The court is still waiting on the pro bono counsel to enter an appearance. The court denies this motion at this time, with leave to reinstate if pro bono counsel chooses to do so. The defendants' unopposed motion to amend their answer is allowed 40 . The defendants may file their amended answer. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
44 Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic.(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
45 ORDER: defendants unopposed motion for order for HIPAA Qualified Protective Order 35 . The court finds that good cause exists for the entry of a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and direct the use of protected health information during the course of this litigation. The motion is allowed. Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 5/28/8. (cc:Pla)(HK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
46 Letter on behalf of plaintiff requesting copy of grievance April 5, 2007. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
Remark: Court continues to pursue bono counsel for the plaintiff. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Continue/Reschedule Video Conference 36 is rendered moot. (cc: pla) Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/5/08. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
47 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Marc R Kadish on behalf of Ashoor Rasho (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
48 CERTIFICATE of Service/Counsel re 47 Notice of Appearance of Attorney by Marc R Kadish on behalf of Ashoor Rasho (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
TEXT ORDER: A Rule 16 conference is scheduled for December 1, 2008 at 1:30 pm., via video conference. The plaintiff's attorney may appear by video at the Thompson Building in Chicago. The clerk of the court is directed to enter a writ for the parties' appearance, via video. Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/24/08. (cc:Pla)(HK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker: Scheduling Conference held on 12/1/2008. Appearance for plaintiff by Marc Kadish. Appearances for defendants by Heidi Hildebrand and Theres Powell. Plaintiff's counsel moves for leave to amend complaint.; granted. Amended Pleadings due by 2/2/2009. Defendants' response to amended complaint due 3/2/009. Further Status Conference set for 3/10/2009 at 1:30 PM by video conference (court to initiate

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 27 of 306

12/03/2008 12/11/2008
01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/30/2009 03/03/2009
03/09/2009 03/10/2009
05/04/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/11/2009 05/11/2009 05/18/2009
05/18/2009 05/26/2009

conference) before Judge Harold A. Baker. Plaintiff Rasho to be by video. Video writ to be issued for Mr. Kadish at their office Mayer & Brown.(Court Reporter TJ.) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
49 STRICKEN Letter from Plaintiff re: attending hearings. (KB, ilcd) Modified on 12/11/2008 (KW, ilcd). (Entered: 12/03/2008)
TEXT ORDER STRIKINGDOCUMENT Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/11/08. Before the Court is a unsigned letter 49 filed on behalf of the plaintiff by an unidentified person. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the letter 49 forthwith. See FRCP Rule 11(a). (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 2/6/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter, # 2 Exhibit Letter, # 3 Exhibit Letter, # 4 Exhibit Letter)(Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ashoor Rasho re 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
52 RESPONSE to Motion re 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
TEXT ORDER: The Plaintiff's unopposed 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is allowed 60 days or by 5/4/2009, from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/3/9. (cc:Pla)(HK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
53 VIDEO WRIT issued for Hearing set on 3/10/09 at 1:30 pm (Central Time) before Judge Baker. (cc: PCC, IDOC Scheduler) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker. Status Conference held on 3/10/2009. Appearance of plaintiff by Marc Kadish/Daniel Herrer; appearance of defendants by Heidi Hildebrand/Matt Lurkin. Status discussed. (Tape #UR−B: 1:37 PM.) (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
54 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
55 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Harold C Hirshman on behalf of Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker, Ashoor Rasho (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
56 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Camille E Bennett on behalf of Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker, Ashoor Rasho (Bennett, Camille) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
57 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Roberta Fews on 5/11/09. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
58 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Wexford Health Sources, Inc. on 5/11/09. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
59 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 54 Amended Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 54 Amended Complaint by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 5/26/09. The defendants, Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, Melody Ford and John Garlic's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 59 is allowed. Defendants are allowed up to and including June 18, 2009 to file their answers. Provided there are no meritorious objections, the defendants, Sylvia Mahone and Michael F Massa's Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 60 is allowed. Defendants are allowed up to and including July 15, 2009 to file their answers. Any

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 28 of 306

05/26/2009 06/15/2009 06/18/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 07/02/2009 07/07/2009 07/09/2009 07/09/2009 07/20/2009 07/22/2009 08/06/2009
08/25/2009 10/06/2009 10/26/2009 11/03/2009

meritorious objects must be filed within 14 days of this order (ddl 6/10/09). (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: SEE TEXT ORDER entered 5/26/09 − Any meritorious objections must be filed within 14 days of the Text Order entered 5/26/09 − Miscellaneous Deadline 6/10/2009. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
61 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Plaintiff Wexford Health Sources Inc waiver sent on 5/11/2009, served 6/8/09, answer due 7/10/2009. (KB, ilcd) Modified on 7/7/2009 (HK, ilcd). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
62 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 54 Amended Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic. Responses due by 7/6/2009 (Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
63 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Christopher L Higgerson on behalf of Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
64 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Plaintiff. Roberta Fews waiver sent on 5/11/2009, served 6/16/09, answer due 7/10/2009. (KB, ilcd) Modified on 7/7/2009 (HK, ilcd). (Entered: 06/23/2009)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/2/09. The defendants' unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer 62 is allowed. Defendants are allowed up to and including July 18, 2009 to file an answer.(cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
Notice of Docket Text or Event Modification re 64 Waiver of Service Executed, 61 Waiver of Service Executed. Events modified to reflect waiver executed by Plaintiff. (HK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
65 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint by Defendants Wexford Health Sources Inc, Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. Responses due by 7/27/2009 (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
66 MEMORANDUM in Support re 65 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Wexford Health Sources Inc, Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 07/09/2009)
67 ANSWER to 54 Amended Complaint by Defendants Roberta Fews, Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea, Wendy Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic.(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
68 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Unopposed) to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker, Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 8/10/2009 (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
TEXT ORDER: The plaintiff's unopposed motion for an enlargement of time to respond to defendants motion to dismiss the class action complaint 68 is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed an additional 60 days (10/6/9) from the date of this order to file a response.Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/6/9. (cc:Pla)(HK, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
69 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Barry G Lowy on behalf of all plaintiffs (Lowy, Barry) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
70 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 65 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker, Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 10/23/2009 (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
71 Letter from Plaintiff re: deadlines in case and possible extension of time. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/3/09. The plaintiffs unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response 70 to defendants

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 29 of 306

11/10/2009 12/03/2009 12/14/2009 12/16/2009 12/29/2009 01/05/2010
02/25/2010 03/10/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010
03/22/2010 05/20/2010
06/07/2010

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint 65 is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed 30 days from the date of this order to file his response. (Responses due by 12/3/2009) (cc:pla)(SM, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
72 Letter on behalf of Plaintiff re: phone calls from IDOC to counsel. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
73 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 65 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (Unopposed) by Plaintiffs Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/21/2009 (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
74 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED 1/5/2010 BY JUDGE HAROLD A. BAKER: MOTION for Extension of Time to File (30 to 45 days) to file any claims by Plaintiff Gerrodo Forrest. Responses due by 1/4/2010. (KB, ilcd) Modified on 1/5/2010 to strike document (KB, ilcd). (Entered: 12/15/2009)
75 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 1/5/2010 BY JUDGE HAROLD A. BAKER: MOTION for medical treatment by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 1/4/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(KB, ilcd) Modified on 1/5/2010 to strike document (KB, ilcd). (Entered: 12/17/2009)
76 MOTION to Strike 75 MOTION medical treatment by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. Responses due by 1/15/2010 (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/5/2010. The plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 73 to File Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action 65 is granted. The plaintiff is allowed up to and including 60 days to file a response. As the plaintiffs are represented by an attorney in this lawsuit, the pro se filings are stricken 74 and 75 , with leave to renew if plaintiff's attorneys finds it is appropriate. The defendants' motion to strike is rendered moot 76 . (cc: Plaintiff)(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
77 MOTION to be excluded from the class action under 23(c)(1) by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 3/15/2010 (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/10/2010. A status conference is scheduled for March 17, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The parties may appear via the telephone. The clerk of the court will initiate the conference call. (cc: Plaintiff/Records Dept) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/17/2010. After the Clerk spoke with the Record Department, Pontiac Correctional Center, the Court requests that plaintiff Ashoor Rasho B−38970, be available for a telephone conference call on 3/17/2010 at 10:30 AM. (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker. Status Conference held on 3/17/2010 by telephone. Appearance of plaintiff by Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Dan Hierra. Appearance of defendants by Heidi Hildebrand/Chris Higgerson/Teresa Powell/Matt Lurkins. Case stayed pending settlement neogitations. All pending matters are moot. Further Status Conference set for 5/20/2010 09:30 AM by telephone from Urbana (court will place call) before Judge Harold A. Baker. (Court Reporter TJ.) (MT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
78 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 4/8/2010 (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker: Status Conference held on 5/20/2010. Appearances for plaintiff by Alan Mills and Camille Bennett. Appearances for defendants by Heidi Hildebrand, Chris Higgerson and Theresa Powell. Motion for Leave to Appear 78 is mooted. Further Status Conference set for 9/15/2010 at 9:30 AM by telephone from Urbana (court will place call) before Judge Harold A. Baker. (Court Reporter TJ.) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
79 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED 7/21/2010 BY JUDGE HAROLD A. BAKER − MOTION for Order compelling following motions to be

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 30 of 306

07/12/2010 07/21/2010 09/15/2010
10/25/2010
10/29/2010
11/18/2010 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 12/03/2010 12/03/2010

produce by this clerk by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 6/24/2010 (KB, ilcd) Modified on 7/21/2010 to strike document (KB, ilcd). (Entered: 06/08/2010)
80 Letter from Plaintiff requesting status of motions and case. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
TEXT ORDER STRIKING/VACATING DOCUMENT Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/21/2010. The clerk of the court is directed to strike the Plaintiff's pro se filing 79 MOTION for Order as he is represented by attorneys. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Harold A. Baker: Parties present via phone by Attys Alan Mills/Camille Bennett and Attys Chris Higgerson/Matt Lurkins for Status Conference at 9:30 AM on 9/15/2010 − same held. Settlement is moving along. Plaintiff to file Amended Complaint within 14 days (ddl 9/30/2010). Further Status Conference set for 1:30 PM on 10/29/2010 by telephone from Urbana (court will place call) before Judge Harold A. Baker. (Court Reporter T. Judd.) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
TEXT ORDER: Pursuant to instructions from Chief U.S. District Judge Michael P. McCuskey, this case is transferred to U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm for further proceedings due to Senior Judge Baker no longer handling Peoria and Rock Island Division cases. The referral Magistrate Judge shall remain the same for all further proceedings. Entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 10/25/2010. (MC, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via phone by Attys Alan Mills/Camille Bennett/Harold Hirshman/Dan Herrera (for Marc Kadish) for Plaintiffs, Asst Atty Gen Chris Higgerson, and Atty Theresa Powell for Defendants for status conference at 1:30 PM on Friday, 10/29/2010 − same held. Plaintiff's counsel reports working towards class settlement and outside experts have been selected and will be retained to make recommendations to parties as to certain issues that have been identified by the parties. Parties will conference within 7 days. Counsel to submit proposed documents to the Court within 21 days (11/19/2010). Court will set a further telephone status conference if needed. Oral Motion by Defendant Dr. Sylvia Mahone and Wexford Health Sources Inc. to be dismissed. Discussion held. Parties to discuss this issue. (Court Reporter J.J.) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
81 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE (10−29−10 text order) re Status Conference,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
82 NOTICE − Plaintiffs' and State Defendants' Proposed Case Management Plan (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
83 MOTION to Certify Class (Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes) by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/6/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
84 MEMORANDUM in Support re 83 MOTION to Certify Class (Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes) MOTION to Certify Class (Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes) filed by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
85 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/6/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B−D)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
86 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Brian Michael Smith on behalf of Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wexford Health Sources Inc (Smith, Brian) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
87 RESPONSE to Motion re 85 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wexford Health Sources Inc. (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 12/03/2010)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 31 of 306

12/03/2010 01/25/2011

88 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 MOTION to Certify Class (Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes) MOTION to Certify Class (Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes) and Proposed Case Management Plan filed by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wexford Health Sources Inc. (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
89 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/20/1, before Judge Baker. Court Reporter/Transcriber TJ, Telephone number 217−373−5835. Transcript purchased by:Theresa Powell.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

01/25/2011

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/18/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2011. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
90 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/15/10, before Judge Baker. Court Reporter/Transcriber TJ, Telephone number 217−373−5835. Transcript purchased by:Theresa Powell.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

04/05/2011
04/05/2011 04/06/2011

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/18/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2011. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
91 MOTION to Sever Claims and for a Pretrial Conference by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 4/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
92 NOTICE of Dismissal of Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/6/2011. A status conference is scheduled for April 28, 2011 28 at 10:45 a.m. The conference will be held via

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 32 of 306

04/15/2011
04/28/2011
04/28/2011 04/28/2011 04/29/2011
05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/18/2011 05/18/2011 05/18/2011 05/18/2011 05/19/2011 05/19/2011

telephone. The clerk of the court will initiate the conference call. (cc: Plaintiff/Records Dept) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/15/2011. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Dismissal of Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Plaintiff advises the court that they dismiss Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. from this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. has never served an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this action. The clerk of the court is directed to terminate Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., forthwith. Any objections to this order must be made within seven days. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone with attys Bennett, Hirshman, Kadish, and Mills for Plaintiffs, and attys Higgerson, and Powell for Defendants for Status Conference on Thursday 4/28/2011 at 10:45AM. Same held. Court grants Motion to Sever Claims and for a Pretrial Conference 91 . Clerk is directed to file count #6 as its own 2nd Amended Complaint and assigning to it a new number. Defendants to file Answer to 2nd Amended Complaint within 21 days. Pretrial Conference will be set at a later date. STAY IS LIFTED. Status Conference is scheduled for Thursday, 7/28/2011 at 10:45AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm.). (Court Reporter N Mersot.) (SF, ilcd) Modified on 4/29/2011 correcting typo (SF, ilcd). (Entered: 04/29/2011)
93 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/28/2011. (SF, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
94 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT − ORIGINAL ORDER GRANTING MOTION 85 UNREDACTED (SF, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
95 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Class Action Complaint against Department of Corrections, Willard Elyea, Roberta Fews, Melody Ford, John Garlic, Eddie Jones, Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr, Wexford Health Sources Inc, filed by Patrice Daniels, Ashoor Rasho, Gerrodo Forrest, Laterial Stinson, Lynda Smith, Keith Walker.(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
96 HIPAA PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/6/2011. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
97 ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/6/11. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
98 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/6/2011. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
99 MOTION to Dismiss and, MOTION to Strike 95 Amended Complaint, Portions thereof by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. Responses due by 6/6/2011 (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
100 MOTION to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983 by Defendant Sylvia Mahone. Responses due by 6/6/2011 (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
101 MEMORANDUM in Support re 100 MOTION to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983 filed by Defendant Sylvia Mahone. (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
102 ANSWER to 95 Amended Complaint, Count VI, with Affirmative Defenses by Michael F Massa.(Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
103 ANSWER to Complaint AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (COUNT VI) by John Garlic.(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
104 ANSWER to 95 Amended Complaint, and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Willard Elyea, Roberta Fews, John Garlic, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr.(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 33 of 306

05/19/2011 05/24/2011 05/31/2011
05/31/2011
06/09/2011
06/13/2011 06/15/2011 06/15/2011 07/08/2011 07/12/2011 08/09/2011 08/16/2011

105 MOTION to Dismiss COUNT VI by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 6/6/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement MOL)(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
106 MOTION to Sever by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 6/10/2011 (Attachments: # 1 1st part of exhs, # 2 2nd part of exhs, # 3 3rd part of exhs, # 4 4th part of exhs, # 5 5th part of exhs, # 6 6th part of exhs, # 7 7th part of exhs)(MSB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
107 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 99 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION to Strike 95 Amended Complaint, Portions thereof, 105 MOTION to Dismiss COUNT VI, 100 MOTION to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983 by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 6/17/2011 (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/31/2011. Although he is represented by very competent attorneys, Mr. Rasho has once again filed a pro se filing 106 . The attorneys representing Mr. Rasho are directed to communicate with this client and advised this court of their position on Rasho's pro se filing within 14 days of this order. Further, Mr. Rasho must not file any further pro se filing, without getting the permission of his attorneys first. He is forewarned that doing so may subject him to harsh penalties. The plaintiff's attorneys are directed to mail a copy of this order to their client.(RP, ilcd) Modified on 6/14/2011 to modify last sentence of text: attorneys "is" directed was corrected to "are" (RP, ilcd). (Entered: 05/31/2011)
108 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 95 Amended Complaint, 99 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION to Strike 95 Amended Complaint, Portions thereof, 105 MOTION to Dismiss COUNT VI, 100 MOTION to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983 (Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Pending Motions Regarding Count VI to August 15, 2011) by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 6/27/2011 (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
109 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho's Motion re 106 MOTION to Sever (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
110 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Matthew V Wargin on behalf of Ashoor Rasho (Wargin, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/15/11 − As his attorneys have filed a Notice 109 to Withdraw the Motion to Severe, the plaintiff, Ashoor Rashos pro se Motion to Severe 106 is rendered moot. The unopposed MOTIONS for Extension of Time to File Response 107 and 108 are granted. Plaintiffs are allowed up to and including August 15, 2011.(SF, ilcd) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER − the Status Conference originally set for July 28, 2011 has been reset for 8/16/2011 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/08/2011. (KSB, ilcd) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
111 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by William R Stone on behalf of Ashoor Rasho (Stone, William) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
112 MOTION for Order (Motion for Entry of Agreed Scheduling Order Solely with Respect to Severed Count VI) by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 8/26/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Agreed Scheduling Order with Respect to Severed Count VI, # 2 Exhibit 1 to the Agreed Scheduling Order − Severed Complaint)(Wargin, Matthew) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone with Plaintiffs' Attorneys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Marc Kadish, Matthew Wargin, William Stone, and Defendants' Attorneys Christopher Higgerson, and Theresa Powell for Status Conference on Tuesday, 8/16/2011 at 10:00 AM. Same held. Discussion held regarding Count VI of the Class Action Complaint. Court GRANTS oral motion for leave to file a new complaint. Count VI will be severed and opened as a separate action using case number 11−1308. Count VI is STRICKEN from this case. Court GRANTS 112 Motion for Entry of Agreed Scheduling Order

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 34 of 306

08/17/2011 08/29/2011
10/24/2011 10/31/2011 11/21/2011 12/01/2011 01/31/2012

Solely with Respect to Severed Count VI. Parties are to prepare and submit a scheduling order within 14 days from today. All motions to dismiss regarding count VI are now rendered MOOT 99 , 100 , and 105 . Court grants Defendants' Attorney Theresa Powell's oral motion to be removed from any class action in this case. Attorney Theresa Powell terminated. (Court Reporter JJ.) (SF, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/17/2011 − On 8/16/11 the court struck Count VI from this case. The only allegations made against Drs. Mahone and Massa were in Count VI. In its 8/16/11 order, the court inadvertently failed to terminate the defendants, Drs. Mahone and Massa. The clerk of the court is directed to terminate Drs. Mahone and Massa, forthwith.Drs. Mahone and Massa TERMINATED.(SF, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED 10/31/2011 BY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL M. MIHM − TEXT ORDER: The Clerk of the Court has been informed by Notice of Change of Address recently filed by Plaintiff in cause number 10−1108 that effective immediately, Plaintiff is now located at Stateville CC, PO Box 112, Joliet, IL 60434. It has been noted by the Clerks Office that this case is also pending in the Central District of Illinois, but Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address in this case.Plaintiff is reminded that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in his location. Pursuant to Central District of Illinois Local Rule 16.3(K), every pro se plaintiff must notify the Clerk of this court in writing of any change of address during the entire pendency of his case. It is not the Court's responsibility to independently maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions. As a courtesy to Plaintiff, however, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the institution where he has reportedly been transferred. Plaintiff shall, no later than 14 days after receipt of this Order, file a notice of change of address with the Clerk. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.Notice of Change of Address to be filed by plaintiff by 9/12/2011. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/29/11. (FDT, ilcd) Modified on 10/31/2011 to strike document (KB, ilcd). (Entered: 08/29/2011)
ENTRY IS STRICKEN PURSUANT TO COURT' TEXT ORDER OF 11/21/2011 − TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/24/2011. During the August 16, 2011 status conference, the Court directed the parties to prepare and submit a scheduling order within 14 days. As of today, the parties have not filed a proposed scheduling order. The parties are directed to do so, forthwith. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/31/2011. As the Clerk of the Court inadvertently entered the August 29, 2011 order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the order, forthwith. Plaintiff is represented by counsel, and therefore, he himself has no duty to file a Notice of Address change in this case as long as he is represented by counsel. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/21/11 − A status conference is scheduled for December 13, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., via telephone. The clerk of the court will initiate the conference call. As the Courts 10/24/11 text order was inadvertently entered, the Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the order, forthwith.(SF, ilcd) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/1/2011. Due to a conflict in the Court's schedule, the Status Conference set for 12/13/2011 is cancelled and reset for Status Conference at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 1/31/2012 by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone witn Pltf's attys Mills, Bennett, Kadish, and Dft's atty Higgerson for Status Conference on Tuesday, 1/31/2012 at 10:00 AM. Same held. Discussion held regarding Parties being in the process of a jointly agreed upon investigation of IDOC and the provisions of its health services. Interim report has been written. Experts' final report to be completed by 3/15/2012. Parties to review the final report. Further Status Conference set for Tuesday 4/3/2012 10:00 AM in by telephone from Peoria (court

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 35 of 306

02/02/2012 02/03/2012
02/03/2012 02/03/2012 02/07/2012 04/02/2012 04/03/2012
05/07/2012 05/08/2012

will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (SF, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
113 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Laura J Miller on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Miller, Laura) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
STRICKEN PURSUANT TO 2/3/12 TEXT ORDER: The Clerk of the Court has been informed by Notice of Change of Address recently filed by Plaintiff in cause number 12−1006 that effective immediately, Plaintiff is now located at Pontiac CC. It has been noted by the Clerks Office that this case is also pending in the Central District of Illinois, but Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address in this case.Plaintiff is reminded that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in his location. Pursuant to Central District of Illinois Local Rule 16.3(K), every pro se plaintiff must notify the Clerk of this court in writing of any change of address during the entire pendency of his case. It is not the Court's responsibility to independently maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions. As a courtesy to Plaintiff, however, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the institution where he has reportedly been transferred. Plaintiff shall,no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, file a notice of change of address with the Clerk. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.Notice of Change of Address to be filed by plaintiff by 2/17/2012. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/3/12. (FDT, ilcd) Modified on 2/6/2012 (FDT, ilcd). (Entered: 02/03/2012)
114 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Laura J Miller on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Miller, Laura) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/3/12. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the 2/3/12 text order. It was inadvertently filed by the Clerk of the Court. As the plaintiff is represented by counselor, the plaintiff does not have to file a Notice of Change of Address. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
115 NOTICE of Change of Address by Ashoor Rasho − now located at Pontiac Corr Center. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
116 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Roger E. Walker, Jr. by Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone with Pltfs attys Bennett, Hirshman, Kadish, and Dfts attys Higgerson and Smith for Status Conference on Tuesday, 4/3/2012 at 10:00 AM. Same held. Discussion held regarding #15 Motion to Amend Agreed Scheduling Order (filed in severed case 11−1308). Court approves #15 (in 11−1308) but notes that this is the FINAL EXTENSION ALLOWED. Parties indicate that they intend to meet on 4/25/2012 to discuss the possibility of settlement in case 07−1298. Court orders parties to file Brief regarding settlement discussions before next Status Conference. Status Conference scheduled for Tuesday, 5/8/2012 at 1:30 PM in Peoria in Courtroom B (in Peoria) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (SF, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
117 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, and Marc Kadish for Plaintiffs and Atty Chris Higgerson with Edward Huntley, Representative from IDOC for Status Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 5/8/2012 − same held. Joint Status Report received. Parties indicate they are actively working towards and are interested in settlement. Parties make representations that proposals for interim relief and comprehensive consent degree have been presented to Defendant. Defendant will provide response to proposal for interim relief by 6/7/2012. Defendant to provide response to proposed comprehensive consent decree by 8/10/12. Permission granted to allow Defendant's contractor (Wexford Health Sources) access to information about this case. Case set for further Status Conference at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 8/16/2012 via phone, court to set up call. (Court Reporter J. Johnson.) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 36 of 306

06/15/2012 06/15/2012 06/26/2012 08/16/2012
09/12/2012 09/13/2012
11/07/2012 11/08/2012
01/04/2013 01/08/2013 01/09/2013

118 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wexford Health Sources Inc. Responses due by 7/2/2012 (Walter, David) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 118 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney David M Walter terminated as counsel for Defendants Sylvia Mahone (termed 8/17/2011) and Michael F Massa (termed 8/17/2011) (Note: not listed as counsel for Wexford Health Sources Inc.). Brian Michael Smith remains counsel for these defendants. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/15/2012. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
119 NOTICE of Change of Address by David M Walter (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of open cases with initials of assigned judges)(Walter, David) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via phone by Attys Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Marc Kadish, Robert Fanning (for Attys Hildebrand/Higgerson), and Atty Roger Heaton at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 8/16/2012 for Status Conference − same held. Plaintiffs report they have received a response from the State and a great deal of progress has been made towards settlement. There is a new Director to be hired and parties request additional time. Case set for Status Conference at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 9/13/2012 by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court to set up call. (Court Reporter NM.) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
120 STATUS REPORT (Agreed Joint) by Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via phone by Attys Hirshamn/Bennett/Kadish/Higgerson/Heaton for Status Conference at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 9/13/2012 − same held. Parties report status of case and indicate a possible completion date of 11/1/12. Court sets a Status Conference at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 11/8/2012 by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Counsel to submit a updated report before 11/8/12 conference call. (Court Reporter K Sullivan.) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
121 STATUS REPORT Agreed Joint Status on behalf of all parties for November 8, 2012 status conference by Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via phone by Attys Bennett/Hirshman/Kadish for Plaintiffs and Attys Higgerson/Heaton for Defendants at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, 11/8/2012 for Status Conference − same held. Court reviewed Agreed Joint Status Report. Discussion held re: case will proceed with the interim director. Counsel request 30 days to review case with interim director, continue settlement discussion, and discuss status. Status Report to be filed with Court by 1/4/2013. Status Conference set for 9:00 a.m. on Wed, 1/9/2013 in person in Peoria (Courtroom B). The Court directs the interim mental health director, IDOC director and any other person necessary to the process to attend in person. (Court Reporter KS.) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
122 STATUS REPORT Agreed Joint Status Report on behalf of all parties for January 9, 2013 Status Conference by Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
123 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Barry C Taylor on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Taylor, Barry) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court attorneys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Barry Taylor, and Marc Kadish for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Christopher Higgerson and Bill Barnes for the defendants. Also present is attorney Roger Heaton on behalf of Wexford Health. Parties present for a Status Conference held on Wednesday, 1/9/2013 at 9:00 A.M. to discuss status of settlement. Discussion held and the Court sets deadlines for parties to address pending issues. A deadline of 1/23/2013 is set for the defense to submit definition to Plaintiff's counsel(Other Deadline). Also set for

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 37 of 306

01/23/2013 01/23/2013 01/28/2013 01/29/2013 01/30/2013
02/04/2013 03/15/2013 03/18/2013 03/19/2013
03/25/2013 04/03/2013

defense counsel is the "Staffing and Building Proposal" deadline (Secondary Other Deadline) set for 2/8/2013. Parties are instructed to submit a Status Report no later than 3/15/2013. Court sets the matter for parties to appear in person for an additional Status Conference on Tuesday, 3/19/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Tape #PR−B 9:05AM.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/23/2013. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to inform the Court in writing as to whether they will be representing and including as part of this class action the plaintiff (George Albert Fernandez) in Fernandez v. State of Illinois, et al., Case No. 12−1092, by 1/28/2013. (RP, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
124 NOTICE of Compliance re Status Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,, (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
125 NOTICE (Letter as directed by January 23, 2013 Order) re Order, (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
126 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO 1/30/13 TEXT ORDER: MOTION FOR STATUS filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 2/15/2013 (FDT, ilcd) Modified on 1/30/2013 (FDT, ilcd). (Entered: 01/29/2013)
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/30/13. Plaintiff is part of a class of plaintiffs in this case who are represented by counsel. Plaintiff, therefore, must communicate with the Court only through his counsel. All filings are to be signed by counsel of record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The Plaintiff's Motion 126 is not signed by counsel and, therefore, is STRICKEN.(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
127 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PURSUANT TO 3/18/13 TEXT ORDER: Letter from George Albert Fernandez dated 2/3/13 requesting status of this case. (FDT, ilcd) Modified on 3/18/2013 (FDT, ilcd). (Entered: 02/04/2013)
128 STATUS REPORT (Jointly Filed) by Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
TEXT ORDER STRIKING/VACATING DOCUMENT entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/18/13: Document 127 is STRICKEN as improperly filed in this case. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court Attnys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Marc Kadish, & Laura Miller for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Christopher Higgins, Bill Barnes, & Ed Huntley for the Defendants for a Status Conference on Tuesday, 3/19/2013 − same held. Discussion held re: the progress of settlement negotiations. It is requested by Plfs' counsel that the court intervene and assist with these negotiations. The following schedule is now set: A Settlement Conference is set for Thursday, 4/4/2013 at 10:30 AM to discuss the definition of Serious Mental Illness. Next, a continued Settlement Conference is set for Tuesday, 4/16/2013, and running through April 17th and 18th, with counsel and all necessary individuals present to discuss the three component parts identified. The list of suggested individuals to be present at the April 16−18 conference is due to the Court no later than Monday, 3/25/2013. If any issues needing the Court's attention arise out of the drafting of any settlement agreement, those will be addressed at a Status Conference set for Wednesday, 5/8/2013 at 11:00 AM. Parties to timely submit a brief position paper to the Court, under seal, on each of the issues to be addressed during settlement conference. All conferences set will be in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter NM.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
129 Response by Willard Elyea, John Garlic, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re Status Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,, . (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
130 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Bennett, Camille) (Entered: 04/03/2013)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 38 of 306

04/04/2013
04/15/2013 04/16/2013
04/17/2013
04/18/2013
05/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 06/19/2013

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court Attnys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, and Laura Miller for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Christopher Higgerson, Bill Barnes, and Ed Huntley for the Defendants for a Settlement Conference on Thursday, 4/4/2013. Discussion held and agreement reached on definition of "seriously mentally ill." Case remains set for additional Settlement Conferences on Tuesday, 4/16/2013, Wednesday, 4/17/2013, and Thursday, 4/18/2013 all starting at 9:00 AM. A Status Conference also remains set for Wednesday, 5/8/2013 at 11:00 AM. All conferences are to take place in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
131 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bennett, Camille) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court Attnys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Barry Taylor, and Marc Kadish for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Christopher Higgerson, Bill Barnes, and Ed Huntly for the Defendants for a Settlement Conference on Tuesday, 4/16/2013. Brief statements and discussion held re: Reports and outlines for settlement conferences over the next three days. Additional settlement discussions held. Case remains set for additional Settlement Conferences Wednesday, 4/17/13 & Thursday, 4/18/13 − both to begin at 9:00 A.M. A Status Conference also remains set for Wednesday, 5/8/2013 at 11:00 AM. All conferences are to take place in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court Attnys Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Barry Taylor, and Marc Kadish for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Christopher Higgerson, Bill Barnes, and Ed Huntly for the Defendants for a Settlement Conference on Wednesday, 4/17/2013. Discussions on drafts submitted by counsel. Additional settlement discussions held. Case remains set for an additional Settlement Conference on Thursday, 4/18/13 at 9:00 A.M. A Status Conference also remains set for Wednesday, 5/8/2013 at 11:00 AM. All conferences are to take place in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JRK, ilcd) Modified on 4/17/2013 for clerical error (JRK, ilcd). (Entered: 04/17/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court Attnys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Laura Miller, Harold Hirshman, and Marc Kadish for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Christopher Higgerson, Bill Barnes, and Ed Huntly for the Defendants for continued Settlement Conference on Thursday, 4/18/2013. Discussion held Re: the Proposed Agreed Order. Additional settlement discussions held. A Status Conference remains set for Wednesday, 5/8/2013 at 11:00 A.M. via telephone before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Parties are to provide Court with the relevant documents in advance of the 5/8/2013 Status Conference. (Tape #PRB−9:09.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/7/2013: For clarification, the Status Conference set for Wednesday, 5/8/2013 at 11:00 AM is to take place via telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm.(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone Attnys Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Marc Kadish and Laura Miller for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Christopher Higgerson, Bill Barnes, and Ed Huntly for the Defendants for a Status Conference on Wednesday, 5/8/2013. Discussion held re: Settlement. Parties' Agreed Order to be entered. A Status Conference is set for Friday, 6/28/2013 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm to check on the status of the selection of a monitor.(Court Reporter NM.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
132 AGREED ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/8/13. SEE FULL ORDER. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
133 MOTION (filed in letter form) from Michael Sapp. Responses due by 7/8/2013 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 39 of 306

06/20/2013 06/21/2013
06/28/2013 07/17/2013 07/19/2013 08/07/2013
08/07/2013 08/07/2013 08/07/2013 08/08/2013

134 Letter from Michael Sapp dated 6/17/13 requesting a copy of an Order. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/21/13. A prisoner at Pontiac Correctional Center, Michael Sapp, has filed a letter 133 and 134 with the Court in which he asks for a copy of the Consent Order agreed upon by the parties in this case. Sapp says that he believes he is a proposed class member and needs the "Consent Order" to determine his potential rights. He also says he is without the funds to pay for a copy of the document. While no "Consent Order" was entered in this case, an Agreed Order 132 was entered on 5/8/2013. The Court will not provide Sapp with a copy of the Agreed Order. Instead, Plaintiff should contact Plaintiffs' counsel directly for further information. The Clerk is directed to send Sapp a copy of the docket sheet which includes Plaintiffs' counsels' contact information. The Motion is DENIED 133 . (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone Attnys Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Barry Taylor, and Laura Miller for the Plaintiff's and Attnys Christopher Higgerson & Ed Huntley for the Defendant's for a Status Conference on Friday, 6/28/2013. Discussion held re: proposed monitors. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
135 MOTION (in letter form from non−party filer) requesting to join class action lawsuit. Responses due by 8/5/2013 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/19/13. An individual not a party to this case, Nickolas Garcia, has sent a letter to the Court inquiring as to whether he may join in this class action lawsuit. To the extent that Mr. Garcia falls within the definition of the class as it is defined for settlement purposes, he is already a member of the class in this lawsuit. However, the Court does not express an opinion on whether Mr. Garcia does, in fact, fall within the definition. The Motion is DENIED 135 .(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
STRICKEN PURSUANT TO THE 8/13/13 TEXT ORDER: TEXT ORDER: The Clerk of the Court has been informed by Notice of Change of Address recently filed by Plaintiff in cause numbers 10−1108 and 12−1006 that effective immediately, Plaintiff is now located at Pontiac Correctional Center P.O. box 99 Pontiac, Illinois 61764. It has been noted by the Clerks Office that this case is also pending in the Central District of Illinois, but Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address in this case.Plaintiff is reminded that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in his location. Pursuant to Central District of Illinois Local Rule 16.3(K), every pro se plaintiff must notify the Clerk of this court in writing of any change of address during the entire pendency of his case. It is not the Court's responsibility to independently maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions. As a courtesy to Plaintiff, however, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the institution where he has reportedly been transferred. Plaintiff shall,no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, file a notice of change of address with the Clerk. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.Notice of Change of Address to be filed by plaintiff by 8/21/2013. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/07/2013. (JS, ilcd) Modified on 8/13/2013 (FDT, ilcd). (Entered: 08/07/2013)
136 MOTION (in letter form from non−party filer) requesting a copy of the order entered 5/8/13. Responses due by 8/26/2013 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
137 MOTION (in letter form from non−party filer) requesting a copy of order. Responses due by 8/26/2013 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
138 Joint MOTION for Order Appointing Dr. Raymond F. Patterson, M.D., D.F.A.P.A. as Monitor by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 8/26/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CV of Dr. Raymond F. Patterson, M.D., D.F.A.P.A.)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/8/13. Two non−parties have filed letters with the Court asking for copies of the Agreed Order entered in this case on 5/8/2013. The Court will not provide these non−parties with free copies of that Agreed Order. Copies cost $0.10 per page, up front, and the Agreed Order is seven

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 40 of 306

08/09/2013 08/13/2013
08/13/2013
08/13/2013 08/16/2013 08/20/2013 08/21/2013
08/22/2013 08/26/2013 09/03/2013 09/06/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/16/2013 09/17/2013 09/24/2013 09/24/2013
11/18/2013 01/13/2014 01/29/2014 01/29/2014 02/03/2014

pages. The Motions are DENIED 136 and 137 .(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
139 MOTION (filed as Notice of Change of Address) by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 8/26/2013 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/13/13. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the 8/7/2013 Text Order directing Plaintiff to inform the Clerk of the Court in writing of his change of address, as the Text Order was incorrectly entered here where Plaintiff is represented by counsel. Plaintiff's Motion Notice Change of Address is thus rendered MOOT 139 .(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/13/13. The Joint Motion to Enter Order Appointing Dr. Raymond F. Patterson, M.D., D.F.A.P.A., as Monitor is GRANTED 138 . The Court does note that attached to the Motion was a page marked "Exhibit 2" followed by a blank page. The parties are directed to submit a proposed Order appointing Dr. Patterson by August 20, 2013.(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
140 Letter (received from non−party filer Berry Johnson) dated 8/13/13 regarding criteria for single cell placement. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
141 Letter dated 8/12/13 received from non−party filer regarding 5/8/13 Order. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
142 NOTICE Parties Proposed Order Appointing Dr. Raymond F. Patterson as Monitor Pursuant to May 8, 2013 Order (Bennett, Camille) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
143 ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/21/13. Pursuant to a Joint Motion of the parties filed August 7, 2013, the Court hereby appoints Dr. Raymond F. Patterson, M.D., D.F.A.P.A. of Washington, D.C. to act as monitor pursuant to the May 8, 2013 Agreed Order. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
144 Letter received from George Fernandez (non−party filer) regarding this case. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
145 Letter from non−party filer Berry Johnson. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
146 Letter received from non−filer Berry Johnson (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
147 Letter received from non−party filer. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
148 Letter received from non−filier Berry Johnson. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
149 Letter from non−party filier Dallas Davis (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
150 Exhibits filed by non−party filer, Berry Johnson. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
151 Letter and attachments from non−party filer, Berry Johnson. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
152 Letter from non−party filer Gregory Turley (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
153 STATUS REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2013 by Willard Elyea, Roberta Fews, John Garlic, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
154 STATUS REPORT For November, 2013 by Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
155 Letter Received from non−party filer Matthew E. Horton. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
156 MOTION for Hearing (filed as Motion for Writ or Telephone Hearing) filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 2/18/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
157 MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 2/18/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
158 Letter from non−party filier on behalf of Plaintiff Rasho. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2014)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 41 of 306

02/03/2014 02/03/2014 02/06/2014 02/07/2014 02/11/2014
02/11/2014
02/11/2014 02/19/2014 02/19/2014 03/05/2014
03/06/2014 03/21/2014
03/31/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014

TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/3/14. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to file a response to Don Collins' Motions 156 and 157 by 2/10/2014.(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
159 RESPONSE to Motion re 157 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Request to Dismiss Collins' Rule to Show Cause filed by Plaintiffs Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
160 STATEMENT OF FACTS filed by Don Collins. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
161 Letter from non−party filer, Mr. Thomas, on behalf of Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/11/14. Don Collins' Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Writ or Telephonic Hearing are DENIED 156 and 157 . The Court has reviewed Mr. Collins' Motions and class counsel's Response 159 , and the Court finds that Attorney Alan Mills has NOT failed to represent Mr. Collins in this lawsuit. If Plaintiff believes he has a cause of action for damages based upon his particular circumstances of incarceration, he may file a separate lawsuit and he will be responsible for the $400 filing fee. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/11/14. An inmate has filed a letter on behalf of Plaintiff Rasho in which he states that Rasho has recently had difficulty communicating with his counsel because of an IDOC policy. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants should confer and provide the Court with information as to Plaintiffs ability to send legal mail to his counsel within the next 7 days.(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Miscellaneous Deadline 2/19/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
162 Response by Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr re Order, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
163 Response by Ashoor Rasho re Order, (Response to Court's Order of February 11, 2014 Regarding Ashoor Rasho's Ability to Communicate with Counsel). (Kadish, Marc) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
TEXT ORDER: Pursuant to instructions from Chief Judge James E. Shadid, the assignment of this case to Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman is withdrawn due to his retirement. This case is hereby reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 3/5/2014. (MC, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
164 MOTION filed by Class Plaintiff Christopher Knox filed as Motion to Opt Out as a Member to the Pending Class−Action. Responses due by 3/24/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
165 RESPONSE to Motion re 164 MOTION By Christopher Knox To Opt Out Of The Class filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
166 CERTIFICATE Notice of Mailing. (Bennett, Camille) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
167 MOTION to Compel filed by by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 4/24/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
168 MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 4/24/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
169 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO 4/7/14 TEXT ORDER: Letter addressed to Judge Mihm from Rasheed McGee. (FDT, ilcd) Modified on 4/8/2014 (FDT, ilcd). (Entered: 04/08/2014)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 42 of 306

04/07/2014
04/09/2014 04/24/2014 05/05/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014
06/09/2014 06/09/2014 06/19/2014 07/09/2014 07/16/2014 07/17/2014 07/17/2014
07/17/2014
07/23/2014

TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/7/14. Plaintiff, Rasheed McGee, has sent a an ex parte letter to Judge Mihm 169 requesting a transfer out of segregation. It is noted that Plaintiff is represented by counsel. Plaintiff is not to proceed pro se as filings must be effected through counsel. Plaintiff's letter is STRICKEN.(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
170 MOTION for Intervention filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 4/28/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2)(FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
171 RESPONSE to Motion re 167 MOTION to Compel, 168 MOTION to Request Counsel, 170 MOTION to Intervene (Consolidated Plaintiffs Response to Motions by Class Members) filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
172 REPLY to Response to Motion re 170 MOTION to Intervene filed by class member Arnold Castillo. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
173 MOTION (filed in letter form) requesting cost of documents by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 6/20/2014 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/3/14. The Plaintiff has sent a letter to the clerk of the court asking how much it would cost to receive a copy of his documents in four separate cases. 173 The letter has been filed as a motion and the motion is denied. 173 The Plaintiff must provide more specific information to assist the clerk of the court in determining the price of copies. Therefore, the clerk is to send the Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheets for each of the four cases cited by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff may send a second letter to the clerk of the court and identify which specific documents he would like copied and the clerk can respond. cc: Plaintiff along with a copy of the docket sheet. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
174 Letter from Plaintiff requesting copies of every document in this file. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
175 Letter from Clerk to Plaintiff regarding copy charges. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
176 MOTION to Intervene by Intervenor Joseph Hoban. Responses due by 7/7/2014 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
177 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Agreed Order filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 7/28/2014 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
178 MOTION to Intervene filed by Christopher Knox. Responses due by 8/4/2014 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
179 MOTION for a New Class Action Law Suit filed by Theopolis Williams. Responses due by 8/4/2014 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/17/14. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff, class member, Christopher Knox's Motion to Opt Out of the class 164 and the Response by counsel for the other class members. 164 is DENIED. Class member, Theopolis Williams pro se Motion for a New Class Action Lawsuit 179 is DENIED as not appropriately brought in this action. If Class Plaintiff wishes to bring a new action it must be filed separately and not within the current case.(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
TEXT ORDER: Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/17/14. Class members, Donald Collins 167 , Arnold Castillo 177 , Joseph Hoban 176 and Christopher Knox 178 have filed pro se Motions to Compel IDOC compliance with the Agreed Order of 8/20/2013; and Motions to discharge counsel, 168 , 170 . Class counsel has filed a Response 172 which indicates that counsel has initiated the dispute resolution provisions of the May 8, 2013 Agree Order. A ruling on 167 , 168 , 170 , 176 , 177 and 178 is RESERVED pending a status hearing to be set by the Court in a separate order.(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
TEXT ORDER: Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/23/14. Status Conference set for 8/15/2014 at 1:00 p.m., by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm.)(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/2014)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 43 of 306

07/28/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014
08/08/2014 08/12/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014
08/18/2014 08/25/2014 08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/02/2014 09/03/2014
09/04/2014
09/05/2014 09/05/2014

180 RESPONSE to Motion re 177 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
181 RESPONSE to Motion re 178 MOTION to Intervene filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
182 MOTION Motion To Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order re 132 Order by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 8/25/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
183 Letter from non−party George A. Fernandez regarding the Mishandling of Class Action Injunctive Relief Settlement. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
184 MOTION to Enforce Court Order May 8, 2013 (filed by a non−party Ryan Kirkpatrick). Responses due by 8/29/2014. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for August 15, 2014 is rescheduled to 9/4/2014 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (KR, ) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/4/2014 at 10:00 AM will be held IN PERSON in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm, not by phone as previously set. Parties are to confer and report to the Court on or before 9/2/2014 regarding the particulars (i.e. time/no. of witnesses) of the expected presentation.(KR, ) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
185 Letter from non−party Anthony Gay requesting copies of the file. Clerk sent a copy of the docket sheet to Anthony Gay. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
186 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 182 MOTION Motion To Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order re 132 Order by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 9/11/2014 (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
187 NOTICE of Filing by a non−party Robert Forsyth. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
188 RESPONSE to Motion re 182 MOTION Motion To Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order re 132 Order filed by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
189 Response by Eddie Jones re Notice of Hearing, Response to the Court's Order of August 15, 2014. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
190 REPLY to Response to Motion re 182 MOTION Motion To Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order re 132 Order Plaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Motion To Enforce May 2013 Order And Suggested Remedy filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: This cause is before the court for Status Conference on 09/04/2014. The Plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman and Laura Miller. The Defendants were represented by Attorneys Christopher Higgerson, Bill Barnes and Ed Huntly. Status Conference held. Written Order to enter. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
191 NOTICE of Filing by a non−filing party Ryan Kirkpatrick. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
192 ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/5/14: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:1) The Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file a response to thepending motion to enforce the May 8, 2013 order is denied as moot. 186 TheDefendants have already filed a response which was considered by the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 44 of 306

10/06/2014
10/16/2014
10/17/2014 10/23/2014 10/28/2014 10/30/2014 10/30/2014

courtduring the status hearing. 2) Donald Collins Motion to Compel and Motion for Appointment of Individual Counsel, 167 168 ; Arnold Castillo's Motion for Intervention and Motion to Compel 170 177 ; Joseph Hoban's Motion To Intervene, 176 ; Christopher Knox's Motion to Intervene, 178 ; and Ryan Kirkpatrick's Motion to Enforce Court Order are denied. 184 .3) After conferring with opposing counsel and the Monitor, both the IllinoisDepartment of Corrections and Wexford will submit a detailed report of their newproposals to attract qualified candidates to fill the mental health staff openings within thirty (30) days. 4) The Defendants are to immediately provide Plaintiff's counsel and the Monitor with information concerning which licensed mental health professionals are supervising unlicensed workers and who they are supervising. 5) Defendants are to confer with Plaintiff's counsel and the Monitor concerning documentation regarding Mental Health Professionals visits to the segregation units and with Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) offenders. The Defendants are to provide Plaintiffs' counsel and the monitor with samples of that documentation within seven (7) days. 6) Within fourteen (14) days, the Defendants are to draft a method for providing written verification of security staff reporting pursuant to Section IV(a)(iii) of the Agreed Order. The Defendants should confer with Plaintiffs' counsel and the monitor and submit the proposal within fourteen (14) days. 7) The Defendants are to provide Plaintiffs' counsel and the Monitor with a random sample of previous reviews of SMI offenders in segregation pursuant to Section IV(c) of the Agreed Order within thirty (30) days. Any remaining reviews pursuant to this section MUST be completed within sixty (60) days. 8) The Defendants must submit a detailed report within twenty−eight (28) days on the status of negotiations concerning inpatient bed space and specific target dates for providing inpatient bed space. 9) Defendants must provide a written response to the Revised Consent Decreewithin forty−five (45) days. 10) The parties and the monitor will meet to discuss the consent decree on November 20 and November 21, 2014. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. Monitor Dr. Patterson will also be in attendance. 11) The court is reserving ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the May 8, 2013 Agreed Order. 182 . (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER ATTACHED).(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
193 NOTICE of Compliance with the Court's Order of September 5, 2014 re 192 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Request Counsel, Order on Motion to Intervene,,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Inpatient Status Report)(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/14. This matter is set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on November 20, 2014 with counsel and monitor to personally appear. The Court reserves November 20 and November 21 for the consideration of evidence, arguments and settlement discussion. The parties are requested to provide to the Court at least 7 days prior to the hearing, an Agreed Statement identifying those matters which remain to be decided. If the parties intend to call witnesses those witnesses and the scope of their expected testimony is to be identified in the Agreed Statement. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
194 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 11/17/14−MOTION to Enforce any Terms of this Order (from a non−party filer) Responses due by 11/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2−Motion, # 2 Part 3−Motion)(VP, ilcd) Modified on 11/17/2014 (VP, ilcd). (Entered: 10/17/2014)
195 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED 11/17/14−2nd MOTION to Enforce any Terms of this Order (from a non−party filer). Responses due by 11/10/2014 (VP, ilcd) Modified on 11/17/2014 (VP, ilcd). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
196 Letter from Donald Collins regarding E−Filing procedures. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
197 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 11/17/14− MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 11/17/2014 (VP, ilcd) Modified on 11/17/2014 (VP, ilcd). (Entered: 10/30/2014)
198 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 45 of 306

10/31/2014 11/06/2014 11/13/2014 11/17/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014
11/24/2014
12/01/2014 12/04/2014

199 Letter from non−filing party Zachary Borne. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
200 Letter from Luis T Gonzalez (non−party filer). (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
201 NOTICE Agreed Statement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/17/14. Class member, Kennado Taylor files a Motion to Enforce the [May 8, 2013]Interim Order 194 and Second Motion To Enforce 195 complaining of the continuation of conditions which have been identified in the Interim Order. The Court had addressed these issues with the parties on 9/5/2014 and has two days of hearings scheduled 11/20/2014 and 11/21/2014 to address these issues. Furthermore, the class is represented by counsel and all Motions are to be filed through counsel. As a result, 194 and 195 are rendered STRICKEN. Class member Don Collins files 197 , an "update" where he alleges violations personal to him, rather than the class as a whole, including that he was allegedly not given his religious meals on 10/12 and 10/13/2014 and that he has been served less food than others. These claims are outside the scope of these proceedings and will not be addressed here. Plaintiff's recourse is to file a separate cause as to these allegations. Plaintiff is reminded that all filings in this case are to be done through counsel. 197 is STRICKEN.(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
202 Letter from William Barnes. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/24/2014. Counsel for the parties was present in open court with Edward Huntley, William Barnes and Chris Higgerson on behalf defendants and Marc Kadish, Harold Hirshman, Alan Mills, Laura Miller and Camille Bennett on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel had filed an Agreed Statement 201 outlining the status of compliance with the Court's Interim Order of May 8, 2014. The statement had attached as an exhibit, a November 7, 2014 letter directed to defense counsel identifying those matters which were deemed out of compliance. Defendants had filed a letter in response which had not been filed with the Court. (See William Barnes's letter of 11/13/2014 filed herein). The parties produced a working copy of an unfinalized, joint Consent Decree though noting that there were continued points of controversy. The Court indicated that it would be willing to go through the Consent Decree point−by−point if there was a possibility of achieving a resolution. Absent that, it intended to set the matter for trial. The parties went off the record to undertake protracted settlement discussions. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
TEXT ORDER ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/24/14. The Court announced that, after two days of negotiations, the parties had made substantial progress toward the wording for a final Consent Decree. There remains several unresolved issues including, the construction of inpatient beds and segregation placement. The parties are directed, within 30 days, (Miscellaneous Deadline 12/22/2014) to file with the Court an updated draft of the Consent Decree reflecting the agreed upon changes. If any issues are raised in counsels' attempts to craft the draft Consent Decree, they may contact the Court to schedule a telephone conference to resolve. The Court notes that the identified points of controversy cannot be resolved without IDOC, State Government and State Agency input. Accordingly, the Court hereby schedules a supplemental settlement conference on Friday, March 20, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Counsel is to personally appear as are high level decision−makers. These decision−makers are to include the following individuals, or their high level representatives: The Governor of the State of Illinois, the Director of IDOC, the Director of Human Services, and the Director of Central Management Services.(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
203 Letter from Ashoor Rasho requesting participation in settlement discussions. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
204 Letter from Don Collins regarding e−filing and also requesting 2254 forms. (cc: Copy of docket sheet and 2254 forms to Don Collins, R58382, Shawnee Correctional Center, 6665 State Rt. 146 East, Vienna, IL 62995). (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 46 of 306

12/09/2014
12/09/2014 12/22/2014 12/31/2014 01/16/2015 01/20/2015 02/24/2015 03/09/2015 03/17/2015
03/17/2015

TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/09/2014. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order 182 is GRANTED to the extent that the Court subsequently scheduled 9/4/2014 and 11/23/2014 status conferences and personally participated in settlement negotiations on 11/23/2014 and 11/24/2014. The Court also reviews the letter filed by Ashoor Rasho, one of the represented parties plaintiff 203 . In the letter Plaintiff requests that his counsel involve him in settlement discussions. The Court, having worked with Plaintiff's counsel toward a resolution of this matter, is confident that counsel will effectively communicate the particulars of the proposed settlement with the plaintiffs whom they represent. As the letter requests no relief of this Court, 203 is MOOT.(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
205 MOTION to be Presented for Settlement Conference and Objection to Settlement Agreement by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 12/26/2014 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
206 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Draft by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 1/8/2015 (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
207 MOTION to Intervene filed by Robert Sholes. Responses due by 1/20/2015 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
208 NOTICE of Filing Consent Decree re Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
209 Letter from Robert Sholes. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
210 MOTION to Intervene by Allory Smith. Responses due by 3/13/2015. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
211 MOTION for Status by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 3/26/2015 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/17/15. Class Plaintiff Rasho has filed 205 , essentially an objection to the 11/24/14 settlement conference which was held in this case. Plaintiff Rasho objects to not being present at the settlement conference, despite the fact that he was represented by counsel who were present for the two days of negotiations. 205 is DENIED. A Motion to Intervene has been filed by Robert Sholes who is not a party to this action 207 . Mr. Sholes does not claim to be an SMI inmate but, rather, one who is being held in protective custody due to gang−related threats to his life. He alleges that, in furtherance of the proposed settlement of this case, IDOC plans to eject 100 inmates from protective custody so as to provide additional beds and services for SMI inmates. FRCP 24 provides that a party may intervene if that party has an interest in the action and where a disposition of the action may impair or impede the movant's interests. FRCP 24 (2). Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281 (4th Cir. 18989) (denying leave to intervene where movant did not, " satisfy Rule 24's requirement that the claim be 'relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.'" In this case, the movant has not identified himself as SMI and, therefore, cannot have an interest in this action which is for the benefit of SMI inmates. Further, the movant's Motion is untimely where this case has been going on for more than seven years. Id. at 286, (finding intervention filed two years into the litigation was "tardy". Lastly, the movant asks to join this action without the consent of the named Plaintiffs or their counsel. Jardine v. Graham, 09−1114, 2010 WL 2233676 at *6 (E.D. Wis. June 2, 2010). "It also would be unfair to allow these individual to join this action without the consent of plaints." 207 is DENIED. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/17/15. Class Plaintiff Allory Smith claims that he has opted out of the class and has since been denied mental health treatment. He files a Motion 210 asking the Court to enforce the terms of the interim Order and allow him to intervene in this case. 210 is DENIED to the extent that Plaintiff has not, in actuality, opted out of the class. This action has been brought on behalf of "All persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") and who, while incarcerated, have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (hereafter"DSM−IV"), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction or any

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 47 of 306

03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/18/2015 03/18/2015 03/19/2015
03/20/2015 03/23/2015

form of sexual disorder shall not by itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of this class definition". It is also DENIED as it requests enforcement of the terms of the Interim Order, a subject being diligently pursued by the parties who have submitted their joint Consent Decree for the Court's review. 210 is DENIED in its entirety. Named Class Plaintiff Donald Collins has filed a Motion for Status 211 which is STRICKEN as he is represented by counsel in this case. Any filings are to be made through his attorneys. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/17/15. Defendants had filed a Motion for Extension to submit a Draft Consent Decree 206 . This Motion is GRANTED, retroactively. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
212 MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 4/3/2015 (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
213 RESPONSE to Motion re 212 MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference Response in Opposition. filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/18/15. Defendants have filed a Motion to Continue the Settlement Conference scheduled for Friday, 3/20/2015, 212 . The Court RESERVES ruling and has contacted the necessary parties to appear by telephone for a conference call tomorrow, 3/19/15 at 8:00 a.m., CST. The Clerk will initiate the calls. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties were present for 3/19/2015 hearing by telephone: Attorneys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman and Marc Kadish for the Plaintiffs; and Attorneys Christopher Higgerson and Lashawnda Hunt for the Defendants. The Court−appointed Monitor, Dr. Raymond Patterson, appeared by telephone. A hearing was conducted on Defendants' Motion to Continue the 3/20/15 Settlement Conference 212 and Plaintiffs' Objection thereto. 213 . The Court is sympathetic to the fact that we have a new governor and the change in administration has delayed the decision making process. It takes note, however, that little progress seems to have occurred since the November, 2014 settlement hearings. In addition, Defendants had agreed to provide a final proposal to Plaintiffs' counsel one week before the scheduled hearing and failed to so do. The Plaintiffs identify the remaining issues as: IDOC's claimed failure to begin construction of inpatient beds at IYC Joliet; failure to reach an agreement as to what is "substantial compliance" for the various benchmarks; and delays in hiring. The Court DENIES the Motion to Continue 212 . The hearing will go forward on 3/20/2015 as scheduled with the attendance of the high level decision makers, or their representatives, as identified in the Court's text Order of 11/24/2014. Defendants' request that Central Management Services be excused is DENIED as this department is involved in the hiring of the new mental health and administrative employees identified as part of this settlement. The CMS representative will, however, be allowed to participate in the hearing by telephone. Ms. Hunt, Chief Legal Counsel to IDOC, will also be allowed to participate by telephone. (Court Reporter NM.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, Marc Kadish and Laura Miller for the Plaintiff's and Attorneys Christopher Higgerson, Ed Huntly, Lashawnda Hunt and Camille Lindsey for the Defendant's. The Court−appointed Monitor, Dr. Raymond Patterson was also present for Settlement Conference held on 3/20/2015. Settlement not reached. Text Order to enter. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 03/23/2015. The Court heard arguments on the parties' proposed Consent Decree, which contains issues which continued to be contested. The Court thereafter facilitated settlement discussion which, ultimately, proved unsuccessful. Plaintiffs made an unopposed, oral motion to renew their previously filed Motion to Enforce 182 , which the Court GRANTED. The matter is scheduled for hearing on 7/20/2015 and 7/21/2015, beginning at 10:30

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 48 of 306

03/26/2015 03/31/2015
04/01/2015 04/01/2015
04/09/2015 04/10/2015 04/17/2015 04/20/2015 04/21/2015 04/22/2015
04/30/2015
04/30/2015 04/30/2015

a.m. on 7/20/2015. Plaintiffs are given leave to serve a request for production of documents upon Defendants; with Defendants to respond 30 days thereafter. Within 7 days of receipt of the document production, Plaintiffs will identify to Defendants up to 5 individuals whom they wish to depose. The depositions to be completed by the end of May 31, 2015. In the interim, the parties are to continue their monthly telephone status conferences including updates on the expected May, 2016 construction completion date at IYC Joliet; and the opening of 10 mental health beds at the Chester facility.(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
214 Letter from Non−Party Filer Delmar P. Gray. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
215 MOTION to Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order and to Enforce September 5, 2014 Order by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 4/17/2015 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
216 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. Responses due by 4/20/2015 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
217 MEMORANDUM in Support of Certifying a Fed. R. CIV.P. 23(B)(2) Litigation Class re 216 MOTION to Certify Class by Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Keith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
218 MOTION Modify re Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,, by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 4/27/2015 (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
219 RESPONSE to Motion re 218 MOTION Modify re Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,, in opposition filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
220 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 216 MOTION to Certify Class by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 5/4/2015 (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/20/15. Defendants have filed an unopposed Motion for Extension in which to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certifications as a Litigation Class 220 . 220 is GRANTED. Defendants have until 4/30/15 in which to file a response. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
221 Letter from non party Michael Smith requesting a copy of the complaint. Clerk forwards letter with payment information. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/22/2015. The Court hereby schedules a telephone status conference with the Court−appointed Monitor, Dr. Raymond Patterson and counsel for the parties. The telephone conference is to take place Friday, May 1, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. CST. Clerk to initiate the call.(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/30/15. The Court, in clarification, informs the parties that it will hear arguments on Defendants' Motion to Modify the Court's Order of 3/23/15 218 , only. Plaintiffs' outstanding Motions 215 and 216 will be heard at the hearings already scheduled for 7/20/15 and 7/21/15. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
222 RESPONSE to Motion re 215 MOTION to Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order and to Enforce September 5, 2014 Order filed by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
223 RESPONSE to Motion re 216 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 49 of 306

05/01/2015 05/01/2015
06/01/2015 06/02/2015 06/02/2015 06/03/2015 06/10/2015
06/10/2015 06/11/2015

(Entered: 04/30/2015)
224 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 5/18/2015 (Bennett, Camille) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Status Conference held on 5/1/2015. Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Barry Taylor and Laura Miller for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Christopher Higgerson, LaShawnda Hunt and Camille Lindsey for the Defendants. Attorney Andrew Ramage for Wexford Health Sources and Dr. Raymond Patterson also participated in the phone call. Discussion and Argument heard regarding Defendants' Motion to Modify Court Order 218 . 218 is denied. The monthly telephone status conferences are to continue. The scope of the conferences will be limited to those core items mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties are to confer within 7 days and agree to this list of items. If an agreement cannot be reach the matter is to be immediately brought to the Court's attention. The first phone call will take place within 14 days of today's date. Dr. Patterson will be the only individual allowed to ask questions during the phone conferences. The defendants are to continue their current practice of providing a written status report at least 2 days prior to the scheduled telephone conference. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
225 MOTION to Limit Discovery by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. Responses due by 6/18/2015 (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/2/15. Camille Bennett, one of Plaintiffs counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw 224 which is GRANTED. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/2/15. The Court notes that Defendants have filed a Motion to Limit Discovery 225 . The Court believes that this Motion should likely be ruled upon as soon as possible so as to avoid delaying the discovery which is to be completed prior to the 7/20/15 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce. If Plaintiffs wish to file a response, they are asked to do so as soon as practicable and, if possible, by June 11, 2015. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
226 RESPONSE to Motion re 225 MOTION to Limit Discovery filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by counsel; Harold Hirshman, Alan Mills, Laura Miller, Christopher Higgerson and Lashawnda Hunt; for 6/10/15 hearing on Defendants' Motion to Limit Discovery 225 and Plaintiffs' Response 226 . The Court, after argument, DENIES Defendants' Motion to Limit Discovery 225 and will allow discovery of those terms of the Remedial Plan which relate to the "nuts and bolts" of the 5/8/13 and 9/5/14 court orders. There will be no discovery, however, as to Defendants' general compliance with the terms of the Remedial Plan. The Court finds that this discovery dispute was brought in good faith and DENIES Plaintiffs' request for fees. The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify as a Litigation Class 216 on July 7, 2015 at 9:00 am. in Courtroom B. If it is determined at that time, that witness testimony is needed, the witnesses will be scheduled to testify on 7/20/15 and 7/21/15, the dates already set for hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) Modified on 6/10/2015 to correct previously scheduled dates on 07/20/2015 and 07/21/2015. (JS, ilcd). (Entered: 06/10/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2015 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Motion Hearing set for 7/7/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
227 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Amanda C Antholt on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 50 of 306

06/30/2015 07/01/2015 07/02/2015 07/06/2015 07/07/2015
07/09/2015

228 MEMORANDUM Defendants' Failure to Deliver Mental Health Care Represent a Substantial Risk "Of Present and Serious Future Harm" Meeting the Requirements for Certifying a 23(B)(3) Class by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
229 MEMORANDUM Defendants' Failure to Deliver Mental Health Care Represent a Substantial Risk "Of Present and Serious Future Harm" Meeting the Requirements for Certifying a 23(B)(3) Class (Re−filing of docket entry 228 to include inadvertently omitted exhibits) by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
230 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum (Docket no. 229) Instanter by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 7/20/2015 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/6/2015. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Memorandum, instanter, 230 is GRANTED. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman and Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Chris Higgerson and Ed Huntly for the Defendants. A hearing was held 7/7/15, on Plaintiffs Motion for Certification as a Litigation Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The Court, after speaking with counsel and taking a brief recess so counsel could confer, determines that the parties are abandoning settlement and will proceed with litigation. The Court notes that a party seeking class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) must also demonstrate compliance with Rule 23(a). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established the numerosity requirement and identifies commonality and typicality as the remaining Rule 23(a) issues. The Court finds there is commonality as the members of the proposed class have factual and legal issues in common. The Court, at this juncture finds that Plaintiffs have established the typicality requirement but asks that Plaintiffs, within 7 days, file an Offer of Proof supporting their claim that the named representatives are typical of the class. The Court will thereafter allow limited discovery as to the typicality issue, if needed. The parties are to submit to the Court, within 7 days, their Proposed Findings on the issue of Class Certification. The Court makes a finding that Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(b)(2) requirements for class certification. Defendants move for dismissal of the pending Motion to Enforce set for hearing 7/20/15. Defendants assert that the Motion to Enforce is based on alleged non−compliance with the 5/8/13 Agreed Order and the Order is no longer controlling as the settlement class has been decertified and the parties are no longer moving toward settlement. The Court takes the matter under advisement and schedules a telephone hearing with the parties on Thursday 7/9/15 at 2:00 p.m. by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm to discuss the status of the Motion to Enforce. The Court took a recess and the parties conferred in an effort to achieve an agreed upon definition for the proposed litigation class. The parties returned and, on the record, presented the following definition. Defendants, however, maintained an objection to including the phrase "should have been identified". The Court overruled the objection, adopting the following definition: Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections who are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC's mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purpose of this class definition. (Court Reporter NM.) (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman and Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Chris Higgerson and Ed Huntly for the Defendants. Andrew Ramage for Wexford. Camille Lindsay with IDOC for Status Hearing held on 7/9/15. Discussion held on 215 Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce May 8, 2013 Agreed Order and to Enforce September 5, 2014 Order. Written Order to enter.(Court Reporter NM.) (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 51 of 306

07/10/2015
07/14/2015
07/14/2015 07/16/2015 07/16/2015 07/20/2015 07/20/2015 07/23/2015 07/23/2015 08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/05/2015

231 ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/10/15. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiffs are to submit their proposed findings to the Court on or before July 23, 2015; 2) Defendants are to submit their proposed findings to the Court on or before August 6, 2015; 3) The Court hereby schedules a hearing on these matters to take place on August 27, 2015 at 1:00 p.m., with parties to appear in person. 4) The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce 215 , with leave to reassert and VACATES the hearings scheduled for July 20th and 21st 2015. 5) Plaintiffs counsel had requested that the Court grant Defendants an opportunity to file an answer to the complaint. The Court gave Defendants 28 days in which to so do. Upon review, however, it appears that Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs second amended complaint on 5/19/11 104 . However, to the extent that there is an outstanding pleading to which Defendants have not filed a response, they are given 28 days to respond. 6)Discovery is reopened in this case. (See Full Written Order).(VP, ilcd) Modified on 7/10/2015 correct spelling (VP, ilcd). (Entered: 07/10/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/14/15. The pro se clerk received a call from Plaintiffs' counsel Harold Hirshman who represented that he was contacting the Court with the agreement of Defendants' counsel, Chris Higgerson. The parties sought clarification as to the date on which the parties were to file their proposed findings on the issue class certification as identified in the Courts Order of 7/7/15. Counsel requested, further, that if the proposed findings were due 7/14/15, that an extension be allowed. Counsels' oral, agreed motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. The Court Order of 7/7/15 is modified to provide that the parties have until 7/20/15 in which to file their proposed findings on the issue of class certification.(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
232 OFFER OF PROOF Regarding the Typicality of the Claims of Named Plaintiffs In Support of Their Motion For Class Certification by Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Rasheed McGee, Ashoor Rasho, Keith Walker. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
233 Letter from Aaron Fillmore. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
234 Proposed Findings of Fact by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
235 Proposed Findings of Fact by Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
236 NOTICE (Plaintiffs' Compendium of References in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) re 234 Proposed Findings of Fact (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
237 MOTION to Appoint Receiver to Create a Plan for Inpatient Care by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 8/10/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
238 MEMORANDUM in Support of Sanctions for Violation of the Court's Orders of May 9, 2011, May 8, 2013, September 5, 2014 and November 24, 2014 by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit 6, # 6 Exhibit 7, # 7 Exhibit 8, # 8 Exhibit 9, # 9 Exhibit 10, # 10 Exhibit 11)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
239 MOTION to Cite Authority additional by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 8/21/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
240 MOTION to Enforce by Michael Johnson. Responses due by 8/21/2015. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
241 MOTION to Intervene by Michael Johnson. Responses due by 8/21/2015 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
242 MOTION to Supplement 238 Memorandum, by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 8/24/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/05/2015)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 52 of 306

08/06/2015 08/06/2015
08/06/2015 08/06/2015 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/11/2015
08/14/2015
08/14/2015

243 Letter from Kawaun Mickens requesting a copy of docket. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/6/15. Plaintiffs' Motion to Cite Additional Authority 239 and Motion to Supplement Memorandum 242 are GRANTED. Michael Johnson, self−described as seriously mentally ill, has filed a Motion to Enforce 240 and Motion to Intervene 241 . Plaintiff need not intervene as he is, due to his mental health diagnosis, already a class member. Further, as the class if represented by counsel, Plaintiff may not file his own independent motions as this must come through counsel. 240 and 241 are DENIED. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
244 RESPONSE to Motion re 237 MOTION to Appoint Receiver to Create a Plan for Inpatient Care filed by Defendants Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
245 Response by Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro, Roger E Walker, Jr re 238 Memorandum, . (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
246 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 240 MOTION by Michael Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
247 MOTION to Set the Record Straight by Michael Johnson. Responses due by 8/27/2015 (SW, ilcd) Modified on 8/10/2015 to correct filer(SW, ilcd). (Entered: 08/10/2015)
248 MOTION to Enforce by Cordell Sanders. Responses due by 8/27/2015 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
249 MOTION to Intervene by Cordell Sanders. Responses due by 8/27/2015 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
250 MOTION to Inform the Court by Michael Johnson. Responses due by 8/27/2015 (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/11/15. Michael Johnson has filed 247 indicating that he is a class member but believes he is underrepresented by counsel as he has never met with the attorneys representing the class. He also files 250 in which he alleges that he has been subjected to excessive force and that his mental illness has not been properly treated. Cordell Sanders files 248 , a Motion to Enforce the May 8, 2013 Agreed Order and 249 , a Motion to Intervene. The Class Plaintiffs are represented by counsel and all filings are to be done through their attorneys. Further, the matters of treatment for mentally ill prisoners is currently being litigated before the court and not yet ripe for ruling. 247 , 248 , 249 and 250 are STRICKEN. If Mr. Johnson has his own, specific claims of excessive force he may plead them in a separate complaint on his own behalf, only. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
251 VACATED PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 8/14/2015−−ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23(b)(2) entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/14/15. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:1). The Court hereby certifies as a class for purposes of litigation and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 23(b)(2) "All persons who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") and who, while incarcerated, have a serious mental illness, defined as an Axis I disorder in the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fourth Edition (hereafter "DSM−IV"), except that a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction or any form of sexual disorder shall not be itself constitute a serious mental illness for purposes of the class definition." 2). Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Litigation Class Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is GRANTED. 3). The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request to expand the class definition to include persons "who should have been identified" (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER). (VP, ilcd) Modified on 8/14/2015 (VP, ilcd). (Entered: 08/14/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/14/15. The Court's ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23(b)(2) − 251 is VACATED as it contains an error in the class definition. The AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 53 of 306

08/14/2015
08/19/2015 08/20/2015 08/20/2015 08/25/2015 08/25/2015 08/26/2015 08/26/2015 08/27/2015
08/31/2015

UNDER RULE 23(b)(2) − 252 is entered in its place.(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
252 AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23(b)(2) entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/14/15. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:1). The Court hereby certifies as a class for purposes of litigation, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 23(b)(2), "Persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC's mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual mentally ill for the purposes of this class definition.2). Plaintiffs' 216 Motion to Certify a Litigation Class Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is GRANTED. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER).(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
253 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Supplementary Filing on its Motion for Sanctions by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 9/8/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/20/15. Plaintiffs file 253 , a Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Information in support of their Motion for Sanctions. 253 is GRANTED. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
254 NOTICE of Supplementary Filing re to the July 23, 2015 Motion for Sanctions 238 Memorandum. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/25/15. It has come to the Court's attention that Plaintiffs have requested transcripts of the 11/21/14 and 3/20/15 hearings. Portions of the hearings were conducted in camera and sealed. The entirety of the transcripts may be released to the parties with the understanding that there is to be no third party disclosure of the sealed portions. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
255 MOTION for Protective Order (Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Qualified HIPAA Protective Order) by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 9/11/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/26/15. Plaintiffs' Motion for a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order 255 is GRANTED as the Court finds that good cause exists to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and direct the use of protected health information during the course of this litigation. The Court, however, has its own standard HIPAA order, which will be entered in lieu of the proposed order. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
256 HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/26/15. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attys Alan Mills, Camille Bennett, Harold Hirshman, and Amanda Antholdt for Plaintiffs and Attys Chris Higgerson and Edward Huntley for the Dfts for Motion Hearing held on 8/27/2015. Discussion regarding pending Motions. Status Conference set for 9/17/2015 at 3:00 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Written Order to enter. (Court Reporter NM.) (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
257 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on 9/4/2014, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Camille Bennett.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 54 of 306

09/01/2015 09/03/2015 09/08/2015
09/09/2015
09/17/2015
09/18/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015
09/28/2015 09/28/2015

review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/24/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/5/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/3/2015. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
258 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Complaint to Substitute Certain Plaintiffs by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 9/18/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
259 OBJECTION filed by Mitchell Thomas. (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 258 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. The Motion to Amend the Complaint is unopposed. The Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the amended complaint (258−1) attached to the Motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/8/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
260 THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Roberta Fews, John Garlic, Eddie Jones, Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wendy Navarro, Wexford Health Sources Inc, filed by Clara Plair, Crystal Stoneburner, Joseph Herman, Patrice Daniels, Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Ashoor Rasho, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Gerrodo Forrest, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Keith Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(VP, ilcd) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholt, Chris Higgerson, Ed Huntley, David Henessy, Camille Lindsay and Lashawnda Huntfor Status Conference held on 9/18/2015. Discussion regarding trial schedule. Court details previous schedule put in place during the August 27, 2015, hearing. Parties confirm they have discussed discovery as previously directed. Plaintiffs raise additional issues including "extreme" inmate conduct/conditions and possibility of a Court appointed expert in lieu of parties' experts. Discussion held on issues. Court advised parties of ILCD−LR 16.1 and informed parties provide the Clerk of the Court a sealed filing indicating any request to have the presiding judge recused from the case. Parties given 14 days to make the filing. (Court Reporter NM.) (JS, ilcd) Modified on 9/18/2015 (JS, ilcd). (Entered: 09/18/2015)
261 ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/18/15. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Sanctions for Violation of the Court' Orders of May 9, 2011, May 8,2013, September 5, 2014, and November 24, 2014 238 is DENIED.(SW, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
262 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
Filing fee received: $350, receipt number 14626024428 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
Remark: 262 was filed in compliance with the Judge's directive at the 09/17/2015 Status Conference and should be viewed by the Clerk of the Court only. Any further responses or filings related to the Courts directive is to be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Kenneth A. Wells at jennifer_sullivan@ilcd.uscourts.gov. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
263 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
Remark: 263 was filed in compliance with the Judge's directive at the 09/17/2015 Status Conference and should be reviewed by the Clerk of the Court only. Any further responses or filings related to the Courts directive is to be sent to the Clerk of the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 55 of 306

10/09/2015 10/09/2015 10/13/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/16/2015 10/16/2015 10/16/2015
10/16/2015
10/19/2015
10/19/2015

Court, Kenneth A. Wells at jennifer_sullivan@ilcd.uscourts.gov. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
264 MOTION for Objection to Settlement Agreement filed by Mitchell Thomas. Responses due by 10/26/2015 (VP, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
265 Emergency MOTION to Compel Expert Access to Illinois Department of Corrections Facilities by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 10/26/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
NOTICE OF Motion Hearing set for 10/16/2015 at 03:30 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Hearing on Plaitniff's Emergency Motion to Compel (ECF No. 265). Defendants to provide response brief on or before close of business Thursday, October 15, 2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
266 RESPONSE to Motion re 265 Emergency MOTION to Compel Expert Access to Illinois Department of Corrections Facilities filed by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
267 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel Expert Access by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 11/2/2015 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
268 REPLY to Response to Motion re 265 Emergency MOTION to Compel Expert Access to Illinois Department of Corrections Facilities filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 267 Motion for Leave to File. The Reply will be considered with the other related pleadings. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
269 MOTION filed by Eric McKinney. Responses due by 11/2/2015 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
270 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/15. Final Pre−Trial Conference on December 17, 2015, at 11:00 AM, in Courtroom B, PeoriaIllinois. Trial starting on Tuesday, January 5, 2016, at 8:45 AM, in Courtroom B, Peoria, Illinois, and continuing thereafter as needed. The Court is aware that this case is moving forward on an expedited basis. The Parties should attempt to resolve any discovery disputes promptly, and any dispute that cannot be resolved by agreement should promptly be brought to the Court's attention. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Christopher Higgerson, LaShawnda Hunt, Camille Lindsay and Andrew Ramage for Motion Hearing held on 10/16/2015. Discussion held regarding 265 Emergency MOTION to Compel Expert Access to Illinois Department of Corrections Facilities filed by Ashoor Rasho. Argument heard. Motion 265 Emergency MOTION to Compel Expert Access to Illinois Department of Corrections Facilities filed by Ashoor Rasho is GRANTED insofar as the Parties were able to work through any outstanding issues. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 264 Motion/Objection. Class member Mitchell Thomas has filed an objection to the Settlement Agreement requesting that "nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages" be awarded as part of the settlement. As previously noted by this Court, damages based upon a particular circumstance(s) of incarceration are not part of this case. (See e.g. TEXT ORDER dated 2/11/2014) Any inmate seeking such damages should file a separate lawsuit. Moreover, no final settlement has been reached in this case. This matter is presently set for trial on January 5, 2016. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/19/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 269 Motion but directing the Parties to take certain action. Possible class member Eric K. McKinney has filed a document arguing there

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 56 of 306

10/20/2015 10/20/2015 10/27/2015 11/03/2015 11/03/2015 11/04/2015
11/05/2015
11/09/2015 11/09/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/17/2015

has been a violation of an "Agreed Order" in the handling of his mental health treatment while he has been incarcerated with the Illinois Department of Corrections. The application of the Court's ruling in this case and the complaints set for in the document are questionable. Nonetheless, the Court directs the Parties to jointly inquire into the status of Mr. McKinney and file a status report (sealed) detailing what, if any, application this case has on Mr. McKinney's situation within 21 days. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/19/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Miscellaneous Deadline 11/9/2015 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 1/5/2016 08:45 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
271 MOTION to Opt Out filed by Michael Johnson Responses due by 11/13/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
272 MOTION to Intervene and Enforce by Raymond Serio. Responses due by 11/20/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
273 Declaration of Michael Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 271 Motion to Opt Out. Purported class member Michael R. Johnson has filed a Motion to Opt Out (ECF No. 271) requesting he be allowed to opt out of this case and pursue his own litigation. As previously noted by this Court, damages based upon a particular circumstance(s) of incarceration are not part of this case (See e.g. TEXT ORDER dated 2/11/2014). Any inmate seeking such damages should file a separate lawsuit. Moreover, no final settlement has been reached in this case. This matter is presently set for trial on January 5, 2016. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/4/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 272 Motion to Intervene. Raymond Serio has filed a Motion to Intervene and Enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. (ECF No. 272). For reasons stated herein, the Motion to Intervene and Enforce the terms of the Consent Decree is DENIED. Petitioner states that he is a prisoner in custody of the IDOC at Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff further states that he suffers from mental illness. Plaintiff also asserts that on June 17, 2015, he was placed in Menards segregation and subsequently given one year in segregation without consideration for his mental illness. In this case, the class of plaintiffs has already been determined. Plaintiff need not intervene if he meets the definition of a class member due to his mental health diagnosis. Further, as the class is represented by counsel, Plaintiff may not file his own independent motions as this must come through counsel. Nonetheless, if Plaintiff has his own specific claim, he may plead them is a separate complaint filed on his own behalf. It should also be noted that no final settlement has been reached in this case. A trial is currently scheduled for January 5, 2016. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/5/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 11/5/2015 to reflect jury trial set 1/5/2016 not 1/5/2015 (RK, ilcd). (Entered: 11/05/2015)
274 MOTION for Status (filed in letter format) by Mitchell Thomas. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 11/18/2015 (to correct name) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/09/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 11/17/2015 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (KR, ) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
275 VIDEO WRIT issued for deposition to take place on 11/24/2015 at 9:00am (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
276 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via phone, Attys Hirshman/Antholdt for Plaintiffs. Attys Higgerson/Hunt for the Defendants. Atty Ramage for Wexford and Dr. Patterson for Status Conference held on 11/17/2015. Discussion regarding letter from Dr. Patterson dated 11/6/2015. Discussion regarding the Court appointing Dr. Patterson as Court expert. Parties concur Court has the authority to do so. Court provides parties the opportunity to

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 57 of 306

11/18/2015
11/19/2015 11/24/2015 11/24/2015 11/24/2015 11/30/2015
11/30/2015 12/01/2015

object this appointment. Schedule set. Objections to the appointment of Dr. Patterson should be filed by end of business on November 20, 2015. In any event, Parties to confer as to the duties of the expert by November 24, 2015. Parties to submit their joint/separate proposal of the language to be included in Order by December 1, 2015. Parties to expedite any documents and/or reports to Dr. Patterson. Expert Report is due from Dr. Patterson by December 15, 2015. Deposition deadline of Dr. Patterson is December 22, 2015. Defendants indicate that they are working on certain billing issues with Dr. Patterson and should have those resolved soon. The trial schedule will remain the same. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 274 Motion for Status noting the following: Class member Mitchell Thomas has filed a Motion for Status (ECF No. 274) requesting a status on his previously filed Motion for Objection to Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 264). On October 19, 2015, this Court denied the Motion for Objection to Settlement Agreement noting that no final settlement agreement had been reached. (TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 10/19/2015). The Court also noted that the case is currently scheduled for trial on January 5, 2016. Id. Finally, Mr. Thomas was that any individual claim seeking damages should be brought by separate lawsuit. Id. To the extent Mr. Thomas seeks any other relief that the above information, the Motion (ECF No. 274) is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/18/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
277 NOTICE Plaintiff's Consent to Dr. Patterson Acting As The Court's Expert (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
278 George Fernandez's MOTION for a Finding That He is Opted Out of This Case as an Plaintiff Class Member Entirely, and For Supporting Letters to George Fernandez's Counsel To Be Filed in Camera and Placed Under Seal and Not Served on the Defendants Counsel. Responses due by 12/11/2015 (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
279 SEALED EXHIBIT.. (JS, ilcd) Modified on 12/9/2015 to UNSEAL document(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/24/2015)
280 SEALED EXHIBIT.. (JS, ilcd) Modified on 12/9/2015 to UNSEAL document (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/24/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 278 Motion for Misc. Relief. George Fernandez has filed a Motion for a Finding that he is Opted Out of Rasho, et al. v. Walker et al., ILCD Case No. 07−1298. Fernandez is currently a plaintiff in ILCD Case No. 12−1092 pending before Chief Judge Shadid. On August 27, 2015, Chief Judge Shadid entered an Order staying the proceedings in Fernandez's case finding that certain portions of Fernandez's lawsuit could be duplicative of the claims asserted in this case. (Fernandez v. State of Illinois, et al., ILCD Case No. 12−1092, TEXT ORDER dated 8/27/2015). The Chief Judge also noted that Fernandez was a class member in this case (Rasho). Id. In his Motion, Fernandez states that he wants nothing to do with the Rasho case. This case (Rasho) relates to injunctive relief sought for seriously mentally ill inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. This case does not involve damages. The relief sought in this case involves changes to the overall treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates and may have an affect on the IDOC's policies and procedures. In that regard, the relief sought in this case could touch upon Fernandez's case. However, this case does not bar his other suit for damages. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED insofar as any relief is sought to change or modify the decision by Chief Judge Shadid to stay Fernandez's case. Fernandez must make such a motion in the case before the Chief Judge. Furthermore, Fernandez request that several document related to his Motion be filed under seal. The Court has reviewed the documents and determined that there is no reason for these documents to be sealed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the documents and also provide a copy of the Motion and Exhibits to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
281 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Agreed Order filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 12/17/2015. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
282 Response by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re Status Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,,, . (Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 12/01/2015)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 58 of 306

12/01/2015 12/03/2015 12/04/2015
12/07/2015 12/10/2015 12/11/2015
12/17/2015
12/18/2015 12/18/2015 12/22/2015

283 MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding the Duties of the Court's Expert by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
284 ORDER/OPINION entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/3/2015. (See Full Written Order/Opinion)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 281 Motion to Compel. Arnold Castillo, purported class member, seeks an Order from the Court compelling Defendants to comply with the Agreed Order dated May 8, 2013. On July 7, 2015, the Court found that the Parties were abandoning their settlement efforts and proceeding to litigation. (See Minute Entry dated 7/7/2015). The Court also found that the Agreed Order was no longer controlling. Id. This matter is presently set for trial on January 5, 2016. The result of the litigation may address certain concerns contained in Mr. Castillo's pleading. However, to the extent Mr. Castillo has any individualized claims, he may wish to file his own lawsuit seeking such individualized relief. The Motion to Compel is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/4/2015.(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
285 NOTICE of Motion filed by Raymond Serio. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
286 MOTION for Clarification of 11/30/2015 Order and Motion for Reconsideration of 11/30/2015 Order by George A. Fernandez. Responses due by 12/28/2015 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 285 Notice (Other). Raymond Serio has purportedly "noticed" his Motion up for hearing December 18, 2015. The Motion (ECF NO. 272) was previously denied with this Court explaining that he need not intervene if he meets the definition of a class member. (TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/5/2015). Mr. Serio was also put on notice that any further motions should come through counsel. While Mr. Serio is not a named plaintiff, he may (and should) still communicate through class counsel. Mr. Serio was also informed that if he had a specific claim, he can filed his own lawsuit. Mr. Serio's Motion will not be heard on December 18, 2015. This case remains scheduled for Final Pre−Trial on 12/17/2015, and Trial on 1/5/2016. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/11/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Mills/Hirsham/Jones for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Higgerson/Hunt for Defendants for Final Pretrial Conference held on 12/17/2015. Discussion regarding proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement. Parties to prepare a draft order and send to the court for review by 12/21/2015. Court proposes/presents schedule for inclusion in the proposed order including Notices to be sent to the Plaintiffs by 1/21/2016; Objections to the settlement should be filed by 3/21/2016; and possible fairness hearing set for 5/13/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Trial set for 1/5/2016 is VACATED. (Court Reporter DD.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
287 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
288 MOTION to Testify filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 1/7/2016. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 286 Motion. George A Fernandez has filed a Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 286) of this Court's Order dated 11/30/2105 and for Reconsideration of the Order. In his Order, Mr. Fernandez accuses the Court of using "WEASEL" wording to avoid addressing his question of whether or not his is "OPTED OUT" as a class member in this case. The record reveals that Mr. Fernandez is currently a plaintiff in ILCD Case No. 12−1092 pending before Chief Judge Shadid wherein the Chief Judge determined that the injunctive relief sought by Mr. Fernandez may touch upon his case. As previously noted by this Court, the relief sought in this case involves changes to the overall treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates and may have an effect on the IDOC's policies and procedures. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/30/2015). Notably, this case involves injunctive relief, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., as this goes forward, while the Court would have to determine that the corresponding relief is appropriate respecting the class members as a whole, the relief would be binding on all class members. To put it directly, no class member would be able to "OPT OUT."

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 59 of 306

12/22/2015 12/22/2015
01/04/2016 01/04/2016 01/05/2016
01/06/2016 01/11/2016

Additionally, it should be noted that the Parties have announced that they have reached a settlement. That being said, Mr. Fernandez, of course, can object to the settlement or terms of the settlement. Mr. Fernandez can also pursue any of his money damages claims outside the context of this litigation. The Motion for Clarification is granted insofar as the Court makes it clear Mr. Fernandez cannot "OPT OUT." The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/22/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
289 LEGAL NOTICE (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
290 ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/22/2015. The Court enters the following schedule. The Illinois Department of Corrections is to provide the notice to the Plaintiff class members by delivering copies of the Legal Notice to all persons on the mental health caseload and posting copies in appropriate locations in all correctional facilities by January 21, 2016. Objections to the settlement should be filed with the Court by March 21, 2016. A fairness hearing is set for May 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. If the Court approves the settlement, Plaintiffs may petition for attorneys' fees and costs, and the Court will set a schedule for a hearing on that petition. (See Full Written Order)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 288 Motion. Mr. Arnold Castillo moves this Court to testify at the Trial that was scheduled for January 5, 2016, noting that his testimony would be relevant and material to the issue presented in this case. Notably, the Parties have recently announced that this case has settled. The trial setting has been vacated. Any final settlement is subject to this Court's review. Additionally, class members will be given notice of the terms of the settlement. If Mr. Castillo has any immediate questions or concerns, he, of course, may contact class counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
291 MOTION for Plaintiffs Counsel to Inform George Fernandez the Settlement Terms in this Case filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 1/22/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 291 Motion and providing additional information to Plaintiff regarding settlement. Mr. George Fernandez has filed a Motion for Plaintiffs' counsel to inform him of the terms of the settlement in this case. Mr. Fernandez's Motion also details information regarding recent incidents involving inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. First, it should be noted that on December 22, 2015, this Court entered an Order detailing the schedule for notice of the settlement to be provided to class members. (See ECF No. 290). Notice will be provided in various locations at Illinois correctional facilities by January 21, 2016. Should Mr. Fernandez desire additional information, he should contact class counsel directly. Address for class counsel include: Alan Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, 4413 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60640/Harold Hirshman, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, Il 60606/Amanda Antholt, Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60602. Second, as for the additional information regarding incidents at the correctional center, Mr. Fernandez can convey this information to the class counsel for appropriate handling if he so desires. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/5/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
292 MOTION of Clarification of Class Member filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 1/25/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 292 Motion. Movant Arnold Castillo asserts that he is a class member in this case and has not been afforded any interim relief despite the fact that class counsel has "stated and affirmed" that he is a class member. Movant should work with class counsel to determine if any action is necessary of the Court or his inquiry can be resolved without Court intervention. Request for intervention of the Court should come through class counsel. Address for class counsel include: Alan Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, 4413 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60640/Harold Hirshman, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, Il 60606/Amanda Antholt, Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60602. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/11/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 60 of 306

01/13/2016 01/13/2016 01/14/2016
01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/15/2016
01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/19/2016 01/21/2016

293 Letter from Raymond Serio. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
294 MOTION Raymond Serio's Request for Ruling on his Motion to Intervene and his Objection to Settlement. Responses due by 2/1/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 294 Motion for Misc. Relief. In his Motion (ECF No. 294) requesting a ruling on his motion to intervene and object to settlement, Mr. Serio indicates that he has not received ruling on his previous Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 272; see also ECF No. 285, Notice of Motion filed by Raymond Serio). The Court has entered an Order on both pleadings filed by Mr. Serio. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/15/201 and TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 12/11/2015). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to resend Mr. Serio copies of the TEXT ONLY ORDERS. As for Mr. Serio's objection to the settlement, the objection is noted and will be considered during the fairness hearing set for May 13, 2016. Mr. Serio may contact class counsel directly to determine if any resolution to his objection can be made in advance of the hearing. Address for class counsel include: Alan Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, 4413 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60640/Harold Hirshman, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, Il 60606/Amanda Antholt, Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60602. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/14/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
295 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Carnell Willis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
296 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Jamaine Craft. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
297 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Jon R Morgan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
298 Letter from Joshua Dixon requesting to be a part of the settlement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
299 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Robbie J Moore. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
300 MOTION of Request filed by Robbie J Moore. Responses due by 2/1/2016. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 300 Motion. The Court will consider the Movants comments as an Objection to the Settlement for the grounds noted in the pleading. (See ECF No. 300, suggesting the inclusion of punitive damages, financial awards, single man cells, and transfers). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/15/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
301 Letter from Brian Crocco requesting counseling. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
302 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Danny Wicker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
303 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Edward Brown. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
304 Letter from Gregory Conway. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 1/15/2016 to correct spelling (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 01/15/2016)
305 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jacob Fife. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
306 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Matthew Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
307 Letter from Michael McCarroll. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
308 Letter from Ryan Martinez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
309 Letter from Tony Collier. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
310 MOTION for Reconsideration re Text Order entered on 1/11/2016 filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 2/5/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
311 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Wynston Day. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 61 of 306

01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016

312 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ike Easley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
313 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Marta English. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
314 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Marty Blackmon. (VH, ilcd) (Main Document 314 replaced on 1/21/2016) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 01/21/2016)
315 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
316 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Lambert. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
317 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Myron Barber. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
318 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Anthony Jefferson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
319 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bob Donley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
320 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Demetrius Green. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
321 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dwayne Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
322 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by George Fly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
323 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Herman Nitz. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
324 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jared Petty. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
325 OBJECTION to Settlement Jordan Butterfield. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
326 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Keisean Ellis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
327 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Oscar Grissette. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
328 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Shannon Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
329 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Andrew McKissick. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
330 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bennie Teague. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
331 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Billy Henderson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
332 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Brandon Donaldson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
333 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Carl Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
334 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Delmar Gray. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
335 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Freddie Rogers. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
336 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by James Larry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
337 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Josiah Griffiin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
338 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Justin Kaiser. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
339 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Luther Daniel. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
340 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Randy Warren. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
341 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Raymond Gossett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
342 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Richard Ambrose. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 62 of 306

01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/21/2016
01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016

343 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Russell Holliday. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
344 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Sean Hanks. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
345 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Terry Caton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
346 NOTICE of Compliance (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Settlement Agreement)(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
347 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Alan Duncan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
348 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Corey Carter. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
349 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by David Ross. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
350 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ellis Henderson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
351 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jelisa Morris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
352 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Joshua Medley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
353 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Malcolm Wiggins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
354 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Remy Suane. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
355 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ronnie Carroll. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
356 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Tamilyn Robertson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
357 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bobby Tatum. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
358 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darnell Darvis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
359 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Evelio Caraballo. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
360 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Lewayne Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
361 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Crouch, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
362 MOTION for Extension of Time of 30 Days to File Motion for Certificate for Leave to Appeal and Notice of Appeal filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 2/8/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
363 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Antoine Moore. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
364 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ben Jamin, AGOSTO. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
365 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Brian Norbeck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
366 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Christ Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
367 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Christopher Pyles. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
368 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darin McDaniels. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
369 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dee Eastman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
370 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darnell Tipton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
371 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dominick Rode. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 63 of 306

01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/25/2016 01/25/2016
01/25/2016
01/26/2016

372 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Eric Robles. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
373 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Harold Kaebel (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
374 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jared Chadwick (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
375 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Joe Price. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
376 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by John Worlow. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
377 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Lee Holden Parker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
378 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Boyd. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
379 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ryan Frazier. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
380 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Steve Harper. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
381 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
382 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Thomas Brian. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
383 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Torrance Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
384 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Walter Allen. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
385 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by William Medina. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
386 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Willie Brown. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
387 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Kenyatta Mays. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
388 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Amy Ferguson. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
389 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Douglas Lemon. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
390 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Nelson Rivera. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
391 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Patrick O'Connor. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
392 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Benjamin Hixson, Sr. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
393 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Jerome Jerricks. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
394 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Kenneth Gray. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
395 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Jerry Brown. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
396 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Michael Kozeluh. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
397 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Rene Jaime. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
398 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Ronald Rice. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
399 OBJECTION to the Settlement filed by Timothy Ashworth. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
400 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Corrie Singleton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 64 of 306

01/27/2016 01/28/2016 01/28/2016
01/28/2016
01/28/2016
01/28/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016

401 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendants Department of Corrections, Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa, Wexford Health Sources Inc. Responses due by 2/16/2016 (Smith, Brian) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
402 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jesse Lee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER temporarily granting 401 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Brian Smith of Heyl, Royster, Voelker and Allen moves to withdraw as attorney of record in this on behalf of Defendants Sylvia Mahone, MD, Michael Mass, MD, and Wexford Health Sources noting that these Defendants have been terminated from the case. The Court cautions Mr. Smith that Judgment has not been entered in this case and may be subject to appeal. Nonetheless, the Court will GRANT the Motion and Mr. Smith will be terminated as attorney of record within 7 days unless he withdraws his request. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 362 Motion for Misc. Relief. George Fernandez requests additional time to file an appeal of this Court's Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order denying "Motion for a Finding that he is Opted Out of this Case as a Plaintiff Class Member." (See ECF No. 278, original Motion, TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/30/2015, denying the request, ECF No. 286, Motion requesting clarification, and TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 12/22/2015). While the Court finds that there would be no merit to any such appeal, the Court GRANTS the request. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court grants Mr. Fernandez an additional 30 days, from January 22, 2016, to file his Notice of Appeal (appeal must be filed by February 21, 2016). See Fed. R. App. P. R. 4(a)(5). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 310 Motion for Reconsideration. Arnold Castillo has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's compelling the Defendants to comply with the Agreed Order dated May 8, 2013. (See ECF No. 281, Motion and TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 12/4/2015). The Court has explained to Mr. Castillo that if he had any individualized claims, he could pursue his own lawsuit. Nonetheless, the Parties have subsequently reached an agreement. As for the instant Motion, Mr. Castillo argues that he does not have an avenue to challenge he current proceedings/settlement agreement. Mr. Castillo can file an objection (or support) to the proposed class settlement. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Miscellaneous Deadline 2/22/2016 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
403 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bob Donely. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
404 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ellis Henderson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
405 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Franciso Wolf. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
406 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Herman Nitz. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
407 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by John Fessenden. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
408 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Kenneth Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
409 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Maurice McReynolds. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
410 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Michael Dale. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
411 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Timothy Kent. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
412 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Vito Richmond. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
413 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ashton Daniel. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 65 of 306

01/29/2016
01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016
02/01/2016
02/02/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016
02/03/2016 02/03/2016

414 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bernabe Molina. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
415 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Carl Foster. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
416 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Charles Bibbs. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
417 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Derrick Washington. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
418 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ernest Coffey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
419 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by George Fly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
420 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Harvey Wright. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
421 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jose Feliciano. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
422 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Juan Garcia. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
423 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Leon Jordan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
424 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Mark Prough. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
425 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Maurice Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
426 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Patrick White. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
427 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Stanley Boclair. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
428 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
429 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Donald Haywood. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
430 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Michael Hughes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
431 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Melvin McHerron. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
432 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Delmar Gray. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
433 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Elton Vaughn. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
434 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Harold Mann. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
435 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
436 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Nick Parrott. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
437 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Priest Pryor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
438 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Richard Dyches. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
439 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Stagger. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
440 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
441 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Tony Jackson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
442 MOTION to Substitute Attorney, Christopher L. Higgerson to be replaced by Terence J. Corrigan, by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 2/22/2016 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
443 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Glenn Carter. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
444 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Walter Depner. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 66 of 306

02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016
02/04/2016
02/05/2016 02/05/2016
02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016

445 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Adan Valdez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
446 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Donald Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
447 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Gregory McMillen. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
448 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Hasan Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
449 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jeffrey Adkinson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
450 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Paul Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
451 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Willie Booker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
452 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Michael Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
453 NOTICE of Sanction filed by Robbie Moore. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 453 Notice (Other) for Sanctions. Robbie Moore has filed an Objection to the proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 299) and a Motion of Request (ECF No. 300), the latter Motion being construed by the Court as an additional objection to the proposed Settlement Agreement. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 1/15/2016). Mr. Moore has now filed a Notice of Sanctions indicating that someone was supposed to respond to his Motion of Request. Mr. Moore further indicates that he has attempted to contact class counsel and has yet to respond to his request. Mr.Moore should attempt to follow up with class counsel. Class counsel represents the class and Motions should be filed through counsel. Address(es) for class counsel include: Alan Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, 4413 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60640/Harold Hirshman, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, Il 60606/Amanda Antholt, Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60602. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/4/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 442 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Christopher L Higgerson terminated and Terence J. Corrigan added. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/4/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
454 NOTICE to Court and Attorneys Reporting of Crimes Relevant to Case filed by George Fernandez. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
455 OBJECTION filed as "Motion to Make Stateville Follow the Rules and and to Stop Violating Confidentiality of all Inmates under the Mental Health Programs" filed by Class Member Darnell Tipton. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
456 OBJECTION filed as "Motion of Declaration or Consolidation" filed by Robbie J. Moore #B−16483. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
457 OBJECTION filed by Robert Williams. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
458 OBJECTION (Second) filed by Robert Williams. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
459 OBJECTION filed by Darrin Shatner. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
460 OBJECTION filed by Gene Arnett. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
461 OBJECTION filed by Robert Walker. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
462 OBJECTION filed by Nathaniel Smith. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
463 OBJECTION filed by Arthur Edmonson. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
464 OBJECTION filed by Lamont Brown. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
465 OBJECTION filed by Joe Price. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
466 OBJECTION filed by Keith Bennett. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 67 of 306

02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/05/2016 02/08/2016
02/08/2016 02/08/2016 02/08/2016
02/08/2016 02/08/2016 02/08/2016
02/08/2016
02/08/2016
02/08/2016
02/08/2016 02/08/2016 02/08/2016
02/08/2016 02/08/2016
02/10/2016
02/10/2016
02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016
02/10/2016
02/10/2016 02/10/2016
02/11/2016 02/11/2016

467 OBJECTION filed by Eli El. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
468 OBJECTION filed by Alonzo Hoover, III. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
469 OBJECTION filed by Darrin Laye. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
470 MOTION for Clarification filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 2/25/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
471 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darnell Tipton. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
472 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ike Easley, Jr. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
473 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Donald Paul Hardey, II. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
474 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Alan Duncan. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
475 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Alvin Perkins. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
476 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robbie J. Moore. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
477 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Casper Washington. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
478 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Williams. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
479 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Aaron M. Baker. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
480 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Alonzo Turner. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
481 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by David Garcia. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
482 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Donchii Malone. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
483 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Priest Pryor. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
484 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ronald L. Pusser, Sr. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
485 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Anthony Adams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
486 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Christopher Zabel. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
487 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Derrick Barber. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
488 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dustin Brandt. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
489 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Marcus Miller. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
490 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Matthew McNabb. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
491 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Zachary Henson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
492 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Covelli. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
493 ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/10/2016. Movant Arnold Castillo's Motion for Clarification 470 is DENIED. See full written order. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
494 NOTICE to the Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
495 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Thomas Mitchell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 68 of 306

02/11/2016 02/11/2016
02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/11/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016
02/16/2016
02/16/2016

496 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Arnold Castillo. Responses due by 2/29/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 496 Motion for Reconsideration by Movant Arnold Castillo. The Court addressed the issues raised in this Motion in its Order dated February 10, 2016. (See ECF No. 493). The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/11/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
497 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by C. Solo Harris. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
498 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Anthony Gavin. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
499 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Luis A. Martinez. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
500 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jon Cox. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
501 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Sholes. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
502 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by William Aldridge, #A70866. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
503 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dennis Sperow. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
504 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Anfernee Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
505 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Michael Gilyard. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
506 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Selma Muhammad. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
507 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Tracy Gartman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
508 MOTION for Declaration filed by Trenton McGee. Responses due by 3/4/2016 (VH, ilcd) Modified on 2/16/2016 to correct name (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 02/16/2016)
509 MOTION to Compel or Alternatively Motion to Opt Out of the Class or the Proposed Settlement filed by Trinidad Botello.. Responses due by 3/4/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 508 Motion. Movant Trenten C. McGee seeks an order declaring him to be a member of the class in this case. At this time, inquiries regarding class membership should be directed to class counsel. Address(es) for class counsel include: Alan Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, 4413 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60640/Harold Hirshman, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, Il 60606/Amanda Antholt, Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60602. Movant IS NOT prohibited from providing support or objections to the proposed settlement agreement. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 509 Motion. Movant Trinidad Botello III, moves this Court for an Order directing class counsel to provide him with a copy of the complaint, amended complaint, motion for class certification, and this Court's August 14, 2015, Order, or alternatively allow him to opt out of the class. Given the nature of this action seeking a change in the IDOC's procedure/policies regarding serious mentally ill inmates, this is not the type of action that Movant can opt−out of. Nonetheless, Movant may object to the terms of the settlement. Moreover, if Movant has any individualized claim for damages, he may seek his own lawsuit − this suit does not prohibit such action. Finally, if Movant seeks information from class counsel, he may direct any inquiry directly to counsel. Address(es) for class counsel include: Alan Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, 4413 N. Sheridan, Chicago, IL 60640/Harold Hirshman, Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, Il 60606/Amanda Antholt, Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60602. Movant does not indicate he has attempted to get information from counsel. Accordingly, any the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 69 of 306

02/16/2016
02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016
02/16/2016
02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/18/2016 02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016
02/22/2016

510 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Douglas W. Taylor. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
511 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Carl Florence. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2016) 512 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Erik Kendrick. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2016) 513 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Trenten C. McGee. (TK, ilcd) (Entered:
02/16/2016) 514 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Gerald Cunningham. (TK, ilcd) (Entered:
02/17/2016) 515 OBJECTION to Settlement by Rashad Whitlock. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 02/18/2016) 516 OBJECTION to Settlement by Reginald Ray. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 02/18/2016) 517 OBJECTION to Settlement by Theopolis Williams. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 02/18/2016) 518 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Don Lippert. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 519 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Daniel Clark. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 520 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Frank Stokes. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 521 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Kent Ellis. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 522 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by Myron Barber. Myron Barber has been
released from prison and his new address is 404 S. 10th St. East St. Louis, Illinois 62204. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 523 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 524 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Willie Booker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 525 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Earnest Bell. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 526 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Devin Seats. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 527 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Lewis Hodge. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 528 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Luke Walls−Bey. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 529 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Richard G. Allen. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 530 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Namore Smith. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 531 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Clint McCree. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 532 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Arthur Foster. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 533 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jason Gonzalez. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2016) 534 Letter from Darnell Tipton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 535 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Charles Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 536 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by David Teran. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 537 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Eddie James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 538 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Erick Conway. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 539 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Faygie Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 540 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Gregory Boatman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016) 541 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 70 of 306

02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/22/2016 02/23/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/25/2016 02/25/2016 02/25/2016 02/25/2016 02/25/2016
02/25/2016

542 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Dalton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
543 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Tyrone McCoy. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
544 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Tyrone Payton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
545 NOTICE to the Court and Attorneys Objections, Report of Crimes Relevant to Case filed by George Fernandez (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
546 MOTION to Intervene and to Consolidate for Hearing Purposes filed by Gerald Jones. Responses due by 3/14/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Certificate of Service)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
547 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Carl Wilson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
548 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Alnoraindus Burton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
549 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Michael Swanson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
550 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Boyd. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
551 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
552 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Victor Powell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
553 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Willie Thompkins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
554 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darryl Dunkin. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, # 2 Notice)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
555 Letter from Alonzo Turner. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
556 OBJECTION (Amended) to Settlement filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
557 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by John McCutcheon. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
558 Letter from Bernabe Molina. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 2/25/2016 (to correct spelling of name) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 02/25/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 546 Motion to Intervene. Movant Gerald Jones has filed this "Motion to Entervene (sic) and to Consolidate for Hearing Purposes" purportedly on his behalf and those of the class members. Class members are represented by class counsel and Jones' attempt to represent them in his Motion is DENIED. However, the Court will consider Jones' filing as an objection to the proposed settlement agreement as it appears that it what he is seeking to do with his pleading. (See ECF No. 546 at 4, noting "What the Proposed Agreement Should Have," at 7 "Substantiated Reasons the Settlement is Inadequate," at 10 "The Settlement Agreement Place Me the Mental Ill and Mental Development Disorder Inmates in a[n] Imminent Danger of Serious Inpending (sic) Harm," at 18 "I Gerald Jones respectfully object and request this Court deny the Proposed Settlement and allow Gerald Jones present evidence and argue his claim at the hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(1) and (3)."). That being said, should Movant have any individual claim for which he seeks individualized relief (e.g. monetary damages or otherwise), he should pursue his own action. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/25/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 549 Objection. Michael Swanson has filed a letter indicating that he believes the proposed settlement agreement does not address those who have lost good time credit in the past and that his medication is not correct. The Court will consider his comment regarding good time credit as an objection to the proposed settlement agreement. With respect to his medication, Mr. Swanson should take whatever action he deems appropriate to pursue his issue in that regard (e.g. through the IDOC's procedures or otherwise). The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Mr. Swanson with a copy of this TEXT ONLY ORDER. Entered by Judge

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 71 of 306

02/25/2016
02/26/2016
02/26/2016
02/26/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 03/01/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/03/2016

Michael M. Mihm on 2/25/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 554 Objection. Darryl R. Duncan has filed an objection to the proposed settlement agreement. His objections shall be considered within the context of this litigation. However, Mr. Duncan coupled his objection with an amended complaint. Class counsel represents the class members in this case and Mr. Duncan cannot file an amended complaint. However, Should Mr. Duncan have any individual claim for which he seeks relief, he should pursue his own action. Additionally, it should be noted that a cursory review of this District's cases does not reveal any pending litigation involving Duncan (as a named Plaintiff). The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Mr. Duncan with a copy of this TEXT ONLY ORDER. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/25/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 558 Letter and 555 Letter. Any objections received by the Court are entered into the docket. The Court does not generally notify objecting individuals that their objection(s) has been received. Nonetheless, since these two individuals have requested confirmation from the Court, their objections have been docketed. (See ECF No. 414 and 480). The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide these individuals with this TEXT ONLY ORDER. If a class member would like additional information regarding this litigation, they may want to direct their inquiry to class counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/26/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 534 Letter. Darnell Tipton has submitted a letter alleging wrong−doing of a correctional employee and requesting an investigation. To the extent the letter is providing information regarding single cell assignments, the letter will be consider as a comment on the proposed settlement agreement. However, no investigation into the specific matter mentioned by Mr. Tipton will be undertaken as part of this litigation. Mr. Tipton may choose to pursue any course of action, including filing a grievance with the institution. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/26/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
559 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Harley Brady. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
560 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Daryl Mitchell−EL. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
561 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Timothy Lee Sr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
562 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ashoor Rasho. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
563 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Hauck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
564 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Morris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
565 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Steven Lisle. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
566 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Vandaire Knox. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
567 MOTION for Reconsideration re Text Order entered on 2/16/2016 filed by Trinidad Botello, III. Responses due by 3/18/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
568 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Edward Bryant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
569 OBJECTION (Second) to Settlement filed by Eli El. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
570 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Francis Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
571 ADDENDUM to previous filed objection filed by Michael Gilyard. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 3/2/2016 to add language (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 03/02/2016)
572 Letter from Anthony Ward regarding settlement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
573 Letter from Kenneth Smith regarding settlement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
574 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jesse Lee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 72 of 306

03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016
03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016
03/04/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/08/2016
03/08/2016 03/09/2016
03/09/2016

575 NOTICE Change of Address filed by Myron Barber. New address 749 Fuller Ave., Apt #1, St. Paul, MN 55104. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
576 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Edjuan Payne. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
577 Letter from Ernest Coffey (Attachments: # 1 second objection) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
578 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Greg Coleman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
579 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Gamone Hardy. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
580 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jason Ralston. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 567 Motion for Reconsideration re 509 MOTION insofar as follows. Movant Trinidad Botello moves this Court to reconsider its February 16, 2016, Order denying his request to direct class counsel to provide him with a copy of the complaint, amended complaint, motion for class certification, and this Court's August 14, 2015, Order (or alternatively allow him to opt out of the class). Movant indicates that he has sought these documents from counsel to no avail (and previously informed the Court of his action). The Court GRANTS the request insofar as class counsel is directed to provide a response to Movant's allegations contained in the Motion directed toward counsel within 14 days OR send Movant the requested documents. No other relief is granted. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/3/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
581 OBJECTION to Settlement by Steven Mantucca. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
582 OBJECTION to Settlement by Paul Donnell Taylor. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
583 OBJECTION to Settlement by Raymond Wheeler. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
584 OBJECTION to Settlement by Duane Wiedman. (SW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
Remark:The 1/29/16 docekt entry was returned as an undeliverable email address as to Chris Higgerson. Attorney Chris Higgerson notified Court that he no longe works for the Attorney General's Office. Attorney Chris Higgerson email account disabled. (MC, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
585 NOTICE Response to Petition for Emergency Relief filed by Darryl R. Duncan (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
586 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Joseph Herman. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
587 OBJECTION to settlement filed by Curtis Britts. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
588 OBJECTION to settlement filed by Charles Kucinsky. (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 585 Notice (Other). Class counsel has filed a response to a "Petition for Emergency Relief" by Darryl R. Duncan. Mr. Duncan is an inmate in the custody of IDOC. Class counsel indicates that he was served with the Petition. The record does not contain such a Petition. (But see ECF No. 554, Objection to the Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by Darryl R. Duncan). Class counsel is directed to file a copy of the document received as an exhibit to its Response. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/8/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
589 NOTICE Response to Petition for Emergency Relief filed by Darryl R. Duncan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 554 Objection, 589 Notice (Other), 585 Notice (Other). Class counsel's Response to Petition for Emergency Relief (see ECF Nos. 585 and 589) is directed toward Darryl R. Duncan's Objection/Amended Complaint (ECF No. 554). The Court resolved this matter via TEXT ONLY ORDER dated February 25, 2016. No further ruling is necessary. Mr. Duncan remains advised that if he believes had has an individualized claim, he should pursue his own separate action. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/9/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
590 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Covelli. (Attachments: # 1 Objection, # 2 Afffidavit of Facts, # 3 Objection)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 73 of 306

03/09/2016 03/09/2016
03/09/2016
03/09/2016 03/09/2016
03/09/2016 03/09/2016 03/10/2016
03/10/2016 03/10/2016
03/10/2016 03/10/2016
03/11/2016
03/11/2016 03/11/2016 03/11/2016 03/11/2016 03/11/2016 03/11/2016
03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/16/2016
03/16/2016 03/16/2016 03/16/2016 03/16/2016

591 Letter from Robert Covelli. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
592 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Michael Woodrome. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
593 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Andre Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
594 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by James Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
595 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Kennedo Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
596 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Max McCoy. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
597 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Stephen Knox. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
598 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Benjamin Reynolds. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
599 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jesse Lee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
600 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Kareem Cobbins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
601 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Damien Terry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
602 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Teron McCambry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
603 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Derrick Crowder. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
604 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Duval Boykin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
605 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by James Tucker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
606 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Kenneth Gray. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
607 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Milton Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
608 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Peter Cintron. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
609 Letter from Judge Mihm to Dr. Raymond F. Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
610 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bruce Darnell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
611 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Charles Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
612 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Craig Mrazek. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
613 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Donald Mascio. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
614 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Isaiah Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
615 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Joshua Shaw. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
616 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
617 Letter from Darnell Tipton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
618 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darryl Duncan. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
619 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
620 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Gregory Turley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
621 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Jesse James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
622 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Johnnie Robinson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 74 of 306

03/16/2016 03/16/2016 03/16/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016
03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/18/2016
03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/22/2016 03/23/2016 03/23/2016 03/23/2016

623 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Paul Verbarg. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
624 Letter from Lee Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
625 NOTICE of Compliance with March 3, 2016 Court Order (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
626 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Kenneth Sims. (TK, ilcd) Modified on 3/17/2016 (TK, ilcd). (Entered: 03/17/2016)
627 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion filed by Stanley Boclair. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
628 Letter from Attorney Standish Willis regarding inmate Keith Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
631 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darron Perkins. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
629 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Robert Covelli. (Attachments: # 1 Letter)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
630 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED 3/18/16 BY JUDGE MIHM: OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Darron Perkins. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 3/18/2016 (TK, ilcd). (Entered: 03/18/2016)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/18/16 STRIKING 630 Objection as it is duplicative of 631 Objection. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
632 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney WILLIAM R STONE by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 4/4/2016 (Stone, William) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 632 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney William R Stone terminated. Class remains represented by other attorneys. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/18/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
633 MOTION for Reconsideration re 269 filed by Eric McKinney. Responses due by 4/7/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
634 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Calvin Merritte. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
635 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Bobby Ware. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
636 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Duwon Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
637 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dwight Rankins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
638 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Juan Villegas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
639 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Tom Gregory. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
640 Letter from Gerald Cunningham. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
641 Letter from Kenneth Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
642 NOTICE Report to the Court on Selection of a Monitor (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
643 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
644 MOTION for Immediate Restraining Order and State Investigation filed by Kenneth Sims. Responses due by 4/8/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
645 MOTION to Reconsider Judgment Order Entered on 2/25/2016 filed by Darryl Duncan. Responses due by 4/11/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
646 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Arnold Castillo. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
647 Exhibit filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 75 of 306

03/23/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/29/2016
03/29/2016
03/29/2016
03/31/2016

648 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ralph King. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
649 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Christopher Knox. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
650 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Milton Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
651 OBJECTION to Settlement and Restraining Order by Jara Equilino. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
652 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Leon Snipes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
653 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Rahim McWilliams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
654 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Santiago Delgado. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
655 SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
656 Letter from Manith Vilayhong. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 633 Motion for Reconsideration re 269 MOTION. Movant Eric Keith McKinney requests that this Court reconsider its Order denying his previous Motion seeking an Order of violation the Agreed Order. (See ECF No. 269). Notably, the Court did deny the previous Motion, but also directed the Parties to provide a report on the status of Movants inquiry regarding his treatment. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 10/19/2015). The Report filed by the Parties indicated a disagreement regarding the treatment of the Movant. Of course, the policy/procedure regarding treatment of inmates is an overriding issue presented in this case. While the Agreed Order is no longer in effect, a new proposed resolution has been presented to the Court. The outcome of this case may result in some changes in the Movants position/treatment. Nonetheless, should the Movant seek immediate relief, he should pursue the IDOCs grievance process or file his own litigation. Additionally, the Parties should confer to see if any resolution within the context of this litigation can be reached. The Court will consider Movants filing an objection in this litigation. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 645 Motion for Reconsideration. Movant Darryl Duncan's Motion to Reconsider Order dated 2/25/2016 is DENIED. As previously stated, Movant's filing shall be considered as an objection within the context of this litigation. However, Duncan cannot unilaterally file an amended complaint in this matter. Class counsel represents the class members in this case. Should Mr. Duncan have any individual claim for which he seeks relief, he should pursue his own action. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 644 Motion. Movant Kenneth Sims requests this Court issue an "immediate restraining order and state police investigation" into the actions of certain correctional officers at Pontiac Correctional Center against serious mentally ill defendants and other inmates. Movant indicates that Correctional Officer Smith refuses to document and report requests for crisis and hunger strikes and constantly taunts inmates. Movant also states that Major Prentice ordered Movant to be "shaken down" for reporting these types of actions and filing grievances. To the extent Movant has claims of wrongdoing on the part of the correctional staff, he must go through the IDOC's grievance process. That being said, Counsel for the Defendants is DIRECTED to immediately inform the IDOC that retaliation against any inmate for filing an objection will not be tolerated by the Court. Counsel for the Defendants is FURTHER DIRECTED to investigate Movant's allegation/indication that action was taken against him for filing an objection in this case and report back to the Court within 14 days. The report should, if necessary, include affidavits from those alleged to have taken action against this Movant. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
TEXTO ONLY ORDER re 628 Letter. Keith Walker, through his counsel, requests permission to opt−out of this class action. This is a class action seeking declaratory

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 76 of 306

03/31/2016
03/31/2016
03/31/2016
03/31/2016
04/01/2016 04/01/2016 04/01/2016 04/04/2016 04/05/2016
04/06/2016 04/06/2016 04/11/2016 04/11/2016

and/or injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 2(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2). Should Mr. Walker seek an individualized claim against the Defendants, he should file a separate suit seeking monetary damages. The request/motion to opt−out is DENIED. The letter will be considered an objection to the settlement. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 640 Letter. Gerald Cunningham has sent a letter indicating that he received no response indicating that he objection has been filed. The Court does not send out confirmation, however, each objection is docketed into the record. Cunningham's objection has been received and docketed as (ECF No. 514). The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Cunningham a copy of this Text Order. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 656 Letter. Manith Vilayhong has summited a letter to the Court requesting certain information. First, Vilayhong would like a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs' counsel to send a copy of the agreement to the inmate. Second, Vilayhong wants to have his mental health issues taken "seriously." This case is about prisoners rights regarding mental health services and segregation. In that regard, the possible resolution in this case may ultimately affect the treatment received by Vilayhong. However, should Vilayhong believe he has a claim for individualized relief (e.g. request for expungement of discipline), he should pursue a claim through the IDOC's grievance process and/or pursue litigation. The Court will consider Vilayhong's letter as a comment on the proposed settlement agreement. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 627 Memorandum. Stanley Boclair has submitted a Memorandum in Support of Injunctive Relief. The class is represented by counsel and any request for injunctive relief should come through counsel. Boclair's Memorandum will be considered as an objection to the proposed settlement agreement. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 641 Letter. Kenneth Smith has sent a letter indicating that he received a one page document from the Court and sought further information regarding the document. The document was sent in response to his request for confirmation that the Court received his objection(s). Only one page was sent, confirming that the objection was filed. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
657 Letter from Robert Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
658 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ronald Campbell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
660 Letter from John Harvey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
659 MOTION for Enforcement of an Order filed by Darnell Tipton. Responses due by 4/21/2016. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 659 Motion. Movant Darnell Tipton requests that this Court enforce its Order dated February 26, 2016. In his Motion, Tipton misconstrues the Court's Order suggesting that the Court required certain action on the part of the Defendants. That is not the case. In the TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 2/26/2016, the Court noted that it would consider Tipton's letter as a "comment on the proposed settlement agreement" and further noted that "no investigation into the specific matter mentioned by Mr. Tipton will be undertaken as part of this litigation. Mr. Tipton may choose to pursue any course of action, including filing a grievance with the institution." Id. Tipton's Motion to Enforce is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/5/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
661 Letter from Bob Donley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
662 Letter from George Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
663 Letter from Darnell Tipton (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
664 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Ashoor Rasho. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 77 of 306

04/12/2016
04/12/2016 04/12/2016 04/12/2016 04/12/2016
04/12/2016
04/13/2016 04/13/2016 04/14/2016 04/14/2016
04/14/2016 04/14/2016 04/14/2016 04/15/2016 04/18/2016 04/21/2016 04/21/2016

665 STRICKEN PER TEXT ORDER OF 4/12/2016 − MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 4/29/2016 (Corrigan, Terence) Modified on 4/12/2016 to strike (RK, ilcd). (Entered: 04/12/2016)
666 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
667 Response by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,, . (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
668 Amended MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 4/29/2016 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
669 MOTION for an Order to Sanction Pontiac Correctional Center Chief Administrative Officer for Depriving Fredrick Walker, a/k/a Frederick Walker, Register No. B−34246 Access to this Court, and for Subjecting him to Retaliatory Measures filed by Plaintiff Frederick Walker. Responses due by 4/29/2016 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER striking 665 Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal filed by Willard Elyea, John R Baldwin, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. The Attorney General's Office contacted the Clerk's Office to advise that 665 contained clerical errors. Attorney General's Office directed to file Amended Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Document 665 is therefore STRICKEN. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/12/2016. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
670 MOTION for a Investigation filed by Steven Lisle. Responses due by 5/2/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
671 Letter from Charles Randle. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 668 Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Document (ECF No. 666) shall remain under seal. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/14/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS. The date for the filing of objections passed on March 21, 2016. Class Counsel/Defendant are DIRECTED to file written responses to issues raised in the Objections that they want the Court to consider on or before April 29, 2016. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/14/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
672 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Nicholas Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
673 Reply to Court's Request for Objections filed by Donald Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference regarding Motions [664, 669, 670] set for 4/21/2016 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Attorneys only.(KR, ) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
674 Letter from Charles Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
675 Letter from Anthony Newbolds. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
676 Letter from Courtney Hubbard (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Counsel for the parties was present by phone Attorneys Harold Hirshman and Amanda Antholt on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs, Marc Kadish on behalf of Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Attorney Terence Corrigan on behalf of Defendants, and LaShonda Hunt on behalf of IDOC for Status Conference held on 4/21/2016. Discussion regarding objections filed and concerns re: retaliation against those filing objections. Discussion regarding fairness hearing and schedule. Plaintiffs' counsel will file their brief by Friday, April 29, 2016. Discussion held regarding whether class Plaintiffs will appear by video for the hearing set on May 13, 2016. Attorney Kadish stated that his client, Ashoor Rasho will be appearing by video. Parties to confer and advise the Court by Friday, April 29, 2016 on three other Plaintiffs that will appear by video. Discussion held with regards

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 78 of 306

04/22/2016
04/22/2016 04/25/2016 04/25/2016 04/25/2016 04/27/2016 04/28/2016
04/28/2016
04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016

other potential witnesses who will testify at the hearing. Attorney Hirshman indicated Dr. Patterson may appear in person, by phone or by affidavit. to testify. Parties to advise Court of status of selection of monitor by early next week. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 669 Motion and denying 670 Motion. The Court has admonished the Parties re: the allegations of retaliation made by various inmates for participating in this litigation. See MINUTE ENTRY dated 4/21/2016. As for the particular complaints of these individuals, Movants must pursue their individual complaints through the IDOC's grievance process (or other process). The Court having admonished the Parties as noted above, the Motions are DENIED within the context of these proceedings as to all other requested relief. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Movants with a copy of this TEXT ONLY ORDER and MINUTE ENTRY dated 4/21/2016. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/22/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER RE: Proposed Settlement. Parties are directed to file a copy of the proposed settlement agreement in this Docket as soon as practicable. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/22/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
677 Letter from Carl Dickson (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
678 MOTION for Objection to Settlement Agreement filed by Jarvis Postlewaite. Responses due by 5/12/2016 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
679 MOTION for Order to Sanction filed by Jesus Doran. Responses due by 5/12/2016 (JRK, ilcd) Modified on 4/25/2016 to clarify filer (JRK, ilcd). (Entered: 04/25/2016)
680 Letter from Robert Covelli. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 678 Motion. Movant has filed a motion to object to the settlement agreement. Notably, the Motion has been filed well after the cut−off date for objections. Movant does not indicate the reason the objection was filed late. Movant's chief complaint is with the dispensing of medication to inmates. This issue will be considered by the Court during the fairness hearing. However, to the extent the Movant believes he has an individualized claim or grievance, he must proceed through the IDOC's grievance process. The Motion to consider the objection is GRANTED to the extent noted above. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/28/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 679 Motion for Order. Movant seeks an Order sanctioning the IDOC for retaliating against him for attempting to partake in certain actions in this litigation. The Court addressed complaints of retaliation during the April 21, 2016, hearing. As such, the Motion is DENIED. However, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to follow up with Movant to determine if any further relief may be appropriately requested of the Court. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/28/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
681 VIDEO WRIT issued to Logan C.C., Pontiac C.C., Stateville C.C., and Dixon C.C. for Hearing on 05/13/2016 at 10:00am. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
682 MEMORANDUM (Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Approval of Class Action Settlement) by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
683 NOTICE on Selection of the Monitor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
684 Class−Plaintiff MOTION to be Heard by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 5/19/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
685 Letter from Jose Feliciano. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
686 MOTION for a Copy of Minute Entry Dated 4/21/2016 filed by Frederick Walker. Responses due by 5/19/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 79 of 306

05/02/2016
05/03/2016 05/03/2016
05/04/2016 05/04/2016 05/05/2016 05/05/2016
05/05/2016
05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 05/13/2016 05/13/2016 05/13/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 686 Motion. Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide another copy of the Minutes dated 4/21/2016. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/2/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
687 MOTION filed by C. Solo Harris. Responses due by 5/20/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 684 Motion. Movant requests that Class−Plaintiff be heard on the fact that no monetary damages are being issued to the Plaintiffs in this case. Essentially, the Motion is an objection on that basis. The issue of damages has been subject to numerous objections in this case and will be addressed during the Fairness Hearing scheduled for May 13, 2016. The Court will consider Movant's objection during the hearing. No further relief granted at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/3/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
688 MOTION for Production of Documents filed by Steven Lisle. Responses due by 5/23/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
689 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Roosevelt Bennett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
690 Letter from Cecil Parish (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 687 Motion. Movant complains about the psychiatric unit at Menard Correctional Center. Issues regarding the treatment of Seriously Mentally Ill inmates are the core of this litigation. The Court will consider Movant's filing as a commentary on the settlement agreement/case generally. However, to the extent Movant requests he and other individual inmates be moved to another facility, that request is DENIED. Nonetheless, the Court directs Class Counsel to review/investigate the matter and be prepared to discuss these types of issues (and other similar issues raised) at the fairness hearing. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/5/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 688 Motion. Movant may or may not have received the Legal Notice (ECF NO. 289) regarding the proposed settlement in this case. The Legal Notice provides that if an inmate seeks additional information or a copy of the agreement/complaint, they should contact Class Counsel. Class counsel should respond to the Movant's inquiry/provide the requested documents. As for the Motion, it is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/5/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
691 OBJECTION to Complaint filed by Gerald Cunningham. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
692 OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Dameon Cole. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
693 SECOND OBJECTION to Settlement filed by Donald Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
694 Letter from James Larry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
695 Letter from Dr. Patterson to Judge Mihm. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
696 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Proposed) (Executed) by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
697 MOTION to Reconsider Judgment Order filed by Darryl Duncan. Responses due by 5/31/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
698 Letter from Aaron Hyche. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, and Nicole Schutt for the plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan, Ed Huntly and Camille Lindsey for the defendants. Attorney Marc Kadish, Monitor Dr. Pablo Stewart, and plaintiff's Patrice Daniels and Donald Collins appearing via telephone and plaintiff's Ashoor Rasho and Clara Plair appearing via video conferencing for Fairness Hearing held on 5/13/2016. Discussion held regarding Settlement Agreement 696 . Court finds

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 80 of 306

05/16/2016 05/17/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 05/18/2016
05/19/2016 05/19/2016

the agreement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Proposed Order to be filed on or before Friday, 5/20/2016. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 697 Motion for Status re 645 MOTION for Reconsideration. The Court entered a TEXT ONLY ORDER on March 29, 2016, addressing the Motion for Reconsider made by the Movant. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send Movant the TEXT ONLY ORDERS dated 3/29/2016 regarding Movants Motion. No further relief is GRANTED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER RE: Hearing held on May 13, 2016. During the hearing held on May 13, 2016, the Court identified several inmate objections/letters that it believe would be beneficial for the Defendant (and Class Counsel) to review and, if necessary, further address the issues raised therein. The following is the list of objections/letters: ECF Nos. 347, 367, 379, 410, 412, 429, 431, 455, 465, 491, 541, 543, 560, 581, 588, 590, 610, 646, and 672. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/17/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
699 AFFIDAVIT filed by Nicholas Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
700 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/6/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
701 MOTION for Ineffective Counsel by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/6/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
702 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/6/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
703 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER. by Donald Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 700 Motion; denying 701 Motion; denying 702 Motion to Request Counsel. Named Plaintiff Donald Collins has filed a series of Post−Fairness Hearing Motions: (1) requesting that he be heard (ECF No. 700), (2) the class attorneys be deemed "ineffective" (ECF No. 701), and (3) for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 702). All of the Motions are DENIED. In his first Motion, Collins provides that he never agreed to forgo damages for the Class Plaintiffs and further raises concern regarding the meals/purchase of food for mental unit inmates (as well as issues with his particular circumstances). The issue of damages has been raised by numerous objections. Class Counsel noted in their recent memorandum "The relief sought in this case has never included monetary damages and the Settlement does not prohibit any prisoner from pursuing a damages claim, if one exists. However, counsel note that the Prison Litigation Reform Act places significant obstacles in the way of such claims, including an exhaustion requirement." (ECF No. 682 at 12). Collins is free to pursue his damages claim within the confines noted be class counsel. (See also TEXT ORDER dated 2/11/2014, the Court denied Collins' Motion to Show Cause and specifically informed him that "If Plaintiff believes he has a cause of action for damages based upon his particular circumstances of incarceration, he may file a separate lawsuit and he will be responsible for the $400 filing fee."). As for issues regarding meals, the Court would note that this case raises concerns regarding deliberate indifference. Restrictions on the ability to purchase food and/or dietary restrictions in and of itself do not rise to such a level. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to review and consider this issue in the context of the treatment of Seriously Mentally Ill inmates. However, no further relief is granted. The Court also DENIES Collins' Motions related to Class Counsel and appointment of counsel. Nothing in the record indicates Class Counsel is, or has been, unable to represent the class in this case. Moreover, nothing in the record suggest Class Counsel should be replaced in this case. Accordingly, those Motions on that issue are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/18/2016.(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
704 Letter from Gerald Cunningham. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
705 Letter from Trumen Brown. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 81 of 306

05/20/2016 05/23/2016
05/23/2016
05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/25/2016 05/27/2016 06/02/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016 06/10/2016
06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/14/2016 06/14/2016 06/14/2016 06/14/2016

706 NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Order re 696 Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 707 Notice (Other), 708 Notice (Other). Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to seal documents 707−1 and 708−1. Parties to file redacted copies of documents (removing original signatures). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/23/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
709 VACATED PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 5/23/2016−PROPOSED ORDER re 707 Notice Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/23/2016. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd) Modified on 5/23/2016 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 05/23/2016)
710 ORDER re 707 Notice Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/23/2016. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/23/2016 re 709 Order. Proposed Order 709 is VACATED duplicate. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
711 NOTICE of Filing an Amended Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Amended Settlement Agreement)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
712 AFFIDAVIT of Shawn Francis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
713 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Darryl Duncan no longer at Dixon CC. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
714 Letter from Jacob Tolbert (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
715 Letter from Don Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
716 MOTION for Review filed by Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/27/2016 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
717 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Donald Collins. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
718 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ernest Bell. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 718 Notice of Appeal, 717 Notice of Appeal filed by Donald Collins. Named Class Member (Donald Collins) and purported class member (Ernest Bell) have filed Notices of Appeal (ECF Nos. 717 and 718). These Notices have been filed without counsel and neither individual has requested permission to appeal the Courts Order. The Notices along with the short record will be transmitted to the Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the Court directs the Parties to provide a response to the Notices (as if it were a request for permission to appeal) within 14 days of this Order. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/10/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
719 MOTION... filed by Gerald Cunningham. Responses due by 6/30/2016 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
720 MOTION for Order filed by C. Solo Harris. Responses due by 6/30/2016 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
721 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re 717 Notice of Appeal filed by Don Collins. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
722 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re 718 Notice of Appeal filed by Ernest Bell. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
723 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 717 Notice of Appeal filed by Donald Collins. USCA Case Number 16−2476. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
724 PLRA FEE NOTICE AND ORDER re 717 Notice of Appeal. Further, this appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that all other proceedings in this appeal are SUSPENDED pending the assessment and payment of any necessary fees. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997). The court will take no further action in this appeal until the fee status is resolved. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 82 of 306

06/15/2016 06/15/2016
06/15/2016
06/15/2016
06/15/2016
06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/21/2016 06/24/2016 06/27/2016 06/29/2016 06/30/2016

725 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 718 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 16−2477. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
726 PLRA FEE NOTICE AND ORDER. Further, this appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that all other proceedings in this appeal are SUSPENDED pending the assessment and payment of any necessary fees. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997). The court will take no further action in this appeal until the fee status is resolved. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 716 Motion. Named Plaintiff Don Collins has field a "Motion for Review." While the Motion for Review does not identify any specific relief, Movant indicates that he has privacy concerns regarding discussions with mental health providers in the facility he is located. To the extent Movant has an individualized concern, he should follow the IDOC's grievance process. General objections to the terms of the settlement agreement or concerns regarding the enforcement should be directed to class counsel. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/15/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 719 Motion. Movant Gerald Cunningham has filed a "Motion to Protect Plaintiff['s] Due Process Rights from Psychological War Games Confirmation of Motion Unknown to No Court Response." In his Motion, Movant requests that the Court consider additional information about the "Psychological War Games" conducted by Dr. Baldwin. Movant also asks the Court to send a letter to Gov. Bruce Rauner for him. Finally, Movant requests compensation. The Court declines to take any of the requested actions, except it would note that the Court received and considered, in some fashion, Movant's Objection filed on 2/16/2016 (see ECF No. 514), Letter re: not receiving a response (ECF No. 640)(see also TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 3/31/2016 Court acknowledging receipt of objection), Objection filed 5/9/2016 (ECF No. 691), and Letter re: Adding Evidence (ECF No. 704). If Movant has some individualized claim, he must proceed through the IDOC's grievance process. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/15/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 720 Motion for Order. Movant C. Solo Harris seeks an order transferring certain seriously mentally ill offenders from Menard Correctional Center to Pontiac Correctional Center. The Motion is DENIED. To the extent Movant has an individualized concern, he should follow the IDOC's grievance process. General objections to the terms of the settlement agreement or concerns regarding the enforcement should be directed to class counsel. This Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/15/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
727 Letter from Cordell Sanders (Attachments: # 1 envelope) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
728 Letter from Daniel Clark (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
729 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Cordell Sanders. Responses due by 7/8/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
730 Response by Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels re 718 Notice of Appeal, 717 Notice of Appeal Plaintiffs' Response to the Notices of Appeal by Collins and Bell. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
731 Response by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro . (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
732 MOTION filed by Johnathan Ivy. Responses due by 7/14/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
733 MOTION to Enforce Settlement filed by Daniel Clark. Responses due by 7/18/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 729 Motion; denying 733 Motion. Movants have filed complaints regarding their treatment in IDOC as Motion[s] to Enforce Settlement Agreement. This, of course, is a class action proceeding, and the class is represented by counsel. Movant should direct their concerns regarding Defendants compliance

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 83 of 306

06/30/2016
06/30/2016 07/06/2016 07/07/2016
07/12/2016
07/12/2016
07/14/2016 07/22/2016

with the settlement agreement to class counsel. If Movants believe they have some individualized complaint or grievance, they should proceed through the IDOCs grievance process. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/30/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 732 Motion. Movant seeks additional time to file an objection to the proposed settlement agreement and to seek the appointment of counsel. The proposed settlement agreement was approved by the Court during the hearing held on May 13, 2016. (See also, ECF No. 710, Order dated May 23, 2016). Additionally, the class is already represented by counsel. As such, the Court finds no need for any extension of time. Movant may direct his concerns to class counsel, or if he believes he has some individualized complaint or grievance, he should proceed to through the IDOC's grievance process. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/30/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
734 Letter from Philip Hastings (VH, ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/30/2016: # 1 Letter Philip Hastings) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 06/30/2016)
735 MOTION to Intervene filed by Erick Conway. Responses due by 7/25/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 735 Motion to Intervene. Movant Erick Conway seeks permission to intervene as a class member or modify the settlement agreement (or otherwise obtain an order of relief). Specifically, Movant seeks relief that will allow him to challenge his criminal conviction. (See ECF No. 735 at 2, para. 3). The Court declines to provide the relief Movant seeks. Movant is free to communicate directly with class counsel to determine if any relief he seeks is available to him in this litigation. However, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/7/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
736 MANDATE and PLRA Final Order of USCA as to 717 Notice of Appeal filed by Donald Collins. Upon consideration of the NOTICE TO WITHDRAW APPEAL UNTIL FINAL COURT ORDER, filed on July 8, 2016, by the pro se appellant, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant pay the appellate fees of $505 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account using the mechanism of Section 1915(b). Newlin v. Helman , 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). (VH, ilcd) Modified on 7/12/2016 to add language (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 07/12/2016)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/12/2016. Pursuant to the 7/12/2016 mandate, in appellate case number 16−2476, from the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, the agency having custody of the plaintiff, Donald Collins R58383, is directed to remit the appellate docketing fee of $505.00 from his prison trust fund account if such funds are available. If he does not have $505.00 in his account, the agency must send 20 percent of the current balance or the average balance during the past six months, whichever amount is higher; thereafter, the agency shall begin forwarding monthly payments from the plaintiff's trust fund account to the Clerk of Court each time the plaintiff's amount exceeds $10.00 until the statutory appeal fee of $505.00 is paid in its entirety. The US Court of Appeals is notified via a copyof this entry.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
737 MOTION/Declaration for Entry of Default filed by Cordell Sanders. Responses due by 8/1/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/14/2016: # 1 Motion) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 07/14/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 737 Motion. Movant Cordell Sanders requests that this Court entered an order granting his Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 729) based on the Defendants' failure to respond to his Motion. Shortly after Movant filed his Motion to Enforce Settlement, this Court denied the Motion, but directing the Movant to direct his concerns regarding Defendants' compliance with the settlement agreement to class counsel. TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/30/2016. As such, there was no reason for Defendants to respond to Movant's Motion to Enforce Settlement. Accordingly, the Motion to Enter Default is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/22/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 84 of 306

07/25/2016 07/26/2016 07/27/2016 07/27/2016
07/29/2016
07/29/2016
07/29/2016 08/01/2016 08/04/2016 08/08/2016 08/08/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016
08/10/2016

738 Response to Court's Request for Review of Named Plaintiff Don Collins Dietary Needs and Nutrition Intake. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
739 MOTION of a violation of agreement order set forth Friday, May 13, 2016 filed by Mario English. Responses due by 8/12/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
740 MOTION for Review filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 8/15/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 740 Motion. Movant Donald Collins has filed another Motion detailing complaints he has with his treatment in segregation. Any complaints regarding his treatment should be directed to the IDOC's grievance procedure. Movant may also choose to direct complaints to class counsel. However, individualize complaints, such as these, are not specifically addressed in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/27/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 739 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. filed his pleading setting forth an alleged "violation of the settlement agreement." Movant also indicates that he would like to be sent "somewhere" for mental health treatment and an opportunity to talk with the independent monitor. Movant should direct any complaints regarding compliance with the Settlement Agreement to class counsel. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this pleading to the Monitor. However, based on the information set forth, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER STRIKING/VACATING DOCUMENT ENTERED ON 7/29/2016: TEXT ONLY ORDER re: Hearing. The Court will schedule a status hearing in the near future. There had been a previously scheduled hearing for today (7/29/2016)− that status conference is CANCELLED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 7/29/2016 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
TEXT ORDER STRIKING/VACATING DOCUMENT: Text Order re: Hearing entered on 7/29/2016. Inadvertently filed in this case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/29/2016. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
741 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
742 Letter from Richard Dyches. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
743 MOTION to Intervene Due to Imminent Danger filed by C Harris. Responses due by 8/25/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
744 MOTION of a Violation of Agreement Order Set Forth Friday, May 13, 2016 10:00 AM Clerk US District Court filed by Mario English. Responses due by 8/25/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
745 Letter from Anthony Gavin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 743 Motion to Intervene. Movant C. Solo Harris requests that the Court enter an Order transferring him from Menard Correctional Center back to Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant notes that he has written previous motions on this same issue and would like the Court to review those motion − wherein he notes things such as IDOC "double celling" S.M.I. inmates and celling with other inmates. (See e.g. ECF Nos. 497, 687, and 720). Notably, the Settlement Agreement addresses housing assignments and allows mental health treatment teams to address concerned with housing assignments. If Movant has a specific concern regarding his housing, he must proceed through the IDOC's grievance process. The Motion to Intervene Due to Imminent Danger is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/10/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 744 Motion. Movant Mario English seeks an Order arguing there has been a violation of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs in this matter are represented by counsel and concerns regarding the settlement agreement should be presented to class counsel. Class counsel is directed to review Movant's complaint to determine if any further action should be taken. (See also ECF No. 739). Nonetheless, at this time, the "Motion of a Violation of Agreement Order" is DENIED. Entered by

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 85 of 306

08/12/2016 08/16/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/19/2016
08/19/2016
08/19/2016
08/19/2016 08/19/2016
08/19/2016

Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/10/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
746 MOTION of Violation of Agreement Order filed by Jaki Bell. Responses due by 8/29/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
747 MOTION for Retaliation and Update of Allegations of Retaliation Made by Various Inmates filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 9/2/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
748 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
749 MOTION by Class Member Frederick Harris for Leave to Intervene and for Supplemental Order filed by Frederick Harris. Responses due by 9/6/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 746 Motion. Movant Jaki Bell has filed a Motion requesting that the Court find the Defendants in violation of the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs in this matter are represented by counsel and concerns regarding the settlement agreement should be directed to class counsel. Class counsel is directed to review the Movant's complaint and determine in any further action is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/19/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 747 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle argues that the correctional officers at Pontiac Correctional Center are retaliating against him, denying him medical treatment and refusing to process his grievance. Movant should pursue his complaints through the IDOC's grievance process. Additionally, class counsel is direct to review the letter and determine if any additional action is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/19/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 749 Motion. Movant Frederick Harris has filed a Motion requesting that the Court entered a supplemental order finding the Defendants are in violation of the settlement agreement for failing to properly treat his mental illness. The Court declines to do so. Should Movant have an individualized complaint regarding his treatment, he should proceed through the IDOC's grievance process or as he otherwise believes in appropriate. Furthermore, Movant may direct his concerns regarding the settlement agreement and treatment to class counsel. Class counsel can determine if additional action in this proceeding are necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/19/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 748 Letter. RE: Letter from Nickolas Garcia. In the letter from Garcia he complains of a disciplinary ticket he received arguing that such ticket is in violation of the settlement agreement. Garcia should advance his complaint through the IDOC's grievance process. Additionally, class counsel is direct to review the letter and determine if any additional action is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/19/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
750 MANDATE and CERTIFIED FINAL ORDER of USCA as to 718 Notice of Appeal re Earnest M Bell. IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant pay the appellate fee of $505.00 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account using the mechanism of Section 1915(b). Newlin v Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/19/2016. Pursuant to the 8/19/2016 mandate, in appellate case number 16−2477, from the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, the agency having custody of Earnest M. Bell, is directed to remit the appellate docketing fee of $505.00 from his prison trust fund account if such funds are available. If he does not have $505.00 in his account, the agency must send 20 percent of the current balance or the average balance during the past six months, whichever amount is higher; thereafter, the agency shall begin forwarding monthly payments from Earnest M Bell's trust fund account to the Clerk of Court each time his amount exceeds $10.00 until the statutory appeal feel of $505.00 is paid in its entirety.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 86 of 306

08/22/2016 08/22/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016
08/26/2016
08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/29/2016 08/29/2016 08/29/2016 08/30/2016 08/30/2016
08/31/2016

(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
751 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
752 Letter from Derrick Macklin (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
753 Letter from Melvin McHerron (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
754 MOTION for Leave to File Brief in Excess of 15 Pages; to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal; and to Set a Status Conference by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 9/12/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
755 Exhibit A−K to Plaintiffs' Petition for Fees and Costs by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit G, # 7 Exhibit H, # 8 Exhibit I, # 9 Exhibit J, # 10 Exhibit K)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 754 Motion for Leave to File. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the attachment to the Motion as the Petition for Fees. The Court further grants the permission to file the billing records under seal for the time being − however, the Parties should be aware the Court may require the records to be unsealed or a redacted version to be filed in order to provide public transparency of this proceeding. Finally, the Court will contact the Parties to set a status conference to discuss the briefing schedule and any other matters. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/26/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
756 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit L, # 2 Exhibit M, # 3 Exhibit N, # 4 Exhibit O)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
757 Exhibit re 755 Exhibit, P by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
758 Letter from Joe Price. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 8/31/2016 at 11:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Attorneys only.(KR, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
759 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Amanda Antholt. Responses due by 9/15/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
760 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
761 MOTION of a Violation of Settlement Agreement Order set forth Friday, May 13, 2016 10:00 a.m. Clerk U.S. District Court filed by Mario English Jr. Responses due by 9/15/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
762 Second MOTION of a Violation of Settlement Agreement Order... filed by Mario English. Responses due by 9/16/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 761 Motion; denying 762 Motion; and addressing 753 Letter, 760 Letter, 752 Letter, 758 Letter, and 751 Letter. The Court has received several letters from inmates complaining about their medical treatment. Several of the letters indicate that the IDOCs action is in violation of the settlement agreement. Class counsel is DIRECTED to review the letters (and Motions) and determine if additional action should be taken. While the Court declines to take any specific action related to the complaints contained in the letters and Motions at this time, the authors of the letters may want to consider pursuing (or continue to pursue) individualized relief through the IDOCs grievance process. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/30/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Harold Hirshman and Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan and Camille Lindsay for the Defendants for Status Conference held on 8/31/2016. Discussion held regarding 759 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Response to Motion 759 due by 11/28/2016. Motion Hearing set for Friday, 12/9/2016 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 87 of 306

08/31/2016 09/01/2016 09/02/2016
09/06/2016 09/07/2016 09/08/2016
09/08/2016
09/09/2016 09/14/2016 09/15/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016
09/16/2016

763 Letter from Wendell Norwood (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
764 MOTION for Excessive Use of Force... filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 9/19/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 764 Motion. Movant complains of his medical treatment he is receiving while incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Should Movant have an individualized complaint regarding his treatment, he should continue to proceed through the IDOC's grievance process or as he otherwise believes in appropriate. Furthermore, Movant may direct his concerns regarding the settlement agreement and treatment to class counsel. Class counsel can determine if additional action in this proceeding are necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/2/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
765 MOTION to Join Settlement filed by Abed Othman. Responses due by 9/23/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
766 MOTION and Request for Review by Court Monitor filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 9/26/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 765 Motion. Movant Abed Othman indicates in his Motion that he is not receive appropriate mental health care, and further complains that he s in segregation and wants that status to be reviewed. Movant should raise his individual complains regarding his heath through the IDOC's grievance process. The Court, however, directs Class Counsel to review this matter and determine if any further action should be requested by the Court. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/8/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 766 Motion. Movant Don Collins complains of certain actions taken by individuals in Pontiac Correctional Center during a "shakedown." Movant should raise his individual complains regarding his heath through the IDOC's grievance process or other process he deems appropriate. However, the Motion in this case is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/8/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
Remark:The 9/7/16 docket entry was returned as an undeliverable email address as to Heidi Hildebrand. Attorney Heidi Hildebrand email account disabled. (MC, ilcd) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
767 Letter from Neil Barrall (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
768 MOTION to Speak to Court Monitor by George Fernandez. Responses due by 10/3/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
769 MOTION to Supplement 768 MOTION to Speak to Court Monitor by George A. Fernandez. Responses due by 10/3/2016 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 768 Motion; denying 769 Motion to Supplement. Movant request the opportunity to speak with the Monitor selected as part of the Parties' settlement agreement. The purpose of the request is that Movant complains that "Defendants and their agents refuse to let me out of seg despite the very adverse symptoms caused me as described in my previous pleadings in this case e.g. the desire to martyr (sic) myself." The Court declines to require the Monitor to meet with the Movant, however, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's letter and his supplement to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, if Movant has any complaint regarding his individual treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other action as he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 767 Letter. Neil Burrall has sent a letter expressing concerns about this lawsuit and his own medical treatment. It is not clear whether Mr. Burrall is seeking to initiate his own lawsuit or seeking relief in this proceeding. If Mr. Burrall wants to raise issues regarding his medical treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC's grievance process, or if he believes it is appropriate, file a lawsuit. However, he cannot seek individualized relief in this proceeding. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 88 of 306

09/19/2016 09/19/2016 09/20/2016
09/22/2016 09/22/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016 09/26/2016
09/26/2016
09/27/2016

770 MOTION (filed as Notice to Court and Court Appointed Monitor (Enforcer) of Settlement). Responses due by 10/6/2016 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
771 MOTION to Supplement 768 Motion to Speak to Monitor filed by George A. Fernandez. Responses due by 10/6/2016 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 770 Motion and denying 771 Motion to Supplement. Movant George Fernandez has submitted two Motions. In his first Motion 770 , Movant suggest that "counsel should subpoena video footage and court monitor should review the video footage [of an incident involving the treatment of mentally ill inmates that should be caught on a gallery camera]." The Court directs the Class Counsel to review the document and determine if any further follow−up is necessary. No further relief is granted, and therefore, the Motion is DENIED. In his second Motion 7710 , Movant supplements his previously filed Motion to Speak to the Court Monitor (see ECF Nos. 768 and 769). The Court addressed Movant's Motion in its TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 9/16/2016. The Court's position has not changed with this new filing, and the newest Motion is DENIED. The Court declines to require the Monitor to meet with the Movant, however, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's newest supplement to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, if Movant has any complaint regarding his individual treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other action as he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/20/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
772 MOTION to enforce settlement agreement filed by Daniel Clark. Responses due by 10/11/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
773 MOTION for assault filed by Steven Lisle. Responses due by 10/11/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
774 MOTION for Review of Attempt Suicide in Mental Unit by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 10/14/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
775 Letter from Patrice Daniels. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
776 MOTION for Mental Health Counselor filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 10/14/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
777 MOTION for Status filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 10/14/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 772 Motion. Movant Daniel Clark requests this Court order Pontiac Correctional Center to provide him with additional treatment programs. In his Motion, Movant states he has filed certain grievances on this issue but has yet to receive any additional programs. Movant should continue to go through the grievance process, as his request for individualize relief in this proceeding is not appropriate. The Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/26/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 773 Motion. In his Motion, Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr states he "was brutally assaulted by officers" while housed on the north cell house unit in Pontiac Correctional Facility. Movant requests he be moved in order to avoid being in the same area as the officers he alleges were involved in the incident. Movant's allegations are concerning, but this Court cannot, in this proceeding, grant the relief requested. To the extent Movant believes he has an individualized claim or grievance, he must proceed through the IDOC's grievance process or file his own lawsuit. In the context of this case, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/26/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 776 Motion; denying 777 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed two additional Motions (ECF Nos. 776 and 777) complaining about treatment he has received while housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant has filed several other Motions in this case regarding his treatment. As the Court previously informed the Movant, he should raise his individual complaints regarding his heath or treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other process he deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/27/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 89 of 306

09/27/2016
09/29/2016 09/29/2016 10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/06/2016
10/06/2016 10/07/2016 10/11/2016
10/11/2016 10/12/2016
10/14/2016 10/17/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 774 Motion. Movant Donald Collins has filed a "Motion for Review of Attempt Suicide in Mental Unit/Request Attorney and Court Monitor Review." In his Motion, Movant complains about treatment he received after an attempted suicide. Movant has filed several other Motions in this case (see e.g ECF Nos/ 716, 740, 766) requesting review of his individual circumstance (by the Court, Attorneys and/or Monitor). As the Court previously informed the Movant, he should raise his individual complaints regarding his heath or treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other process he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. The Court will, however, direct class counsel to forward Movant's recent filing to the Monitor for his review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/27/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 9/29/2016 to correct name (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 09/27/2016)
778 Letter from Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
779 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT filed by Joe Price. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
780 MOTION to Require Plaintiff Class Counsels to Provide copy of Settlement filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 10/24/2016 (VH, ilcd) Modified on 10/5/2016 to add name (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 10/05/2016)
781 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
782 NOTICE to Court filed by Eduardo Navejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 780 Motion; ORDER re 781 Notice (Other). Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion to obtain a copy of the settlement agreement (ECF No. 780) and a Notice (ECF No. 781) raising complaints related to "segregation credits" and "good time credits." Class counsel is directed to provide Movant with a copy of the Settlement Agreement. As for his notice, the Court will not tolerate any further pleadings from the Movant that contain racial slurs and other derogatory references. If Movant seeks relief, he will do so in a respectful and professional manner. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to strike the Notice from the record. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/6/2016.(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Motion Hearing reset from 12/9/2016 to 1/9/2017 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (KR, ilcd) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
783 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle. Responses due by 10/24/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 783 Motion. Movant Steve Lisle has requested that this Court take certain action to address his housing and medical treatment. The Court declines to do so in the context of this proceeding. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to forward Movants letter to the Monitor for consideration. As for claims of individualized relief, Movant should advance any of his complaints through the IDOCs grievance process or other forum as he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/11/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
784 Letter from Alan Duncan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER re 779 Sealed Document. Movant filed a letter indicating that his correspondences with the Court has placed him in danger and requesting that the Court put him in protective custody. The Court declines to take that action at this time. The letter was sealed when it was filed. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this letter to all counsel in this proceeding. Furthermore, Class Counsel is DIRECTED to investigate the issues raised by the Movant. Counsel for IDOC should assist in the inquiry, as necessary, in determining if there are any issues (safety) with inmates receiving Orders from the Court. After their investigation is completed, Class Counsel and/or the Parties should bring any concerns to this Court. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/12/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
785 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
786 Letter from Steven Garnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 90 of 306

10/19/2016 10/20/2016 10/20/2016 10/21/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/26/2016
10/26/2016 10/26/2016
10/27/2016 10/31/2016 11/01/2016

Remark:The 10/17/16 docket entry was returned as an undeliverable email address as to Heidi Hildebrand. Attorney Heidi Hildebrand email account disabled. (MC, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
787 Letter from Derrick Macklin (VH, ilcd)(Copy conventionally mailed to Pontiac CC.) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
788 MOTION to Arrange a Telephone Conference by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 11/7/2016 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
789 MOTION to Hold Counselor Wykes in Contempt... filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 11/7/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 788 MOTION to Arrange a Telephone Conference : Motion Hearing set for 10/26/2016 at 11:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Defendants' counsel is directed to provide the District Clerk with the monitor's contact information.(KR, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 788 Motion for telephone hearing regarding Court Monitor. Hearing to be held on October 26, 2016. See NOTICE dated 10/24/2016 for details. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/24/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
790 MOTION to Enforce Court Order... filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 11/10/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 789 Motion; granting in part and denying in part 790 Motion. Movant George Fernandez filed a Motion 789 requesting the Court hold Pontiac Correctional Center Counselor Wykes in contempt for failing to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. In his Motion, among other things, Movant alleges that Counselor Wykes did not respond to one of his grievance regarding the SMI segregation cuts and good time credits. Movant must go through the IDOC's grievance process or other appropriate forum for his individual claim. In the context of this litigation, the Motion is DENIED. In a second Motion, Movant request that the Court require Class Counsel to provide him a copy of the settlement agreement and make a recommendation that Class Counsel to contact the IDOC regarding matters of Movant's medical treatment. The Court previously directed Class Counsel to provide a copy of the settlement agreement to Movant, and does so again. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 10/6/2016. Class Counsel, can at its discretion, determine whether any additional action is necessary on their part based on Movant's complaints contained in his Motion. However, Movant should pursue any individual claim for relief through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/26/2016. Motion 790 is GRANTED insofar as Class Counsel is DIRECTED to get Movant a copy of the settlement agreement. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
791 Letter from Toby McCord (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Amanda Antholt and Harold Hirshman for the Plaintiffs, Attorney Terence Corrigan for the Defendants, and Monitor Dr. Stewart for Status Conference held on 10/26/2016. Discussion held regarding the Monitor's request to meet with the Court privately. Dr. Stewart relays to the Court why he requested the ex parte hearing. Parties to meet on Thursday, 11/10/2016 at 1:00 PM in chambers in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court reporter to be present. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
792 MOTION for Class Counsel to File a Motion to Hold Dr. Murano in Contempt of Court filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 11/14/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
793 Letter from Anthony Wilkerson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 792 Motion. Movant George A. Fernandez has filed a motion requesting that Class Counsel file a Motion to hold Dr. Murano in contempt of

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 91 of 306

11/01/2016 11/02/2016 11/03/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016
11/04/2016
11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/07/2016 11/09/2016 11/09/2016 11/09/2016 11/10/2016
11/10/2016

court for failing to obey the settlement agreement. Class counsel may consider the allegations contained in the motion and determine whether any additional action is necessary. The Motion, however, is DENIED. The Court will not compel Class Counsel to make such a filing, and further admonish the Movant that he should pursue his complaints through the IDOC grievance process or other forum as he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/1/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
794 MOTION for Class Counsel to File Motion to Hold Counselor Wykes in Contempt of Court filed by George A. Fernandez. Responses due by 11/18/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(SL, ilcd) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
795 Letter from Randall Stevens (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
796 Letter from Shawn Eagan (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
797 Second MOTION to Enforce filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 11/21/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 794 Motion. Movant George A. Fernandez has again moved to hold Pontiac Correctional Center Counselor Wykes in contempt for "violation of settlement agreement." (ECF No. 794). In his Motion, Movant alleges that he was written up for "sexual misconduct" as a form of retaliation. Movant has previously filed a similar Motion against Counselor Wykes, and the Motion was denied. (ECF No. 789 and TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 10/26/2016). This Motion is also DENIED. Movant again is admonished that any individual claim for relief sought be brought through the IDOC's grievance process or other appropriate forum. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/4/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 797 Motion as premature. On October 26, 2016, this Court again directed Class Counsel to send a copy of the settlement agreement to the Movant. Movant complains that he has not received the settlement agreement yet. The date of this Court's Order and Movant's recent Motion suggest that the delayed receipt (or lack of receipt) may simply be an issue of timing. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED at this time. That being said, Class Counsel should confirm they have sent the copy to Movant George A. Fernandez. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/4/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
798 NOTICE of Filing of Settlement Agreement for Frederick Walker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
799 NOTICE of Filing of Settlement Agreement for George Fernandez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
800 Letter from Ashoor Rasho (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
801 MOTION to Enforce Court Orders filed by Donald Collins. Responses due by 11/28/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
802 MOTION (regarding document # 792)filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 11/28/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
803 MOTION (regarding document #799) filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 11/28/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 801 Motion. Movant Don Collins indicates that Class Counsel has not followed up with this Court's previous directive to forward Movant's previous filing to the Court Monitor. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 9/27/2016 and ECF No. 774). The Court notes Movant has often complained of the treatment he is receiving while incarcerated. Notably, the Court previously direct class counsel to forward his previous filing to the Court Monitor for his review, and any follow−up the Court Monitor deems necessary. Nonetheless, the Court again admonishes Movant that he should pursue any individual complaints through the IDOC grievance process. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/10/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 802 Motion and 803 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed two Motions requesting that he receive

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 92 of 306

11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016
11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016 11/17/2016 11/18/2016
11/18/2016 11/21/2016

certain copies of pleadings from the library staff at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his first Motion, Movant requests copies of a filing he made. (ECF No. 802). In the second, Movant requests a complete copy of the filing made by Class Counsel. (ECF No. 803). It is unclear to the Court why Movant would not have been provided a complete copy of the filing made by Class Counsel. (ECF No. 799). As for his own filing, Movant should always retained copies of documents he sends to the Court. That being said, the Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Court directs Defendants' counsel to inquire with Pontiac Correctional Center, and report back to the Court, regarding what copies (as identified in the Motions) have (or have not) been provided to the Movant, and to the extent applicable, the reason(s) the documents have not be given to the Movant. The Motions are DENIED as to any further relief at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/10/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
804 MOTION for Denial of Medical and Mental Healthcare... filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 11/28/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/10/16. Parties present for introductory meeting with Pablo Stewart, MD., Monitor, Terence J Corrigan for Defendants, Alan Mills for Plainiffs. (Court Reporter N Mersot).(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
805 Letter from Anthony Wilkerson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
806 NOTICE to Court... filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 804 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. has filed another Motion alleging he has been denied certain medical treatment. As the Court previously informed the Movant, he should raise his individual complaints regarding his heath or treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other process he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. The Court will, however, direct class counsel to forward Movant's recent filing to the Monitor for his review. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/14/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
807 Response by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,, . (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re 807 Response (Amended) (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
809 Letter from Vidal Rainey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
810 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
811 MOTION for an Order to Sanction Pontiac Correctional Center Chief Administrative Officer and Mental Health Staff for Depriving Jesus Duran Adequate Mental Health Treatment filed by Jesus Duran. Responses due by 12/5/2016 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 811 Motion for Sanctions. Movant Jesus Duran filed a Motion for an Order to Sanction Pontiac Correctional Center Chief Administrative Officer and Mental health Staff for Depriving him of Adequate Mental Health Treatment. (ECF No. 811). In support of his Motion, Movant details various events and treatment he has been subjected to while incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. While the allegations may be considered within the context of this litigation by the Court, Monitor and Counsel, Movant should raise his individual complaints regarding his heath or treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other process he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. The Court will, however, direct class counsel to forward Movant's recent filing to the Monitor for his review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/18/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
812 Letter from Ashoor Rasho to the Court. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
813 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Fee Petition and Request for Status Conference by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 93 of 306

11/21/2016 11/21/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016 11/23/2016
11/23/2016 11/28/2016 11/28/2016 11/28/2016 11/30/2016
11/30/2016
11/30/2016 12/01/2016 12/01/2016

Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 12/8/2016 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
814 Letter from George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
815 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
816 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
817 NOTICE of Filing by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
818 AFFIDAVIT filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
819 AFFIDAVIT filed by George Fernandez. (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1, # 2 Ex 2, # 3 Ex 3, # 4 Ex 4, # 5 Ex 5, # 6 Ex 6, # 7 Ex 7, # 8 Ex 8, # 9 Ex 9, # 10 Ex 10, # 11 Ex 11, # 12 Ex 12, # 13 Ex 13, # 14 Ex 14, # 15 Ex 15)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
820 Exhibits to Affidavit 819 filed by George Fernandez. (Attachments: # 1 Ex 17, # 2 Ex 18, # 3 Ex 19, # 4 Ex 20, # 5 Ex 21, # 6 Ex 22)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 813 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Response(s) to Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 759) due on or before December 28, 2016. The Court will contact the Parties to schedule a status conference regarding hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/23/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
821 MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Tobias Payton. Responses due by 12/12/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
822 Letter from Anthony Wilkerson (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
823 Letter from Anthony Wilkerson (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
824 MOTION for Non Compliance by I.D.O.C. with Settlement Agreement filed by Oscar Grissette. Responses due by 12/15/2016 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 821 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Tobras Payton has moved for the appointment of counsel in this matter requesting the Court assign him counsel to obtain the proper mental health treatment under the settlement agreement. The Court declines to appoint counsel for the Movant in this proceeding. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 824 Motion. Movant Oscar Grissette filed a document alleging, among other things, that (1) his mental health problems have not been addressed by Lawrence Correctional Center's staff; (2) staff has threatened him for requesting mental health treatment; and(3) newly hired staff has inadequately addressed health needs. Movant requests that the Court order the Illinois Department of Corrections to provide Plaintiff with mental health services and allow him to be outside his cell. The Court declines to issue the relief requested. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
NOTICE OF status Conference set for 12/5/2016 at 01:00 PM in by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
825 MOTION for an Order to Sanction... filed by Charles Sharp. Responses due by 12/15/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Certificate of Service)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
826 MOTION for an Order to Sanction... filed by Robert Weeks. Responses due by 12/15/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 94 of 306

12/02/2016
12/02/2016
12/05/2016 12/05/2016
12/05/2016
12/05/2016 12/08/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 825 Motion. Movant Charles Sharp has filed a Motion for an Order to Sanction (ECF No. 825) the Chief Administrative Officer at Pontiac Correctional Center arguing that he is being deprived adequate mental health treatment. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor for his review. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/2/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 826 Motion. Movant Robert Weeks has filed a Motion for an Order to Sanction (ECF No. 825) the Chief Administrative Officer and mental health staff at Pontiac Correctional Center arguing that he is being deprived adequate mental health treatment. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor for his review. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/2/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
827 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman and Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs and Attorney Terence Corrigan for the Defendants for Status Conference held on 12/5/2016. Discussion held regarding status of attorneys fees. Notice to be filed on or before 12/20/2016. Objections to be filed by end of business day on 01/27/2017. Objections to be filed with the Court and clerk will provide copies to counsel via Notice of Electronic Filing. Fairness Hearing set for Friday, 2/3/2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2016. On December 5, 2016, the Court signed and entered the attached order which was agreed to by the parties. In addition, it made some changes to the proposed notice and has attached those changes to the agreed order. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
828 AGREED ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2016. See full written Order. (Attachments: # 1 Agreed Notice of Petition for Attorneys' Fees)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
829 Letter from Nickolas Garcia regarding attorney fees. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
830 NOTICE of Approval of attorney fees filed by Richard Kelly (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
831 Letter from Bob Donley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
832 Letter from Eric Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
833 Letter from Jeremiah Lomax (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
834 Letter from Oliver Spann (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
835 Letter from Steven Garnett (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
836 NOTICE of Approval of attorney fees filed by Howard Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
837 NOTICE of Approval of attorney fees filed by Theodore Stokes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
838 Letter from Michael Oliver (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
839 Letter from Andre Love (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
840 Letter from Justin Sterling (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
841 Letter from Joe Linzy (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 95 of 306

12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016

842 Letter from Joshua Nirchi (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
843 Letter from Roosevelt Wilson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
844 Letter from Hannibal Eason requesting copies of settlement agreement and complaint (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
845 MOTION to Enforce filed by Charles Donelson. Responses due by 12/27/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
846 Letter from Brandon Sweetman (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
847 Letter from Charles Young (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
848 Letter from Christopher Robinson requesting copy of complaint (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
849 Letter from Stephen Turvey requesting a copy of complaint (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
850 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Johnnie Bankston. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
851 Letter from Anthony Tripp (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
852 Letter from Corey Jackson requesting copies of complaint, settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
853 Letter from Jalen Gore (VH, ilcd) Modified on 12/12/2016 to correct last name (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 12/12/2016)
854 Letter from Kaabar Venson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
855 Letter from Douglas Parini (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
856 Letter from John Coffey (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
857 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Robert Loveland. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
858 Letter from Terrence Godfrey (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
859 NOTICE to Court filed by Ashoor Rasho. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
860 NOTICE filed by George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
861 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Billy Ewing. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
862 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Cordell Sanders. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
863 Letter from Eric Reid requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
864 Letter from Oscar Hernandez requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
865 Letter from Jerry Weir (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
866 Letter from Carl Rogers requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
867 Letter from Deveran Murphy requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
868 Letter from Michael Roberts requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
869 Letter from Fredrick Holt (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
870 Letter from James Woody (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 96 of 306

12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016

871 Letter from Rainer Mitchell (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
872 Letter from Darren Maclin requesting copies of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
873 Letter from Adam Jones requesting copy of docket sheet (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
874 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney filed by Ernest Wiggins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
875 Letter from Tyrone Jones (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
876 Letter from Corin Carr (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
877 Letter from Eugene Rivers (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
878 Letter from Kelly Skamra (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
879 Letter from Neveil Daniels requesting copies of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
880 Letter from Sigmund Brown requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
881 Letter from Vincent Smith (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
882 Letter from James Miller requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
883 Letter from Kirk Horshaw requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
884 Letter from Howard Cross (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
885 Letter from Fernandus Williams (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
886 Letter from Welton Travis requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
887 Letter from Demarcus Sago (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
888 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Reuben Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
889 Letter from Daniel Karney requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
890 Letter from Jeffrey Graves (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
891 Letter from Jordan Parker (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
892 Letter from Demetrius Johnson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
893 Letter from Shondell Miller (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
894 Letter from Samuel Carpenter requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
895 Letter from Demetrius Whitney (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
896 Letter from Keyruni Buford (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
897 Letter from Terry Cristel requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
898 Letter from James Young requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
899 Letter from Peter Fowler (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
900 Letter from Joshua Wilkins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 97 of 306

12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016
12/12/2016

901 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Harold Butler. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
902 Letter from Bobby Jenkins requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
903 Letter from Antonio Clark requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
904 Letter from Greigory Holmes requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
905 Letter from Hoyt Ray (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
906 Letter from James Burns (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
907 Letter from Jermaine Smith (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
908 Letter from Adam Avizius requesting copy of settlement agreement and complaint (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
909 Letter from George Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
910 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Alex Dawson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
911 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Darough Ebrahimi. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
912 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Victor Powell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
913 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Bobby Tatum. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
914 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Roman Ramero. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
915 Letter from Brent Garner (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
916 Letter from Johnny Savage (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
917 Letter from Lee Johnson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
918 Letter from Marcus Harvey (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
919 Letter from Tyrese Watson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
920 Letter from Kevin Ford (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
921 Letter from Denzell Dale (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
923 Letter from Ismail Ervin requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
924 Letter from Joshua Bunting requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
925 Letter from William Percy requesting copy of petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
926 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by David Wilkerson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
927 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed Carnell Willis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
928 MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Demarcus Doston. Responses due by 12/27/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
929 Letter from Allen White (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 98 of 306

12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/12/2016 12/13/2016
12/13/2016 12/13/2016
12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/13/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016

930 Letter from Reginald Brown requesting copy of petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
931 Letter from Richard Berkshire requesting copy of petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
932 Letter from Rick Brynes requesting copy of petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
933 Letter from Antwoion Alexander requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
934 Letter from Larry Johnson requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
935 Letter from Andre Jackson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
936 Letter from Lance Davidson requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
ORDER denying 845 Motion. Movant Charles Donelson requests the Court "take what action deem[s] to force compliance with the settlement term(s) [ ]." In support of his Motion, among other things, Movant argues that the Mental Health Department is not acknowledging or counseling him. Id. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/13/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
922 Letter from Deon Banks requesting copy of settlement agreement and petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 928 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Demarcus Doston requests the Court appoint him counsel in this case. In support of his Motion, Movant indicates he would like to be included in the settlement as a class member. Notably, the class in this case is represented by class counsel. Movant should reach out to class counsel to obtain the information he is seeking. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/13/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
937 Letter from Aaron Boxes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
938 Letter from Bruce Teague (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
939 Letter from Dale Beaver (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
940 Letter from George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
941 Letter from Marcelo Reyes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
942 MOTION filed by Abed Othman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
943 MOTION of Violation of Agreement Order... filed by Mario English. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
944 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Anthony Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
945 Letter from Alejandro Jimenez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
946 Letter from Aziz Animashaun requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
947 Letter from Darnell Davis requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
948 Letter from Dustin Wallis requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 99 of 306

12/14/2016
12/14/2016
12/14/2016
12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016
12/14/2016
12/14/2016
12/14/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016
12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016

949 Letter from Gregory McMillen requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
950 Letter from Isaiah Wade requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
951 Letter from Joseph Bobbitt requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
952 Letter from Abel Olmeda (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
953 Letter from Anthony Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
954 Letter from Bryan Thomas (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
955 Letter from Darren Voorhis (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
956 Letter from Roy Connell (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
957 MOTION to Enforce Agreed Order filed by Zachary Borne. Responses due by 12/28/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
958 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Edwin Rodriguez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
959 Letter from Walter Howard requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
960 Letter from William Ware (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
961 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 12/29/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
962 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Belin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
963 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Stephen Bramble. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
964 Letter from Don Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
965 Letter from Richard Dyches (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
966 Letter from Marvin Thomas requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
967 Letter from Ruben Macias (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
968 MOTION to Request Counsel filed in letter format by Devion Guy. Responses due by 12/29/2016 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
969 Letter from Leonard Lomax. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
970 Letter from Anthony Brown (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
971 Letter from Duwon Patterson requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
972 Letter from Kevin Wallace (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
973 Letter from Edward Phillips requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
974 Letter from Sean Hayes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
975 Letter from William Caponegri (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
976 Letter from Perry Brown (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
977 Letter from Johnnie Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
978 Letter from William Horman (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 100 of 306

12/15/2016 979 Letter from Roger Crump (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 980 Letter from Noel Christen (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 981 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Cinquinn Roberson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 982 Letter from Antonio Gary requesting copy of settlement agreement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 983 Letter from Bounnhaegg Kham requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 984 Letter from Chadwick Kelly requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 985 Letter from Rodney Hardwick (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 986 Letter from Dion Epinger (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 987 Letter from Ray Harris (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 988 Letter from Paul Ayers (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 989 Letter from Kristopher Fox requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 990 Letter from Marshall McNeal requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 991 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Jonathan Jordan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/16/2016 992 Letter from Maurice Lain (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 993 Letter from Aaron Miller requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 994 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Charles Spivey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 995 Letter from Clarence Hardy requesting copy of Petition for Attorney Fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 996 Letter from Harley Pulley requesting attorney information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 997 Letter from Juan Bueno (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 998 Letter from Nolan Mitchell (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 999 Letter from Thomas Harley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1000 Letter from Omarr Chester (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1001 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Robbie Moore. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 942 Motion. Movant Abed Othman field a Motion seeking to be a member of the class arguing the class should include any inmate diagnosed with a mental illness. The class in this case has been established, and any timely objection to the class has already been considered. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 12/16/2016. (JS, ilcd). (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 943 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. has filed a Motion of A violation of Agreement noting he believes the settlement agreement was not followed (or a violation occurred) during an incident on December 2, 2016. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court declines to require the Court Monitor to meet with the Movant, however, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 101 of 306

Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 957 Motion. Movant Zachory Borne has filed a Motion to Enforce Agreed Order requesting that the Court enforce the agreed order in its entirety to Menard Correctional Center. In support of his Motion, Movant notes that there is a lack of effort in transferring inmates who have short sentences and seriously mentally ill (or otherwise) to better equipped facilities. Movant also complains about the The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 961 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion asserting that the IDOC and Pontiac Correctional Center have breached the 2016 Court Agreement. In support of his Motion, Movant provides he is in segregated solitary confinement/24 hour lock−down. Movant does not request any specific relief. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 968 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Devron Guy request that he be appointed counsel in this case. Notably, the class in this case is represented by class counsel. Movant should reach out to class counsel if he has any questions regarding representation in this case. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/16/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/19/2016 1002 Letter from Bill Conroy requesting copy of settlement agreement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1003 Letter from Christopher Nowling requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1004 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Fredeal Truidalle. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1005 Letter from Paul McGary requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1006 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Robin Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1007 Letter from Steven Guzman (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1008 Letter from Lamar Kirkwood (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1009 Letter from Markus Mannie requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1010 Letter from Travis Hicks (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1011 Letter from Brian Cooley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1012 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Carl Hardman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1013 Letter from Darryl Bunch (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1014 Letter from David Speer (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1015 Letter from Edward Flowers (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1016 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Herman Nitz. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 102 of 306

12/19/2016 1017 MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Herman Nitz. Responses due by 1/3/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1018 Letter from John Vestal (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1019 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1020 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Quentin Getty. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1021 Letter from David Carter requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1022 Letter from Raymond Harris requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1023 Letter from Edward Green (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1024 Letter from Alan Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1025 Letter from Vibran Lloyd (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1026 Letter from Mark Brown (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1027 Letter from Oliver King (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1028 Letter from Kevin Williams (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1029 Letter from Ronald Bramley requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1030 Letter from Carlos Ortega requesting copy of complaint, settlement agreement and attorney information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1031 MOTION filed by Mr. Train. Responses due by 1/3/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/20/2016 1032 MOTION of Violation of Settlement Agreement filed by Mario English Jr. Responses due by 1/3/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/20/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1031 Motion. Movant Samuel Train filed his Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant argues that he needs to be evaluated for Serious Mental Illness. In addition, Movant outlines several conditions he wants included in his treatment plan. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/20/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1017 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Herman L. Nitz, Jr. filed a Motion requesting the Court appoint him counsel indicating that individuals at Western Illinois Correctional Center or Jacksonville Correctional Center have opened/read his mail. Movant indicates he has contacted the various class counsel in this case seeking representation. Notably, this case involves a class action addressing conditions for serious mentally ill inmates in IDOC. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his mail through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court declines to appoint counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/20/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1032 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. has filed a Motion of a Violation of Settlement Agreement Order Set Forth Friday, May 13, 2016, stating he has been unable to get a crisis team on 1st, 2nd and 3rd shift unless he hurts himself. Movant argues this is a violation of the Settlement Agreement. Although he doesn't request any specific relief from the Court (other than finding Menard Staff in contempt), he asks that class counsel contact him about these issues and the only way of insuring class counsel receives this information is by filing a motion. The Court declines to grant any expressed or implied relief contained in the Motion. Class Counsel will receive a copy of the filing through the electronic system. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2016.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 103 of 306
(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
12/20/2016 1033 Letter from Brian Holmes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
12/21/2016 1034 Letter from Fabian Hernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/21/2016 1035 Letter from Harold Hill (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/21/2016 1036 Letter from Johnny James (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/21/2016 1037 Letter from Marshawn Cunningham (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/21/2016 1038 Letter from Julius Safford requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/21/2016 1039 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Joshua Bruce. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/22/2016 1040 NOTICE to Court filed by James Bass (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1041 Letter from Daniel Roberson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1042 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Earnest Bell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1043 Letter from Jasper Mathews (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1044 Letter from John Barnes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1045 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by John Wiemann. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1046 Letter from Kenneth Murphy (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1047 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Lavar Roberts. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1048 Letter from Leshard Jackson requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1049 Letter from Michael Ligon requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1050 Letter from Pierre Mason requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1051 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Rodney Wiley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1052 Letter from Romerio Ellington (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1053 Letter from Sedrick Griffin (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1054 Letter from Todd Howe (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/22/2016 1055 Letter from Tony Dorsey requesting copy of settlement agreement and name of attorneys (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
12/23/2016 1056 Letter from Carnell Edwards requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
12/23/2016 1057 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Derek Clark. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
12/23/2016 1058 Letter from Jerome Davis requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
12/23/2016 1059 Letter from Jerome Robinson requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 104 of 306

12/23/2016 1060 Letter from Jimmie Marshall (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/23/2016 1061 Letter from John Thompson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/23/2016 1062 Letter from Larry Anderson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/27/2016 1063 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Henry Mounson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1064 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Thella Bland. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1065 Emergency MOTION filed by Burl Mason Jr. Responses due by 1/10/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1066 Letter from Antonio Almond (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1067 Letter regarding Rasho case (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1068 Letter from Robert Smith (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1069 Letter from Larrikus Word (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 1070 Letter from Nickolas Garcia requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/28/2016 1071 Letter from Danny Armstrong (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/28/2016)

12/28/2016 1072 MOTION to Vacate Due Date for Response to Petition for Attorney Fees by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 1/11/2017 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 12/28/2016)

12/29/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1065 Motion. Movant Burl Mason Jr. has filed an "Emergency Motion" indicating he is not being given any mental health treatment despite reaching out to staff members at Statesville Correctional Center. Movant also implies that he is considering taking his own life because he is currently dealing with a significant decision regarding his mother's health. This Court is not in a position where it can assess the mental health needs of every inmate currently incarcerated. Nonetheless, while the Motion is DENIED, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's letter to the Warden of Statesville Correctional Center. The Court also DIRECTS class counsel to immediately investigate this matter. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1072 Motion to Vacate Response date. Written information regarding settlement on attorneys' fees to be filed by the parties no later than January 20, 2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/29/2016. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1073 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 1/12/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1074 NOTICE to Court filed by Leonte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1075 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Juan Ayala. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1076 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Raymond Nesbitt. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1077 Letter from Albert Hudson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1078 Letter from David Hoffman (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1079 Letter from Eddie Patton Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1080 Letter from Frederick Holt (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1081 Letter from George Sturgeon (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 105 of 306

12/29/2016 1082 Letter from Joe Champ (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1083 Letter from Michael Hamlin (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1084 Letter from Roosevelt Wilson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1085 Letter from Michael Penny requesting copy of settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 1086 Letter from Robert Lucas requesting copy of petition for attorney fees and settlement agreement (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/30/2016 1087 MOTION of Violation of Agreement... filed by Mario English. Responses due by 1/13/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

12/30/2016 1088 Letter from David Wilkerson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

12/30/2016 1089 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Derrick Marion. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

12/30/2016 1090 Letter from Derrick Macklin (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

01/03/2017 1091 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (As to Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses) by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1092 CERTIFICATE of Service. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER Terminating Motion Hearing set for 1/9/2017. New hearing date was set during telephone hearing dated 12/5/2016. Motion hearing remains scheduled for February 3, 2017, at 1:00PM. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/3/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1093 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Demtrius Whitney. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1094 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Tony Jackson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1095 Letter from Fernandus Williams (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1096 Letter from Maurice Shaw (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1097 Letter from Stanley Gray (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1098 NOTICE filed by Eduardo Navejar (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1099 NOTICE filed by Sidney Harris (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/03/2017 1100 MOTION to Enforce... filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 1/17/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

01/04/2017 1101 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Corey Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1100 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion requesting to proceed pro se to enforce Defendant's compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Movant has been previously informed he may pursue any individualized complaints regarding his treatment thought the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. (See e.g. TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 10/26/2016). Although Movant's individualized request for relief may not be addressed in this particular forum, the Court has previously directed class counsel to consider the general complaints of the inmates. Finally, Movant indicates he is going to pursue relief against class counsel through the ARDC. Movant does not need permission from this Court to do so. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1087 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Menard Correctional Center. Movant specifically notes he is not getting the proper mental health treatment and would like to speak with the Court Monitor. Movant notes he continues to file these types of

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 106 of 306

motion to make sure all lawyers get a copy of his complaints. The Court has previously directed class counsel to provide the Court Monitor with Movants filings. (See e.g. TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 7/29/2016). The Court finds no further relief is warranted. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1073 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion detailing an event that occurred on December 27, 2017, involving himself and staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center. This is not the first Motion Movant has filed complaining of his treatment. (See e.g. ECF Nos. 740, 766, 774, 801, and 961). Movant has been admonished previously that individual complaints, such as these, are not specifically addressed in this proceeding. Any complaints regarding his treatment should be pursued through the IDOC's grievance procedure. Movant may also choose to direct complaints to class counsel. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017 1102 Letter from Aaron Boyes requesting to be added to lawsuit (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/04/2017 1103 Letter from Crawford Harris−Smith requesting copy of complaint (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/05/2017 1104 Letter from George Anderson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017 1105 Letter from Jermaine Fleming. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017 1106 Letter from Donnell Douglas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017 1107 Letter from Marshall Hodges. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017 1108 Letter from Joshua Scaggs. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017 1109 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Dyron Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/06/2017 1110 Letter from Sean Sellers (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017 1111 Letter from Jawan Robinson−Jones (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017 1112 Letter from Keith Patterson (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017 1113 Letter from Jesus Ortiz (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017 1114 MOTION for Denial of Medical and Mental Healthcare... filed by Steven Lisle. Responses due by 1/20/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/09/2017 1115 MOTION of violation of agreement filed by Mario English Jr. Responses due by 1/23/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1116 Letter from Gregory Williams requesting information regarding case (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1117 Letter from Jamie Rodriquez requesting information regarding case. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1118 Letter from John Clay advising court that he will be paroled and new address information. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1119 Letter from Joseph Ward requesting information regarding case (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1120 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Lavar Roberts. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1121 Letter from Marcello Williams advising court that he has been released and new address information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1122 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 107 of 306

01/09/2017 1123 Letter from Sammy Smith requesting information regarding case (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1124 Letter from Thomas Byrd (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 1125 NOTICE by Travis Wrobleski (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/10/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1115 Motion. Movant Mario English has filed another Motion complaining about the lack of response to his threats of suicide. Movant argues his treatment is in violation of the Settlement Agreement in this case. As he has done previously, Movant explains that he continues to file motions in this case in order to make sure all lawyers get a copy of his complaint. The Court has directed class counsel to provide the Court Monitor with the Movant's filings. This Court is not in a position where it can assess the mental health needs of every inmate currently incarcerated. Nonetheless, while the Motion is DENIED, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's letter to the Warden of Menard Correctional Center. The Court also DIRECTS class counsel to immediately investigate this matter. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/10/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/10/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1114 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a "Motion for Denial of Medical and Mental Health Care and Continued Denial of Grievance [Procedure] by Pontiac Grievance Office and Administrative Review Board." In his Motion, Movant complains that Pontiac grievance offers have refused to respond to his "mental health" grievances and other institutional grievances. Movant also complains that the Administrative Review Board has failed to address his grievances. Movant requests that the Court order the IDOC and ARB to respond to his pending grievances. In addition to his complaints, Movant indicates that he is going to pursue this matter by filing a lawsuit. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his mail through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court declines to address his individualized request for relief in this lawsuit, and the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/10/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/10/2017 1126 Letter from James Allen. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/11/2017 1127 MOTION to Enforce Agreed Order filed by Terrance Griffin. Responses due by 1/25/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1128 Letter from Charles Clemons. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1129 Letter from Charles Hairston advising the court he will be paroled and providing forwarding address. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1130 Letter from David Johnson requesting information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1131 Letter from Julius Sangster requesting information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1132 Letter from Walte Harris requesting information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1133 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Richard Tyson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 1134 MOTION filed by Keith Randulich. Responses due by 1/25/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1127 Motion. Movant Terrance Griffin has filed a Motion requesting the Court enforce the "agreed order" in this case. Movant complains, among other things, staff at Menard Correctional Institution refuse to allow mental health professionals to properly treat serious mentally ill inmates. To the extent Movant complains about his specific treatment, Movant should pursue such complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor for his review. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1134 Motion. Movant Keith Randulich has filed a Motion arguing Pontiac Correctional Center has not designated him an "SMI" inmate.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 108 of 306

Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment or status through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. That being said, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to review the Movant's complaint and determine if any additional action is needed. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017 1135 Letter from Benny Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017 1136 Letter from Terry Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017 1137 Letter from Henry Hersman (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/13/2017 1138 Letter from Nirin Walls requesting information. 7 (SL, ilcd) Modified on 1/17/2017 to correct event type (incorrectly docketed as motion changed to letter) (VH, ilcd). Modified on 1/17/2017 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/13/2017 1139 Letter from Michael Johnson (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/13/2017 1140 Letter from Alan B. Taylor not objecting to the amount. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/13/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1138 Motion filed by Nirin Walls re: attorney contact information insofar as the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with the contact information of class counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/13/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/17/2017 1141 EMERGENCY MOTION filed by Ashoor Rasho.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/17/2017 1142 Letter from Gary Briner (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/17/2017 1143 Letter from Mark Thompson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/17/2017 1144 Letter from Michael Atkins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/18/2017 1145 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Christopher Knox. Responses due by 2/1/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017 1146 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 2/1/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017 1147 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT filed by Maurice Shaw. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 1/19/2017 to correct document name (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 01/19/2017)

01/18/2017 1149 Letter from Maurice Shaw regarding sealed document 1147 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

01/19/2017 1148 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

01/20/2017 1150 Letter from Joe Champ (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1151 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT reference 1150 Joe Champ (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1152 Letter from Anthony Gomez requesting information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1153 Letter from Anthony Young (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1154 Letter from Armando Vadillo (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1155 Letter from Daniel Maslo (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1156 Letter from Jeremy Dunn (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1157 Letter from Luther Kimes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1158 Letter from Malik Ousley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1159 Letter from Renard Branch (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1160 Letter from Zekwan Murrell requesting information (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 109 of 306

01/20/2017 1161 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Robert Carter. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1162 MOTION of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/20/2017 1163 Letter from Harley Pulley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1141 Motion. Movant Ashoor Rasho has filed a Motion indicating he is facing imminent personal injuries, or risk of irreparable harm to himself. Movant notes he is going through painful withdraws and sufferings from hallucinations because a doctor has stopped his medication. Movant requests the Court appoint him counsel in order to file a lawsuit. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant in the context of this proceeding. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment abuse through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Because the Movant indicates the possibility of immediate self−harm, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center with a copy of the Movants filing and this Order. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1145 Motion. Movant Christopher Knox has filed a "Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement" alleging, among other things, he is seriously mentally ill and has been in disciplinary segregation and isolation since July 1999. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by Movant, however, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to immediately investigate the allegations made by Movant, and take appropriate action as they deem necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1146 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a "Motion for Denial of Mental Healthcare and Retaliation and Denial of Grievance Procedure by Pontiac Administration and Employees" alleging he has been subject to physical and mental abuse by staff members. Movant requests that this Court order an "outside" investigation of his claims. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment or alleged abuse through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Notably, Movant mentions he has filed grievances on the issue. That being said, Class Counsel is DIRECTED to investigate Movant's allegations in the context of this case, and take appropriate action as they deems necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1162 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically notes he "has been singled out by mental health staff" and there have been "numerous attempts to murder" him. Movant requests he be given the opportunity to speak with the Court Monitor. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directed class counsel to provide the Court Monitor with Movant's filing. The Court Monitor should take action as he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017 1164 Letter from Alonzo Thomas Jr (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017 1165 MOTION (filed in letter format) by Jorge Pena. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017 1166 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/24/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1165 Motion. Movant Jorge Pena has filed a Motion complaining that his disciplinary tickets should be reviewed by mental health staff. The Court declines to grant any relief based on the Motion. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his disciplinary ticket through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/24/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re: Motion Hearing scheduled 2/3/2017. During the Motion Hearing scheduled for February 3, 2017, in addition to issues related to the Motion for Fees, the Parties should be prepared to provide the Court with a status of the implementation of the settlement agreement and address any open issues (generally) regarding inmate complaints. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/25/2017.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 110 of 306

(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/25/2017 1167 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Donchii Malone. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/25/2017 1168 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Marvin Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/25/2017 1169 Letter from Delmar Gray (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/25/2017 1170 Letter from Robert Miner (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/25/2017 1171 MOTION for Leave to File an Objection to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Mikel Pernell. Responses due by 2/8/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1171 Motion for Leave to File to the extent the objection itself will be considered with other filings made on the issue of attorneys fees. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2017)

01/26/2017 1172 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1173 Letter from Charles Donelson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1174 Letter from Louie Ward (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1175 Letter from Phillip Smith (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1176 Letter from Stanley Upton (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1177 Letter from Michael Williams advising court of change of address (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1178 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Andrew Cannon. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1179 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Dennis Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 1180 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Nicholas Akerele. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/27/2017 1181 Letter from Ernest Garza (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017 1182 Letter from Trevelle Washington advising court of address change (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017 1183 MOTION for Relief by Court from Retaliation... filed by Kevin Robinson. Responses due by 2/10/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017 1184 NOTICE to Court filed by Kevin Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/30/2017 1185 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Jeffrey Miller. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1186 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Jonathan Green. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1187 Letter from Detrick Cullum (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1188 Letter from Jose Avendano (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1189 Letter from Joe Champ (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1183 Motion. Movant Kevin Robinson has filed a Motion for Relief requesting the Court, among other things, direct Pontiac Correctional Center to put him back on psychiatric medication and exonerate him from disciplinary charges. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment or alleged abuse through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/30/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 111 of 306

01/30/2017 1190 Letter from Kevin Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1191 MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Kevin Robinson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1192 Emergency MOTION filed by Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1193 MOTION in violation of agreed order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 1194 Letter from Ozzie Scott (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017

1195

MEMORANDUM in Support re 759 MOTION for Attorney Fees Response to Objections filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1191 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Kevin Roberson has filed a Motion for Counsel requesting counsel to obtain unspecified relief related to his mental health status. All class members are represented by class counsel in this case. However, Movant was previously informed this litigation is not intended to address individualized complaints from inmates. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment or alleged abuse through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Finally, to the extent Movant seeks counsel in his other litigation pending in this District, he should make his filing directly in that docket. See Robinson v. Pfister, ILCD Case No. 15−1093. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1193 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion alleging staff members of Pontiac Correctional Center have violated the Settlement Agreement. Movant specifically alleges he is being retaliated against. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant in the context of this proceeding. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment abuse through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, directs Class Counsel to review this matter and determine if any further action should be requested by the Court. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1192 Motion. Movant Terrance D. Godfrey has filed a Motion requesting that his complaint regarding his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motion, Movant appears to request that the Court consider his complaint as part of this litigation. The Court declines to do so in the context of this litigation. However, it is also unclear if Movant is seeking to open a new litigation. If Movant wants to have his complaint filed as a new litigation, he shall so inform the Court within 21 days of this Order. Movant must accompany his notice with the appropriate filing fee for opening a new case or otherwise move the Court to proceed in forma pauperis. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

02/01/2017 1196 Letter from David Williams (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/01/2017

1197

MEMORANDUM in Support re 759 MOTION for Attorney Fees Response to Objections filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/01/2017 1198 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2017)

02/02/2017

1199

MOTION to Seal Counsel's Report on Burl Mason by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. Responses due by 2/16/2017 (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 112 of 306

02/02/2017 1200 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

02/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1199 Motion to Seal. Document 1200 to remain sealed at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/3/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/03/2017 1201 Letter from Ashoor Rasho. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/03/2017 1202 MOTION for Status Update regarding hearing held on 2/3/2017. filed by Don Collins Responses due by 2/17/2017 (VH, ilcd) Modified on 2/3/2017 to add defendant's name(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/03/2017 1203 MOTION for Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. Responses due by 2/17/2017 (VH, ilcd) Modified on 2/3/2017 to add name of the defendant (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/03/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court Attnys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs and Attnys Terence Corrigan and Camille Lindsey for the Defendants and Dr. Hinton. Dr. Stewart by telephone for Fairness/Miscellaneous Hearing held on 2/3/2017. Discussion held re: settlement agreement and other related issues. Discussion held re: Plaintiffs Petition for Attorney Fees. Arguments held. Plaintiffs Petition for Attorney Fees 759 GRANTED. Parties to confer and prepare a proposed order for court's consideration. Status Conference set for 6/23/2017 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm (but subject to change to a telephone conference.) (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) Modified on 2/6/2017 to add paragraph (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/06/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1203 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed another Motion stating that the Settlement Agreement has been violated by the Defendants. (See also ECF Nos. 1193 and 1162). Movant specifically alleges he does not get to participate in groups, has no TV, and no out of cell time. The Court declines to issue the relief requested by the Movant in the context of this proceeding. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment abuse through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, directs Class Counsel to review the Movant's filing and determine if any further action is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/6/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/06/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1202 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed an "Update to Objection Motion" (see also ECF No. 1172) stating that mental offenders are still not getting treatment despite the settlement agreement. Movant also complains of class counsel's lack of contact with inmates. The motion does not specify any relief, and as such, the Motion is DENIED. However, class counsel is directed to review the filing and determine if any additional action is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/6/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/07/2017 1204 Letter from Ashoor Rasho (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/08/2017 1205 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Christopher Knox. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 1206 MOTION to Enforce Agreed Order filed by Dennis Rush. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 1207 Letter from Charles Robinson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 1208 Letter from David Williams advising address change (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 1209 Letter from Rodney Boyd requesting copy of complaint, petition for attorney fees (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1205 Motion. Movant Christopher Knox moves this Court to investigate alleged violations of the "Agreed Order." Plaintiff notes he is currently housed in the Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant make several allegations that he remains in disciplinary segregation in violation of the agreement. To the extent Movant complains about his specific treatment, Movant should pursue such

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 113 of 306

complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor for his review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1206 Motion. Movant Dennis Rush requests this Court enter an order directing the Illinois Department of Correction to transfer him to a "special treatment institutional unit so [he] can receive intensive care treatment." The Court declines to grant the relief requested. Movant should pursue such complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor for his review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/09/2017 1210 MOTION for Order Proposed and Agreed by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 2/23/2017 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/10/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1210 Motion for Order. Motion is Parties' Proposed Order in compliance with directive given during Motion Hearing held on February 3, 2017. See Minute Entry dated 02/03/2017. Written Order will follow. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/10/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/10/2017

1211

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/10/2017. The Court finds that the agreement between the parties for attorney fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time pursuant to under Section XXIX(g) is fair to members 2 of the class given the nature of the case. The Agreement settling the underlying dispute affords members of the class comprehensive relief which includes fundamental changes to the housing,treatment, and discipline of mentally ill inmates. In view of the hours expended by counsel and the results obtained on behalf of the members of the class the Court finds that the agreement on fees is fair and reasonable. The Court, accordingly finds that the fees and costs are reasonable and approves the Agreement between the parties filed as Doc. 1091. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/10/2017 1212 Letter from Harley Pulley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/13/2017 1213 MOTION for Leave to File Late Objection and Complaint by Antonio Sustaita. (Attachments: # 1 Objection and Complaint)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

02/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1213 Motion for Leave to File. Movant Antonio Sustaita requests leave to file a late objection and complaint regarding the Motion for Fees. Notably, the Court granted the Petition for Attorney Fees during the hearing held on February 3, 2017. (See Minute Entry dated 2/3/2017 and Order (ECF No. 1211)). Nonetheless, in support of his objection, Movant complains that he has been subject to deliberate indifference, abuse, and neglect while incarcerated. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate (If Movant wants to file his "objection" as a new Complaint, he must so inform the Court). The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/14/20107. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

02/15/2017 1214 Letter from Anthony White. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017 1215 MOTION to Return Case to Active Litigation filed by Zachary Borne. Responses due by 3/1/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017 1216 MOTION to Enforce Agreed Order filed by Zachary Borne. Responses due by 3/1/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017 1217 OBJECTION to Petition for Attorney Fees filed by Joseph Caliendo. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1215 Motion and 1216 Motion by Zackary Borne. Movant Zackary Borne has filed two motions requesting relief in this matter. In his

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 114 of 306

first Motion, Movant request that this case be returned to "Active Litigation." (ECF No. 1215). In his second, Motion, Movant requests that this Court enforce the settlement agreement by requiring the settlement agreement to be applied to Menard Correctional Center in its entirety. (ECF No. 1216). In support of his Motions, Movant argues that prison officials at Menard Correctional Center refuse to comply with the settlement agreement. Specifically, Movant notes, among other things, that the Mental Health Unit at Menard Correctional Center does not exist and serious mentally ill inmates continue to be disciplined without the safeguards outlined in the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 1215). Movant also complains about his own individual treatment. (ECF No. 1216). The Court declines to grant to relief requested, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of the Motions and attachments to the Court Monitor for his review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/15/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/16/2017 1218 Letter from Anthony Wilkerson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017 1219 Letter from James Hodgson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017 1220 DECLARATION filed by Kennado Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/17/2017 1221 Letter from Bob Donley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/21/2017 1222 Letter from James Hotchkiss (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

02/21/2017 1223 Letter from Nestor Rosado (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

02/21/2017 1224 Letter from Ralph Kings (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

02/22/2017 1225 Letter from John Wilson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 1226 Letter from Steven Harper (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 1227 MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 3/9/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/24/2017 1228 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 3/10/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017 1229 Letter from Ralph Kings (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1227 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Don Collins filed the instant motion complaining about his medical treatment and the lack of attention to his complaints by the Court, class counsel, and presumably, the Court Monitor. As previously explained, Movant should pursue his individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. This case was intended to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. (See ECF No. 695). The Settlement Agreement requires the IDOC to take certain measures regarding mental health services. This process is overseen by an independent monitor and reports will be made to the Court. Movant concerns have been heard, but again if he wants to grieve his own personal circumstances, he must do so outside this litigation. The Court directs class counsel to provide the Movant's letter to the Court Monitor for his review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/24/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1228 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. filed a Motion requesting that this Court direct Attorney Alan Mills to return a complaint and exhibit he submitted to the attorney. Apparently, Movant sought Mr. Mills representation on a legal matter involving his treatment in IDOC. The Court declines to become involved in Mr. Lisle dispute with the attorney. Nonetheless, Attorney Mills should review Movant's complaints and determine if any action should be taken. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

03/02/2017 1230 Letter from Kevin Williams (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 1231 Letter from Maurice Wallace (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 115 of 306

03/02/2017 1232 MOTION filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 1233 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1233 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his current Motion, Movant complains that the "Orange Crush" subjected him to excessive force and sexual assault in retaliation for objection in this case. Movant notes that he has filed a grievance on this matter. Movant should continue to pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court will not consider Movant's complaints in this Docket. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the monitor. Counsel for both the Defendants and Plaintiffs should review/investigate the allegations made in this complaint and satisfy themselves that no retaliation is occurring for participating in this case. Any determination to the contrary should be brought to this Court. Furthermore, because of the allegations made, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's letter to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/3/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1232 Motion. Movant Charles Donelson has filed another Motion indicating that the monitor has not reached out to him despite this Court directing previous motions to go to the monitor. As previously explained by this Court, Movant should pursue his individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. (See Order dated 12/13/2016. This case was intended to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. (See ECF No. 695). The Settlement Agreement requires the IDOC to take certain measures regarding mental health services. The Monitor will be review various issues and reporting back to the Court. However, the Monitor may or may not review Movant's particular circumstance. Again, Movant should pursue his own individual complaint as he deems appropriate. In the context of this case, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/3/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017 1234 Letter from Burl Mason (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017 1235 Letter from Nickolas Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/06/2017 1236 Declaration of Kennado Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/06/2017 1237 Letter from Ralph Kings (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/06/2017 1238 OBJECTION filed by Jesse Osasio. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/06/2017 1239 Letter from Munsure Harvey (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/07/2017

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 3/8/2017 at 1:30 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (KR, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017 1240 MOTION filed by Mario English Jr. Responses due by 3/21/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017 1241 Letter from Anthony White (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017 1242 Letter from David Evans (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017 1243 Letter from Derrick Macklin (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/08/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1240 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. has filed another motion complaining about, among other things, his mental health treatment. (See prior Motions, ECF Nos. 1115, 1087, 1032, 943, 762, 761, 744, and 739). In this Motion, Movant notes that he was improperly taken off suicide watch, subsequently denied medical attention, and assaulted by staff members. As he has previously done, Movant requests that the Court allow him access to a lawyer and the independent monitor. Those requests are denied. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. However, the Court DIRECTS

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 116 of 306

class counsel to provide a copy of this pleading to the Monitor. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/8/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017 1244 Letter from Ralph Kings (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017 1245 Letter from Vidal Rainey (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017 1246 Letter from Dr. Pablo Stewart. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017 1247 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT − ORIGINAL LETTER FROM DR. PABLO STEWART UNREDACTED (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills and Harold Hirshman for the Plaintiffs and Attorney Terence Corrigan for the Defendants. Dr. Pablo Stewart also appearing via telephone for Status Conference held on 3/8/2017. Discussion held regarding 1246 Letter from Dr. Pablo Stewart. (Tape #PR−B 1:30 PM.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/09/2017 1248 MOTION for Status filed by Winfred Barnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/10/2017 1249 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 3/24/2017 (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1248 Motion for Status. Movant's Motion for Status is GRANTED insofar as the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Movant a copy of the Minute Entry dated 2/3/2017. Movant should contact Class Counsel for any additional information regarding the hearing. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/10/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1249 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Barry G Lowy terminated as attorney for Plaintiffs. Movant Amanda Antholt is DIRECTED to provide Attorney Lowy with a copy of this order. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/10/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017 1250 Letter from Jamal Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017 1251 Letter from Lewis Clark (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/13/2017 1252 Letter from Buster Lacour (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017 1253 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017 1254 Letter from Corrie Singleton (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017 1255 STRICKEN PER TEXT ORDER OF 3/28/2017 − NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) Modified on 3/28/2017 to strike(RK, ilcd). (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017 1256 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 3/29/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/15/2017 1257 MOTION for Status filed by Jason Gallahon. Responses due by 3/29/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/16/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1257 Motion for Status. Movant Jason Gallahon has filed a Motion for Status requesting an update on the status of this case. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the Minute Entry dated 2/3/2017. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update regarding the status of the case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/16/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/16/2017 1258 OBJECTION to the Terms of Settlement Agreement filed by Frederick Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/16/2017 1259 Letter from Javier Irizarry (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/17/2017 1260 Letter from Lewis Clark (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 117 of 306

03/20/2017 1261 NOTICE by Antoine Younger (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017 1262 Letter from Michael Addison (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017 1263 NOTICE by Don Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1256 Motion. Movant Don Collins complaints that that mental offenders housed in segregation gallery are being denied certain privileges including the ability to purchase and/or possess hygiene and writing items. These types of allegations certainly raise concerns. However, the Movant must pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In the context of this litigation, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/20/2017.(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/21/2017 1264 Letter from Marcus Hall Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/21/2017 1265 Motion to Request Counsel file by Ralph Kings (VH, ilcd) Modified on 3/21/2017 to change event type from letter to motion(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/21/2017 1266 Letter from Antoine Younger (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/22/2017 1267 NOTICE filed by Shawa Scott (he has been transferred to Shawnee CC) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/22/2017 1268 Letter from Austin Carter (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/22/2017 1269 Letter from Matthew Herrera (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/22/2017 1270 MOTION to Compel filed by Dennis Rush. Responses due by 4/5/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/22/2017 1271 MOTION for Status Update filed by Gared Angus. Responses due by 4/5/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/22/2017 1272 MOTION for Status Update filed by Richard Whitten. Responses due by 4/5/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/22/2017 1273 Letter from Vidal Raney (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

03/23/2017 1274 Letter from Henry Barrows (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

03/23/2017 1275 NOTICE to Court filed by Marvin McAbee (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

03/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1272 Motion for Status to the extent the following information is provided. Movant Richard Whitten has requested as status on the "sums payable" in this case. Notably, on February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Court's Order was entered after notice to the class, and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Movant may contact class counsel to obtain additional information regarding the status of the payment of attorney fees. Plaintiff also indicates that he may be seeking to file a lawsuit and requests information on how to do so. The Court cannot provide advice to the Movant on such matter, but DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to send Movant a blank complaint form. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

03/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1271 Motion for Status insofar as the following information is provided. Movant Gared Angus filed a Motion for Status requesting information on the attorney' fees awarded in this case and what he needs to do to receive compensation. Notably, on February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Courts Order was entered after notice to the class, and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 118 of 306

03/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1270 Motion to Compel. Movant Denis Rush filed a motion complaining about his treatment at Menard Correctional center. Movant specifically notes he had previously submitted a letter to the Court but did not receive a response. A review of the docket reveals the Court responded to Movant's previous Motion on February 8, 2017. As it was previously noted, Movant should pursue complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Movant a copy of the previously entered TEXT ONLY ORDER. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 2/8/2017). The Court will again DIRECT class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

03/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1265 Motion to Request Counsel. Movant Ralph King has filed a Motion to Request Counsel in this case requesting one of the class counsel represent him in a separate § 1983 action. The Court declines to appoint counsel to represent him at this time and in the context of this case. Nonetheless, as this Motion appears to be a letter directed to class counsel, class counsel should respond to Movant as they deem necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2017)

03/24/2017 1276 Letter from Anthony White (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1277 Letter from Marcus Hall (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1278 NOTICE to Court filed by Cordell Sanders (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1279 NOTICE to Court filed by Don Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1280 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1281 MOTION to Strike filed by George Fernandez. Responses due by 4/7/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1282 Declaration filed by Edward Blue (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 1283 Declaration filed by Kennado Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/27/2017 1284 Letter from Charles Donelson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2017)

03/27/2017 1285 Letter from Charles Donelson (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2017)

03/28/2017 1286 MOTION Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/28/2017 1287 NOTICE to Court filed by Don Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/28/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1281 Motion to Strike 1255 Notice (Other). Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion to Strike his March 15, 2017, Notice to return his claims for injunctive relief back to the active litigation. (See ECF No. 1255). The Motion to Strike is GRANTED, and Movant's March 15, 2017, filing is stricken from the record. Parenthetically, Movant is a member of a class represented by class counsel. Movant cannot unilaterally return any claims to "active litigation." Movant should contact class counsel regarding any action he may seek in this litigation. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/28/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/29/2017 1288 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2017)

03/30/2017 1289 MOTION Violation of Agreed Order filed by Laton Stubblefield. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/30/2017 1290 Letter from Burel Mason (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

03/31/2017 1291 MOTION for Copies of Previously filed Motions filed by Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Responses due by 4/14/2017 (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017 1292 Letter from Jamal Taylor. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 119 of 306

03/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1286 Motion. Movant Ned James the 3rd filed a motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that the correctional center does not have group therapy. Movant also complains that he has never spoken to the Monitor or any attorneys despite reaching out to them. Movant should pursue such complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1289 Motion. Movant Laton Stubblefield filed a motion complaining about his treatment at an unspecified Illinois Department of Corrections facility. Movant complains about his medication and the grievance process available to individuals with serious mental illness. Movant should pursue complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. Because the Movant also indicates the possibility of self−harm, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the Movant's Motion and this Order to the Warden at the facility Movant is housed. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017 1293 Letter from Don Collins. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017 1294 Letter from Luis Roman. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

03/31/2017 1295 Letter from Anthony S. White (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

04/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1291 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle makes several requests in his recent Motion. First, Movant requests that the Court send him copies of the entire record of all motions and exhibits he has filed. Movant makes the request because he sent one of his filings to class counsel, and class counsel reported to him they never received it. Movant surmises Pontiac Correctional Center "stole" or "concealed" the mailing. The Court declines to send copies of every filing the Movant has made without copying costs. Movant does not indicate what the purpose is for the documents. If Movant seeks a copy of a docket entry, he may contact the Clerk of the Court to determine the copying charge. Movant has filed numerous motions in this Court, and is admonished that he should retain copies of any filings with the Court. Moreover, if the purposes of the requested copies is to send them to class counsel, class counsel already has the ability to obtain the documents from the docket. (See ECF No. 747). Second, Movant requests the Court enter a TRO against Pontiac employees prohibiting them from destroying, concealing or stealing his mail. The Court declines to do so in the context of this case. Movant should pursue his complaint through the IDOC grievance process. Finally, Movant requests that this Court order him transferred to another IDOC facility. The Court also declines to do so in the context of this proceeding. Movant should also pursue his retaliation complaint through the IDOC grievance process. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/3/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 1296 MOTION for Status filed by Stephan Mclemore (filed in letter format). (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 1297 NOTICE of change of address filed by Steven Moore. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 1298 MOTION to Compel filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1296 Motion. Movant Stephan Mclemore requests a status on this case. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Court notes this case was resolved via settlement agreement on April 21, 2016. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update. No further relief is granted. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1298 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven Lisle has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. (See ECF Nos. 1233, 1228, 1146, 1114, 804, 783, 776, 773, 764, 747, and 670). Movant should pursue such complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 120 of 306

grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. Additionally, because of the nature of Movant's complaints (regarding his treatment), the Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's letter to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/06/2017 1299 MOTION for Status (filed in letter format) by Freddie Jackson, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/06/2017 1300 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/07/2017 1301 Letter from Ashoor Rasho. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017 1302 MOTION for Status filed by Steve Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1299 Motion for Status. Movant Freddie Dean has filed a Motion for Status requesting an update on the status of this case. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the Minute Entry dated 2/3/2017. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update regarding the status of the case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1302 Motion for Status. Movant Steve Evans has filed a Motion for Status requesting an update on the status of this case. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Court notes that, on February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 million payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Court's Order was entered after notice to the class and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update regarding the status of the case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/07/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/10/2017 1303 Letter from Yaphet Castile (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017 1304 MOTION for Status filed by John Cooper. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017 1305 Letter from Ashoor Rasho (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017 1306 NOTICE to Court filed by Anthony Wilkerson (Attachments: # 1 Part b, # 2 Part c, # 3 Part d)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1304 Motion for Status insofar as the Court provides the following status of this case. Movant John Cooper has requested information regarding the status of this case. This case was resolved via approved settlement agreement on May 13, 2016. The Movant should contact class counsel for any additional information regarding the settlement. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a contact list of class counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1307 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Darrell Drummond. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1308 NOTICE of Filing by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1309 Letter from George Fernandez (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1310 Letter from Burl Mason Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 1311 +++ SEALED EXHIBIT filed by Burl Mason Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/12/2017 1312 NOTICE to Court filed by Cordell Sanders (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017 1313 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 4/26/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017 1314 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 4/26/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 121 of 306

04/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1307 Motion for Sanctions. Movant Darrell Drummond filed a Motion requesting sanctions against various medical and staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center for alleged violations of the settlement agreement. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for review. However, if Movant wants to pursue any of his individual complaints, he must do so through the appropriate forum by either filing a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1313 Motion and denying 1314 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two motions in this matter. First, Movant raises concerns about the residential housing accommodations for mental health offenders at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his second Motion, Movant indicates he has not received any indications the Court has received his previous filings. As for his complaints regarding the housing, the Court directs class counsel to provide the Court Monitor a copy of the Movant's filing. However, Movant must pursue his individual complaints through the IDOCs grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In that regard, the Motion is DENIED. As for his previous filings, the Court would note it has received several post−settlement filings from the Movant (See ECF Nos. 1293, 1287, 1279, 1263, 1256, 1227, 1202, 1172, 1073, 964, 961, 801, 774, 766, 740, 738, 716, 715). The Court has entered TEXT ONLY ORDERS in response to several of the filings. Movant is again admonished that any Motion seeking individualized relief will not be addressed in this docket. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 1315 NOTICE of Change of Address. Ashoor Rasho, B38970 is now located at Dixon CC. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 1316 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 5/1/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 1317 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 1318 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/18/2017 1319 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 1320 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 1321 NOTICE of Violation of Settlement Agreement filed by Mario English. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 1322 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1316 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion detailing complaints about his (and others) treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Class Counsel is directed to forward this information on to the Court Monitor. To the extent Movant is complaining about his individual conditions or treatment, Movant should pursue such complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In that regard, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1317 Motion and denying 1318 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed two Motion stating he has been retaliated against for informing the Court of misconduct of "orange crush" staff members. Movant specifically complains that staff members have prevented the filing of a § 1983 complaint. As such, Movant requests the Court transfer him to another facility and direct that he be allowed to file his complaint. The Court has significant concerns regarding Movant's allegations that he has been unable to file his complaint. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's filings to the Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center. Furthermore, within 21 days of this Order, Counsel for the Defendant is DIRECTED investigate Movant's allegations regarding the inability to file his complaint in retaliation for participating in this proceeding and report back to the Court. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 1323 MOTION for Counsel and Monitor to Provide Information Discovery filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 122 of 306

04/19/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1323 Motion to Request Counsel and other relief. Movant Ralph Kings filed a Motion requesting that this Court direct Class Counsel and the Court Monitor to provide certain information that may be pertinent to his civil action pending in this District (Kings v. McCormick, et al., ILCD Case No. 17−cv−1128). Movant specifically seeks "Reports and Findings" that were made by the attorney and monitor. The Court declines to require the attorney and monitor to provide the documents as part of this proceeding. Parenthetically, the Court notes that the attorney's work product is generally not subject to disclosure and the Court sees no reason it would be different in this case. Additionally, the Court Monitor's work is not compete in this matter. However, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file a copy of the Movant's filing and this Order in docket 17−1128, so the presiding Judge in that case can be aware of this potential discovery issue. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/19/2017 1324 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/20/2017

NOTICE of change of address filed by Michael Jackson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2017)

04/20/2017 1325 MOTION in Violation of Agreement Order filed by Ozzie Scott. Responses due by 5/4/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2017)

04/20/2017 1326 MOTION filed by Robert Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2017)

04/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1324 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion in response to this Court's TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 4/17/2017 addressing his previously filed Motions. Movant complains that the issues he has raised include aspects of this class action. Undoubtedly, the some issues raised by Movant are common to the class. Hence, the reason this Court has directed Class Counsel to forward several filings made by Movant to the Court Monitor. However, this case is for class counsel to litigate. Movant's various Motions are considered in context with the overall relief sought by the class. Ultimately, violations and complaints regarding the State's adherence to the settlement agreement will be brought, if at all, by Class Counsel. Movant is free to communicate his concerns with Class Counsel. Moreover, Movant may seek to bring his own complaints in a separate action (grievance or another lawsuit). However, in this case the class is represented by counsel, and requests for action should be directed to them. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2017)

04/21/2017 1327 Letter from Emonte Kohl (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/21/2017 1328 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/21/2017 1329 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/24/2017 1330 NOTICE of Change of Address by Ashoor Rasho. Plaintiff, Ashoor Rasho is now located at Dixon CC. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017 1331 Response by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,, . (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1325 Motion. Movant Ozzie Scott has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that he has not been allowed to talk with a behavior therapist. Movant should pursue such complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. Furthermore, because the Movant indicates possible self−harm, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movants filing and this Court's Order to the Warden. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1326 Motion. Movant Robert William has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains he has been removed from group participation in retaliation for filing a lawsuit. Movant should pursue such complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of this letter to the Court

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 123 of 306

Monitor for his review. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1328 Motion and 1329 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed two recent Motions (ECF Nos. 1328 and 1329) seeking, among other things, that this Court notify the Urbana Division that his case was filed in the wrong division. Movant specifically notes that he filed a § 1983 case, Lisle v. Baldwin, et al., ILCD Case No. 17−1158. Suffice it to say, the case involves complaints about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to take any action in his new civil case in this docket. Movant has already made the Court in his newly filed case aware of this lawsuit and his complaints contained herein. See Lisle v. Baldwin, et al., ILCD Case No. 17−1158, (ECF No. 9). Notably, however, the Complaint was not "intentionally" filed in the wrong division by Pontiac officials. The case was filed in the Peoria Division but subsequently assigned to the Judge sitting in the Urbana Division. This case (Rasho v. Walker) deals with various class allegations of treatment in the IDOC system. Movant's individual allegations of misconduct on the part of the Pontiac Correctional Center are appropriately heard outside this case (Rasho v. Walker). Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the handling of Lisle v. Baldwin, et al., ILCD Case No. 17−1158. Movant can pursue his complaints raised in the present Motions in his newly filed litigation. Here, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/25/2017 1332 Letter from Minor Hayes (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/25/2017 1333 MOTION filed Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/26/2017 1334 Letter from Nickolas Garcia (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/26/2017 1335 Letter from Richard Boynton (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/26/2017 1336 Letter from Robert Cooley (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/26/2017 1337 Letter from Richard Felton (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1333 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed a Motion requesting substantively the same relief he requested on April 21, 2017. The Court declines to grant the relief requested for the reasons previous given in this Courts TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 4/25/2017. Motion DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/28/2017 1338 NOTICE to Court filed by Cordell Sanders. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/28/2017)

04/28/2017 1339 MOTION for copies filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/28/2017)

04/28/2017 1340 AFFIDAVIT/Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/28/2017)

05/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1339 Motion to the extent the Court provides the following status of Movant's filing. Movant Don Collins has made a filing indicating some issue with receipt of documents. It is not entirely clear what relief Movant is seeking other than confirmation the Court received certain exhibits attached to his filing. The Court has received six (6) pages of exhibits to Movant's filing 1314 , three (3) pages of exhibits to Movant's filing 1313 and two (2) pages of exhibits attached to Movant's filing 1263 . The Movant should retain copies of all documents filed with the Court. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/2/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

05/02/2017 1341 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

05/03/2017 1342 Letter from Michael Gardner. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

05/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1341 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about various treatment issues at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically requests that the Court require Pontiac to hire an on−site daily in−house mental health monitor. The Court declines to order the relief requested. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward Movant's letter to the Court Appointed Monitor. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/3/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 124 of 306

05/04/2017 1343 Letter from Joshua Matthews (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2017)

05/04/2017 1344 Letter from Kevin Williams (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2017)

05/04/2017 1345 Letter from Roy Nutall (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2017)

05/04/2017 1346 NOTICE of change of address filed by Matthew Herera. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2017)

05/05/2017 1347 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/05/2017 1348 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 5/19/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/05/2017 1349 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 5/19/2017 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/08/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1348 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion detailing allegations of mistreatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Motion does not clearly identify any particular relief. The Court has previously admonished Movant that he should pursue allegations of specific misconduct through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court Monitor has, and will, review the various complaints from the inmates. However, ultimately, violations and complaints regarding the State's adherence to the settlement agreement will be brought, if at all, by Class Counsel. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/8/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1349 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment (and alleged retaliation) at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically alleges staff members are assaulting inmates in retaliation for their participation in this lawsuit. The Court is extremely troubled by these allegations, and counsel for defendant has been directed to examine issues of alleged retaliation. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 4/18/2017. Movant must pursue his allegations though the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED in the context of this litigation. However, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of Movants filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/8/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/09/2017 1350 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 5/23/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2017)

05/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1350 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a motion complaining that this Court, counsel, the monitor, and others have failed to take action to remedy certain issues related to seriously mentally ill inmates. Movant specially claims there have been delays in getting hygiene products to SMI (and apparently other) inmates. Additionally, Movant complains that religious meals are not served in segregation. Finally, Movant complains about the counseling service. The Court has concerns about these types of issues. However, at this stage, the Court continues to believe the best way to handle these is by having the Monitor continue to serve his role in reviewing these issues (and inmate complaints). Of course, Movant is free to pursue his own complaint through the grievance process if he deems appropriate. Nonetheless, class counsel is DIRECTED to forward a copy of the Movant's filing to the Court Monitor. However, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/11/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017 1351 MOTION for Status filed by Ramon Villaneva.. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017 1352 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Robert Weeks. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1351 Motion for Information. Movant Ramon Villaneva has filed a Motion requesting information related to class counsel's Motion for Attorneys' fees and costs. The Court GRANTS the motion insofar as it provides the following information. The Court approved class counsel's Motion. Notably, the fees will be paid to the class counsel. Additionally, the Court previously approved the settlement agreement requiring Defendant to take certain action related to the medical treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates. However, that settlement does not provide

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 125 of 306

for any monetary relief to the inmates. Movant should contact class counsel if he desires additional information on the resolution of these matters. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/12/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1352 Motion for Sanctions. Movant Robert Weeks has filed a motion seeking "sanctions" against Pontiac Correctional Center's warden and other staff members, asserting he has received inadequate mental health treatment. Movant specially alleges he has been refused mental health treatment and access to group therapy. Movant should pursue any of his individual complaints regarding his treatment through IDOC's grievance process or another forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward a copy of Movant's filing to the Court Monitor for further review. The Motion in the context of this case is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/12/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 1353 MOTION for Status filed by Tyrone Brayboy.. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 1354 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by Andrew Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/16/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1353 Motion for Status by Movant Tyrone Braboy insofar as the Court provides the following status. On May 13, 2016, after a hearing was held, the Court approved the settlement agreement between the parties requiring various action related to serious mentally ill inmates to be taken by the Defendants. (See Minute Entry dated 5/13/ 2016). On February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 million payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Court's Order was entered after notice to the class and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update regarding the status of the case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/16/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/16/2017 1355 MOTION filed by Alan Duncan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/17/2017 1356 MOTION for Clarification filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2017)

05/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1355 Motion. Movant Alan Duncan has filed a Motion requesting the Court have him removed from segregation at Menard Correctional Center. Movant generally asserts that he has been in long term segregation and should be afforded relief under the settlement agreement. The settlement in this case placed certain obligations on the Defendants as it relates to serious mentally ill inmates, however, specific claims regarding individual treatment generally fall outside the parameters of this case. Movant should pursue such complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In the context of this case, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2017)

05/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1356 Motion. Movant Don Collins has yet another Motion asserting that this case is "open" and "grievances are not needed to address complaints from the class." As such, Movant implies this Court has improperly directed him to file grievances to address his individual complaints. Movant incorrectly assumes he is in the position to dictate the parameters of this case. While this case addresses the treatment of serious mentally ill inmates in IDOC, this is a class action wherein the inmates are represented by counsel (see e.g. ECF No. 95, Amended Complaint and ECF No. 696). Individuals seeking monetary relief generally fall outside the scope. However, compliance with the settlement agreement is obviously of concern to this Court, and that is why such complaints are forwarded to the Court Monitor and class counsel for review. Class counsel will determine if additional action is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2017)

05/18/2017 1357 MOTION filed by Burl Mason Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2017)

05/18/2017 1358 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 126 of 306

05/19/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1358 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion detailing events involving an inmate in Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is critical of the Mental Health Staff's handing on this situations and other matters involving inmates with mental health problems. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1357 Motion. Movant Burl Mason Jr. has filed a Motion vaguely alleging he has been put in segregation in retaliation for some undisclosed reason. Movant notes this is an "urgent" matter and he needs the Court Monitor "ASAP." The Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. Furthermore, because the letter indicates possible self−harm, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of this Order and Movant's filing to the Warden of Statesville Correctional Center. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 1359 MOTION of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Laton Stubblefield. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/22/2017 1360 NOTICE of change of address filed by George Fly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017 1361 MOTION for Adequate Religious Meals by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/5/2017 (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017 1362 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Steven Lisle. Responses due by 6/5/2017 (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/24/2017 1363 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/24/2017 1364 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/24/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1361 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that mental health inmates are being denied "religious adequate meals." Movant additionally alleges that counselors are refusing to review grievances related to health issues. Movant does not request any specific relief. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movant's filing to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. No further relief is granted. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/24/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/24/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1359 Motion. Movant Laton Stubblefield has filed a Motion alleging he is not receiving the proper mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Movant make several allegations regarding his treatment, including the lack of effective group therapy. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. However, with regard to the relief requested by Movant, he should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED in that regard. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/24/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 5/24/2017 to correct document number to 1359.(JS, ilcd). (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/24/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1362 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. filed a Motion alleging that officers at Pontiac Correctional Center threw away his legal property, failed to provide him mental counseling and programs, refused his medication, housed him in a cell without fan or electricity, and threatened him for providing this Court information. The Court is obviously concerned with these allegations. As such, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. However, with regard to the relief requested by Movant, he should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED in that regard. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/24/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/25/2017 1365 MOTION for Review filed by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/8/2017 (FDT, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 127 of 306

05/25/2017

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference to discuss the Annual Report set for 6/5/2017 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (KR, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2017)

05/26/2017 1366 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/9/2017 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

05/30/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1365 Motion as described herein. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion complaining that mental health inmates have limited or restricted religion meal selections. Movant notes that he has made a concurrent complaint to the dietary manager and warden. Movant further complains that no action has been taken on the part of class counsel or this Court to address the issue. Ultimately, Movant requests that the Court consider the urgency and be certain [the] Rasho court monitor is informed of the constant discrimination and punishment to the class. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. No further relief is granted at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/30/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/30/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1364 Motion. Movant Ned James filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about a number of issues, including a claim that he is being retaliated against for filing numerous complaints against the south mental staff. Movant requests that this Court expunge his disciplinary record and order him released from segregation. The Court is unable to grant the relief requested. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/30/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/30/2017 1367 NOTICE to Court filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/30/2017 1368 NOTICE to Court filed by Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

05/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1366 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion complaining of the inadequate care for mental health inmates. Movant provides some specific information regarding the treatment of a few individuals. Movant also uses his Motion to criticize class counsel's handling of this matter. The Movant does not requested any specific relief in his current Motion. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. No further relief is granted at this time.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

05/31/2017 1369 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

05/31/2017 1370 MOTION for New Court Monitor filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

06/01/2017 1371 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1370 Motion. Movant George A. Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining that the Court Monitor has not spoken to serious mental ill inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant attaches several exhibits to his Motion that detail some of his struggles while incarcerated. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. No further relief is granted at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1369 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center has stolen a complaint and other legal documents and destroyed them. Movant additionally complains the staff members tore up some family photos. Finally, Movant asserts the staff member has threatened to kill him. Movant indicates that these actions have been taken in retaliation. Movant requests that he be transferred to Peoria County Jail and have his legal documents returned. The Court declines to take the action requested by the Movant. Movant should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Additionally, because of the allegations contained in the Motion, the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 128 of 306

Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of the Motion and this Order to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center for his review and consideration. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1371 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion providing additional information about his complaint about dietary restrictions and issues related to inmates with mental illness. Movant indicates this issue is ripe for litigation. The inmates in this case are represented by class counsel. Movant should confer with class counsel to determine in the relief he seeks is appropriate in this case. The Court declines to appoint additional counsel in this case. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/2/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/05/2017 1372 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/05/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, and Laura Miller for Plaintiffs, Attorneys Terence Corrigan and Camille Lindsey for Defendants, Attorney Andrew Ramage, Cheri Laurent, Dr. Bill Elliott for Wexford, and Monitor Dr. Pablo Stewart for Status Conference held on 6/5/2017. Discussion held regarding First Annual Monitor's Report. Court orders report be filed under seal for 120 days. Parties to file brief regarding their position on the report remaining sealed or becoming unsealed before the 120 day time period has closed. Discussion held regarding reimbursement of travel funds to Monitor and Monitor's request for increase in hourly rate. Discussion also held regarding inmate letters. Parties to submit Status Report on or before 7/31/2017. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/05/2017 1373 First Annual Report. Modified on 9/1/2017 to unseal and rename this document pursuant to the 9/1/17 Text Order. (FDS, ilcd). (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/06/2017 1374 MOTION to Return Case to Active Litigation filed by Zachary Borne. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017 1375 MOTION in Violation of Settlement Order filed by Jaki Bell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017 1376 Letter from Christopher Parker (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1372 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion providing additional information about his complaint about dietary restrictions and issues related to inmates with mental illness. Movant indicates all of his exhibits are not being forwarded to the Court by the correctional facility. Movant also incorrectly notes that class counsel no longer represents class members in this case. As previously noted by this Court, Movant should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Movant may also want to consider reaching out to class counsel to determine if any universal issue(s) should be brought to the attention of the Court. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1375 Motion. Movant Ja'Ki Bell has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Menard Correctional Center. Movant asserts that the Menard staff, nurses and mental health professionals are in violation of the settlement agreement. Movant specifically complains about cell conditions and the fact that he is in segregation for 16 years. Movant does not request any specific relief. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 6/7/2017 (JS, ilcd). (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1374 Motion. Movant Zachary Borne has filed a Motion to Return this Case to Active Litigation. Movant is currently housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant argues generally that Menard prison officials are willfully not following the settlement agreement. The inmates in this case are

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 129 of 306

represented by class counsel. Movant should confer with class counsel on his concerns. Movant is also advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/07/2017 1377 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT. Letter from Patrick McCellan (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/08/2017 1378 MOTION to Compel filed by Devin Seats. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/09/2017 1379 DECLARATION filed by Kennado K. Taylor (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017 1380 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 6/23/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017 1381 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 6/23/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017 1382 Letter filed by Keith Walker (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1381 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion entitled "IDOC Breach Court Agreement Year Overview 2016−2017." While Movant does not request any specific relief, he does provide various areas where he asserts the IDOC has failed to adhere to the settlement agreement. The Court directs class counsel to forward the Movant's filing to the Court Monitor for further review and consideration. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1380 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion providing additional information about his complaint about dietary restrictions and issues related to inmates with mental illness. The Court has previously addressed Movant's complaint in the context of this litigation. Absent some compelling reason to do so, the Court will not address this matter any further in this docket. Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1378 Motion to Compel. Movant Devin Seats has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has not been receiving adequate medical care. Movant does not request any specific relief. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 1383 DECLARATION filed by Kennado K. Taylor (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 1384 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 6/26/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 1385 NOTICE filed by Don Collins (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 1386 MOTION for Status (filed in letter form) by Bruce Galimore. Responses due by 6/26/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 1387 MOTION to Compel Class Counsel and Pontiac Warden to Comply with Docket Text 1369 Enter on 6/1/2017 filed by Steven D. Lisle, Jr. Responses due by 6/26/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 1388 Letter from James V. Meller (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/13/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1384 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion providing additional information about his complaint about dietary restrictions and issues related to inmates with mental illness. Per this Court's previous Order, the Motion is DENIED. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/12/2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/13/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 130 of 306

06/13/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1386 Motion for Status insofar as the Court provides the following status. On May 13, 2016, this Court approved the Settlement Agreement between the Parties. On February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Court's Order was entered after notice to the class, and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update regarding the status of the case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/13/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/13/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1387 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven Lisle has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment (and alleged retaliation) at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court previously addressed Movant's complaints and informed him that he needed to pursue his complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/1/2017; see also TEXT ONLY ORDERS dated 5/24/2017, 5/8/2017, 4/26/2017, 4/18/2017, 4/4/2017, 3/3/2017, and 1/23/2017. While the Court directed class counsel to forwarded Movant's filing to the Court Monitor (and additionally a copy sent to the Warden) for his review, Movant must pursue his own complaint through the previously mentioned processes. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/13/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/13/2017 1389 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/13/2017 1390 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

06/14/2017 1391 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017 1392 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017 1393 Letter from Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1391 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment (and alleged retaliation) at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his recent Motion, Movant complains that he was not taken to group therapy nor has he been given his medication. The Court has previously addressed many of Movant's complaints and informed him that he needed to pursue his complaints, such as these, through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/1/2017; see also TEXT ONLY ORDERS dated 5/24/2017, 5/8/2017, 4/26/2017, 4/18/2017, 4/4/2017, 3/3/2017, and 1/23/2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1390 Motion. Movant Don Collins has provided this Court with information regarding an inmate attack in segregation and Movant's opinions on the matter. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to forward this information to the Court Monitor. No additional relief is granted. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1389 Motion and denying 1392 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two additional Motions providing more information about his complaint related to dietary restrictions and issues related to inmates with mental illness. Per this Court's previous Order, the Motions are DENIED. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/12/2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/16/2017 1394 Letter from Keith Walker (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/16/2017)

06/19/2017 1395 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1396 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1397 NOTICE filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1398 MOTION filed by Zachary Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1399 MOTION filed by Zachary Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 131 of 306

06/19/2017 1400 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Jamale Douglas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/19/2017 1401 NOTICE to Court filed by Jacob Holmes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2017)

06/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1395 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another motion providing more information about his complaint related to dietary restrictions and issues related to inmates with mental illness. Per this Court's previous Order, the Motion is DENIED. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/12/2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1396 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another motion complaining about the treatment of mentally ill inmates. Movant specifically complains about, among other things, the delay in mental health staff responding to his complaints. Movant does not request any specific relief. Nonetheless, the Court directs class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is again advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1398 Motion and 1399 Motion. Movant Zachary Williams has filed two Motion complaining about the conditions at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains about counseling sessions, meals, inability to communicate with family and the excessive heat. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017 1402 MOTION of Violation of Settlement Agreement filed by Aaron Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/21/2017 1403 NOTICE of Address filed by Timothy Swarringim. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1400 Motion. Movant Jamale. Douglas has filed two Motion providing details of the conditions of the "Crisis Watch" setting in South Cell House 1 Gallery at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court will not "compel" the Defendants into action (at least at this time), however, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/21/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1402 Motion. Movant Aaron Smith asserting there has been a "violation of the Rasho settlement agreement." Movant generally complains about the treatment of mentally ill inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court directs Class Counsel to forward this filing to the Court Monitor. Movant is also advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/21/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017 1404 NOTICE/Declaration filed by Kennado Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017 1405 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017 1406 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017 1407 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/21/2017 1408 NOTICE filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

06/22/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1405 Motion; denying 1406 Motion; granting in part and denying in part 1407 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three Motions. In his first Motion, Movant requests the Court forward his Motion complaining about the lack of updated mental health treatment − along with exhibits containing his treatment

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 132 of 306

information to the Court Monitor. [D/E 1407]. The Court directs Class Counsel to forward the Motion to the Court Monitor, however, Movant is advised that the Court Monitor is not tasked with directly providing mental treatment to individual inmate. Movant should continue seek medical treatment through the correctional center. In his second Motion, Movant complains that he has been denied certain basic needs, such as toilet paper. [D/E 1406] Movant requests that the Court forward this information to certain IDOC individuals. The Court declines to do so. Movant should pursue complaints such as these through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Notably, when the Court directs information to be sent to IDOC staff members (e.g. Warden), the Court is doing so for informational purposes. Thereafter, the IDOC staff members is free to handle the situation as they deem appropriate. Finally, Movant again complains about the dietary issues at Pontiac Correctional Center. [D/E 1405]. Per this Court's previous Order, the Motion is DENIED. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/12/2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/22/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 1409 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 1410 NOTICE/Declaration filed by Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 1411 MOTION for Status filed by Darrell Singleton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/22/2017 1412 MOTION for Status filed by Steve Harper. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

06/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1412 Motion for Status to the extent as follows. Movant Steve Harper has filed a Motion requesting a status of this case. Movant specifically references the agreement reached on attorneys fees in February 2017. The Court notes the following status. On February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Court's Order was entered after notice to the class, and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Movant may contact class counsel to obtain additional information regarding the status of the payment of attorney fees. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with the contact information for Class Counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1411 Motion for Status. Movant Darrell Singleton has filed a Motion requesting a status of this lawsuit. On May 13, 2016, this Court approved the Settlement Agreement between the Parties. On February 10, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.8 million with $1.9 payable at this time. (ECF No. 1211). The Court's Order was entered after notice to the class, and a hearing held on February 3, 2017. This payment is to be paid to the attorneys representing the class. There are no payments to any individual class plaintiffs. Movant should contact class counsel for any further update regarding the status of the case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/23/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1409 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion complaining about the Warden at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains the warden has not received (or reviewed) information regarding his grievances. The Court finds Movant should direct his complaints and inquiries to the IDOC. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/23/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/23/2017 1413 NOTICE of Address Change filed by George Fly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/23/2017 1414 NOTICE to Court filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/23/2017 1415 NOTICE to Court filed by Eduardo Navejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/26/2017 1416 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/26/2017 1417 MOTION for Violation of Agreed Order... filed by Robert Boyd. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/26/2017 1418 Letter from Lorren Roberts. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 133 of 306

06/26/2017 1419 Letter from Korey Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/27/2017 1420 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/28/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1417 Motion. Movant Robert Boyds has filed a Motion asserting the Defendants have failed to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. Movant is housed at Pontiac Correctional Center and specifically complains that certain inmates have been removed from segregation while others serving similar offensives have not. Movant concludes that he is prepared to file a lawsuit against the warden, class counsel and the court monitor. The Court declines to take an action based on the allegations contained in the Motion at this time. Movant is advised that he should pursue any individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/28/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017 1421 Letter from Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1420 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion complaining about dietary restrictions/issues and other issues he has been subject to at Pontiac Correctional Center (including temperature, lack of windows, etc.). Class counsel is directed to forward a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor. No further action will be taken with respect to this Motion by the Court. Movant is again advised that he should pursue any individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/28/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017 1422 Letter from Joe Price. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017 1423 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/29/2017 1424 NOTICE of Address Change filed by Jesse Swarringin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017 1425 MOTION filed by Christopher Knox. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/30/2017 1426 MOTION by Plaintiff Keith Walker. Responses due by 7/14/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017 1427 MOTION filed by Laton Stubblefield. Responses due by 7/14/2017 (SL, ilcd) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/03/2017 1428 MOTION for Status filed by Hershel Morgan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/03/2017 1429 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/03/2017)

07/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1429 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center has stolen a complaint and other legal documents and destroyed them. Movant additionally complains that this Court has refused to provide him copies of all of his filings in this docket preventing him from filing a subsequent lawsuit. Movant has made numerous filings in this docket, and in his recent filing fails to identify the specific filing that he needs, nor does he identify the specific need for any such document. The Court declines to scour the docket for every one of the Movant's filings. Movant can contact the Clerk of the Court directly for copies of the documents he so desires. However, the Movant will have to pay the copying charge. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1427 Motion. Movant Laton Stubblefield has filed a Motion complaining about his medical treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. However, the Court declines to take any further action at this time. Movant apparently has filed a separate lawsuit on this matter. See ILCD Case No. 17−1302. As such, in the context of this litigation, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1426 Motion. Movant Keith Walker has filed a Motion complaining about the lack of hygiene products he receives while incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates he is poor and without adequate funds to afford hygiene products. Movant must continue to pursue his complaint

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 134 of 306

though the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. However, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the court monitor to further consider the concerns raised in the Motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1425 Motion. Movant Christopher Knox has filed a Motion complaining about his transfer to segregation at Pontiac Correctional Center arguing the move was made in retaliation for participating in litigation. While the Court is troubled by these allegations, Movant must pursue his allegations though the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In the context of this litigation, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1423 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion indicating his has not received a response from the Court on a previously filed Motion. The Court entered a TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/7/2017 addressing Movant's Motion. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Movant another copy of the Courts TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 6/7/2017. In his recent Motion Movant also complains about "censoring" his filings. Movant should raise these concerns directly with the institution. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER striking 1428 Motion. Motion accidentally filed in wrong case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/5/2017. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/05/2017 1430 NOTICE of change of address filed by Alonzo Turner. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

07/06/2017 1431 Letter from D. Buffkin, R63592 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/06/2017 1432 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Allen Brown, Jr. #R53255. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/06/2017 1433 OBJECTION by: Class Member DeShawn Cocroft B64070. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/06/2017 1434 MOTION filed by Ned James #K91930. Responses due by 7/20/2017 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1434 Motion. Movant Ned James has provided a copy of a grievance indicating he wanted it filed in this Court. Indications in the grievances suggest he seeks to have the grievance filed in this case. The grievance complains of his mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court directs class counsel to provide a copy of this grievance to the court monitor. The Court ADMONISHES Movant that if he sought different treatment of his filing e.g. if he was initiating a new lawsuit− he must refile the document with the Clerk of the Court and clearly indicate he is seeking to file a new lawsuit. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/11/2017 1435 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Deveer Buffkin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/12/2017 1436 MOTION for copy filed by Tony Dorsey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/12/2017 1437 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Sean Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/13/2017 1438 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/14/2017 1439 AFFIDAVIT of Terrence Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/14/2017 1440 MOTION to Enforce filed by Terrence Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1440 Motion to Enforce Settlement. Movant Terrence Godfrey has filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement and an accompanying affidavit (ECF No. 1439). Movant is currently housed in Pontiac Correctional Center and complains, among other things, the Defendants have failed to provide mental health

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 135 of 306

treatment and group programs. Movant requests that the Court reopen the case, he be given permission to speak with the Court Monitor, and that the Monitor tour the correctional center. The Court declines to require the Court Monitor to take the action requested. However, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide the Court Monitor with a copy of the Motion and Affidavit. After review, the Court Monitor may take any action he deems appropriate. Additionally, the Movant is admonished that he should pursue any complaint about his treatment through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/17/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1438 Motion for copy of docket sheet. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion requesting a copy of the docket sheet. Movant complains that the Clerk of the Court failed to alert the Court that he previously requested a copy of the docket. Movant's current and previous filings are not coupled with any reason for the request. Moreover, the Movant is part of a class and he is free to request information directly from class counsel. In any event, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/17/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1437 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Movant Sean Williams has filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment. Movant is currently housed in Pontiac Correctional Center and complains about the mental health treatment he is receiving. The Court directs Class Counsel to forward this filing to the Court Monitor. Movant is also advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/17/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1436 Motion for copy of memorandum order. Movant Toney Dorsey has filed a Motion requesting a "copy of its memorandum order." The Court assumes Movant is requesting a copy of the settlement agreement. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Class Counsel is directed to provide Movant with a copy of the settlement agreement. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/17/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1435 Motion. Movant Deveer Buffkin has filed a Motion complaining that there are unnecessary risks present at Pontiac Correctional Center, including the ability for mentally ill inmates to possess sharpened metal objects. Obviously, Movant raises some serious concerns. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movant's filing and this TEXT ONLY ORDER to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. Furthermore, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Finally, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Other than the relief provided herein, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/17/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 1441 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Sean Hanks. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 1442 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 1443 MOTION for Status and Notice of change of address filed by Karl Roberts. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 1444 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/19/2017 1445 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

07/19/2017 1446 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

07/20/2017 1447 MOTION to Speak to Court Monitor filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/24/2017 1448 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 136 of 306

07/24/2017 1449 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/24/2017 1450 Letter from Lee Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/24/2017 1451 NOTICE of Settlement Violations filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/25/2017 1452 MOTION to Supplement Evidence of Harassment filed by Alan Duncan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1441 Motion. Movant Sean Hanks has filed a "Motion Violation of Agreed Order" alleging the Defendants have failed to comply with the May 2016 Court Order. In support of the Motion, Movant outlines several events occurring at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also identifies areas where he believes he has been mistreated. The Movant does not request any specific relief other than a "level of care as [ ] defendants promised." The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for further review. Finally, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1442 Motion. Movant Don Collins have filed another Motion alleging the staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are using dietary restrictions as a form of punishment. The Court has previously directed that Movant's complaint be forwarded to the Warden and Court Monitor. The Court has further admonished Movant that he should bring his complaint through the IDOC grievance process. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1443 Motion insofar as the Court provides the following information. Movant Karl Roberts has requested information regarding the status of this case. This case was resolved via approved settlement agreement on May 13, 2016. The Movant should contact class counsel for any additional information regarding the settlement. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a contact list of class counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1445 Motion and denying 1446 Motion. Movant Don Collins has requested reconsideration on this Court's denial of a copy of the docket sheet and further complains that Class Counsel has not responded to his inquires. Class Counsel is DIRECTED to review the Motions and address them as they deem appropriate. However, as to the Court's involvement, at this time, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1447 Motion. Movant George Fernandez requests permission to speak with the Court Monitor in order to inform him of "numerous" settlement violations. The Court declines to require the Monitor to meet with the Movant, however, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's letter to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, if Movant has any complaint regarding his individual treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other action as he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017.(MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1448 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about the temperature in the mental health unit in Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his consideration and assessment of mental health issues in IDOC. Finally, the Movant is advised that he should direct any complaints of this nature to the IDOC's prison staff. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1449 Motion. Movant Tony Benson has filed a Motion complaining the Defendants are failing to provide mental health treatment and related programs. Movant also indicates that he believes the Defendants are retaliating

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 137 of 306

and harassing him. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's letter to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, if Movant has any complaint regarding his individual treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other action as he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1450 Letter. Inmate Lee Johnson has sent a letter to the Clerk of Court complaining about his treatment in Danville Correctional Center. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's letter to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, if Movant has any complaint regarding his individual treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other action as he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1452 Motion to Supplement. Movant Alan Duncan complains that he is being harassed by staff members at Menard Correctional Center. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's letter to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, if Movant has any complaint regarding his individual treatment, he should pursue a grievance through the IDOC grievance process or other action as he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

07/27/2017 1453 Exhibits filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2017)

07/28/2017 1454 NOTICE filed by Michael Hendricks. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017 1455 MOTION for Court Monitor's Report filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017 1456 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1455 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion requesting a copy of the Court Monitor's Report. The Court held a hearing related to the Court Monitor's Report on June 5, 2017. A copy of the Report has been entered into the docket under seal. (ECF No. 1373). The Parties requested the Report be filed under seal, and the Court directed it to be filed under seal, with Parties to provide their positions on the Report remaining under seal within 120 days. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the Minute Entry dated 6/5/2017. The Motion for a copy of the report is DENIED at this time. However, Movant may re−file his request after the 120 days has expired. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/28/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1456 Motion for Status insofar as the Court provides the following. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion indicating he has not received a response to a Motion he filed on July 7, 2017. The docket sheet in this case reveal no pending Motion filed by the Movant are pending (other than those filed on 7/27/2017). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the docket sheet with dates from July 1, 2017, through the present date. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/28/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/31/2017 1457 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 8/14/2017 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

07/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1457 Motion for Extension of Time to File. On July 31, 2017, Defendants filed their 1457 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report, requesting up to and including August 3, 2017, to file. The Court notes that the motion appears to request two different dates (August 2, 2017, and August 3, 2017). The Court GRANTS the motion and, out of an abundance of caution, uses the later date. Accordingly, the Parties have up to and including August 3, 2017, to file the status report. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/31/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 138 of 306

07/31/2017 1458 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

07/31/2017 1459 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

07/31/2017

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 8/3/2017. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

07/31/2017 1460 MOTION TO Enforce Proceedings filed by Keon Lipscomb. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

08/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1460 Motion. Movant Keon Lipscomb has filed a Motion seeking to enforce the settlement agreement executed in this case. In his Motion, Movant complains about his treatment in Menard Correctional Center. Movant also indicates he could be subject to self−injurious behavior. As for relief, the Movant requests, among other things, that he be allowed to talk with the Court Monitor. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested. However, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden, and further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy to the Court Monitor. The Court has further admonishes Movant that he should bring his complaint through the IDOC grievance process. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017 1461 MOTION in Violation of Settlement filed by Jaki Bell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1458 Motion and 1459 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two additional Motions (ECF Nos. 1458 and 1459) complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains about this such as being "denied meals," "denied ice," "denied mail pick−up," "denied grievances," and "denied toilet paper." (ECF No. 1459). Movant also complains about the lack of communications and response from class counsel. Finally, Movant complains about this Court's "unwilling[ess] to provide relief," and even the Court's use of "Movant" to describe him despite the fact that he has filed a Motion. First, Movant shall address this Court respectfully in any future filings in this docket, or such filing shall be summarily stricken. (See ECF No. 1458, Movant states "[s]hould the Court wish put (sic) this usage obsession term to use, the Court could move to Spain."). Notably, the Court uses the term Movant simply to describe the individual seeking relief through a Motion. Second, Movant, or one of the Named Plaintiffs, continues to raises concerns that certainly raise issues and concerns regarding this case. Hence, this Court has been cautious to make sure the Court Monitor is aware of the issues raised by the filings. These issues are considered in context of the overall class. Movants MUST pursue individualized relief or complaints through the normal grievance process. Movant appears to be an active participant in providing information to Class Counsel, and the Court will continue to direct Class Counsel to consider the Movant's filing when it deems appropriate. However, to the extent Movant seeks any relief in this action at this time, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017 1462 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017 1463 MOTION filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017 1464 NOTICE filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/02/2017 1465 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Ashoor Rasho. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

08/03/2017 1466 Declaration of Kennado Taylor.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017 1467 MOTION filed by Eduarado Nevejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017 1468 NOTICE filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1461 Motion. Movant Ja'ki Bell has filed a Motion directing certain information to Class Counsel. Movant states that he has been in Pontiac Correctional Center since June 21, 2017, and the staff has been retaliating against him since his arrival. Movant indicates that he has lost his TV and has caught several disciplinary tickets. Movant does not request any specific relief from the Court. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 139 of 306

that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/03/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1462 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion asserting that the mental health services at Pontiac Correctional Center have decreased since the Rasho settlement has been reached. In his Motion, Movant details several areas wherein he believes the care for mentally ill inmates has suffered. This information may be helpful for the Court Monitor in his overall assessment of care for serious mentally ill inmates. As such, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for further review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/03/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1463 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant references several paragraphs of the settlement agreement contending that staff members at the institution have violated the terms contained therein. Movant requests, among other things, that the Court force the defendants to eliminate his disciplinary tickets, provide him mental health treatment, and to stop allowing offenders who are SMI out of segregation without treatment. The Court declines to issue the relief requested. The Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for further review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/03/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/03/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1467 Motion. Movant Edward Navejar has filed a Motion against Mental Health Personnel at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movants Motion is 26 pages, and generally argues that staff members at the institution are not complying with the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant any relief at this time. The Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court, however, DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for further review. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/03/2017. (MS1, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/04/2017 1469 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/04/2017)

08/07/2017 1470 Letter from Preston Whiting. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017 1471 MOTION filed by Marcus Hall. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017 1472 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017 1473 MOTION filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017 1474 DECLARATION/NOTICE by Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017 1475 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017 1476 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/08/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1465 Status Report filed by Ashoor Rasho. Parties DIRECTED to provide briefs on their position related to the release of the Court Monitor's Report within 21 days of this Order. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/8/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/08/2017)

08/08/2017 1477 NOTICE to Court filed by Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/08/2017)

08/09/2017 1478 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1469 Motion. Movant Don Collins has file a Motion raising a complaint regarding the lack of contact he has had with Class Counsel. Movant does not indicate what relief he is seeking, however, it is clear from his complaint that he seeks to communicate with Class Counsel on the various issues he

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 140 of 306

has raised with the Court. The Court declines to grant the Motion; however, Class Counsel is DIRECTED to review the Motion to determine whether or not communication with the Movant would be helpful. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1471 Motion. Movant Marcus Hall has filed a Motion claiming class counsel has not appropriately investigated his disciplinary tickets and mental health treatment. Movant indicates he was in a state of mental instability during the times he received the offense/disciplinary ticket, and therefore wrongly placed in segregation and had good time credits taken away. Plaintiff apparently seeks this Court to direct Class Counsel/Court Monitor to meet with him. The Court declines to grant such relief. The Court, however, DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. The Court also admonishes Movant that, to the extent he is seeking any individualized relief, he should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1472 Motion insofar as the following. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion generally questioning why others have been receiving Court filings and he is not entitled to a copy of the docket sheet. This Court has previously decline to provide a docket sheet to the Movant when he failed to indicate the purpose of the request. See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 7/17/2017. In his current Motion, Movant indicates the reason for his request is fully inform himself of the activities in this docket. The Court view such as request as reasonable. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide Movant with a copy of the docket sheet for the last 12 months without cost. Parenthetically, Movant may request a copy of the docket sheet from the Clerk of the Court at any time, but must pay for the copy fee. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1473 Motion. Movant William Buck has filed a Motion seeking to "supplement [the] record" providing information regarding his experiences while being incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently an inmate at PCC. Movant complains that he is not getting treatment, other than "pysch meds." Movant also complains that staff members are sometimes hostile to him insofar as denying him medication. Movant fears that he "will never leave IDOC alive." Movant does not request any specific relief from the Court. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. The Court also admonishes Movant that, to the extent he is seeking any individualized relief, he should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/10/2017 1479 NOTICE (There Is No Good Cause for Continuing to Keep The Monitor's Report Confidential) (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/10/2017 1480 NOTICE (There Is No Good Cause for Continuing to Keep The Monitor's Report Confidential)(Re−filed to include attachment) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Wiggins v Burge)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/11/2017 1481 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1478 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. has file a Motion complaining that Pontiac Correctional Center continues to use "Orange Crush" tactical units against seriously mentally ill inmates without first calling mental health personnel. Movant requests that this Court investigate his allegation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested at this time. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's letter to the Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1481 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that "dietary and correctional staff refuse [to deliver] donated snacks" to mentally ill inmates in the same manner as other inmates. Movant requests that this information go to the Court Monitor and Class

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 141 of 306

Counsel. The Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017 1482 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017 1483 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Pflaum, Brian) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/14/2017 1484 NOTICE/Declaration to Court by Kennado Taylor (Attachments: # 1 continued)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017 1485 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Michael Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017 1486 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017 1487 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1482 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion again complaining that class counsel has not recently communicated with him. Movant notes he is a named plaintiff in this case. Movant specifically notes it has been over 10−11 months since he has had a response from class counsel. Movant also notes that the Court has directed class counsel to review his filings. Movant's Motion is GRANTED insofar as Class counsel is DIRECTED to address Movants assertions that he has had no communication with class counsel within 14 days of this Order. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017 1488 Letter from Troy Houston. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/15/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1487 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion requesting that he be released from segregation. Movant is currently an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant explains that he has been housed in long term segregation since May 2015, and further explains that he has become increasingly violent. The Court declines to grant Movant's request to be moved out of segregation. However, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for his review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/15/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/15/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1486 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has purportedly filed a Motion on behalf of B. Kings an inmate apparently housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges Mr. King has been provided inadequate health care. While Movant's concern for his fellow inmate is commendable, he cannot "move" on his behalf for any relief. There is nothing in the record to indicate Movant is authorized to take action on the part of Mr. King. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/15/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/15/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1485 Motion. Movant Michael Johnson has filed a Motion requesting that this Court enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. Movant argues that the Defendants have failed to honor their commitment to provide adequate mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests, among other things, the Court return this case to the active docket. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. However, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for his review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/15/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/16/2017 1489 MOTION filed by Derrick Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 142 of 306

08/16/2017 1490 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/16/2017 1491 DECLARATION of Kennado Taylor (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/17/2017 1492 MOTION filed by Frederick Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/17/2017 1493 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1489 Motion. Movant Derrick Jones has filed a Motion asserting that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are not adhering to the settlement agreement. He requests that class counsel help fix this matter. The Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to review the Motion and provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for his review. Furthermore, the Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaint regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1492 Motion. Movant Fredrick Walker has filed a Motion requesting that the Court require class counsel to meet with him. The Court declines to require class counsel to meet with him, however, the Court directs class counsel to review the Movant's filing. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/17/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1493 Notice (Other). Inmate Kennado Taylor has submitted a declaration complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. It is not clear from the face of the document whether he is submitting this information for consideration in this case or filing a separate action. Taylor is ADMONISHED that if he is seeking to file another lawsuit, he must do by properly initiating a new case (as opposed to captioning his case with this case number). Furthermore, the Court DIRECTS class counsel to provide a copy of this letter to the Court Monitor for his review. The Court also admonishes Movant that, to the extent he is seeking any individualized relief, he should pursue any complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/17/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/21/2017 1494 MOTION for Violation of Settlement Agreement filed by Derrick Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 1495 MOTION in Violation of Settlement filed by Mario English. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 1496 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 1497 DECLARATION filed by Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017 1498 Letter from Aaron Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/22/2017 1499 MOTION filed by Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/5/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017 1500 RESPONSE to Motion re 1482 MOTION filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1495 Motion. Movant Mario English has filed a Motion complaining that the Defendants are in violation of the Settlement Agreement. Movant is currently housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant argues generally that staff members are not following the settlement agreement. Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/22/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1494 Motion. Movant Derrick Jones has filed a Motion complaining that the Defendants are in violation of the Settlement Agreement. Movant is currently housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that, among other things, he is not receiving "out of cell" time and he is being denied

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 143 of 306

groups therapy. Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/22/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1496 Motion and 1499 Motion. Movant Don Collins has file a Motion raising a complaint about payment for yearly identification cards. Movant implies this is done to "prey" upon mental health offenders and matters requiring the need for updated identification cards are outside of their control (e.g. facial hair growth). Movant also filed another Motion complaining that the administration does not respond or acknowledge grievances. While this information appears generally inapplicable to this case, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/22/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/23/2017 1501 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

08/23/2017 1502 MOTION to Compel filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

08/23/2017 1503 MOTION (filed in letter format) filed by Tony Gentry. (Attachments: # 1 letter)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

08/24/2017 1504 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Laton Stubblefield. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

08/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1504 Motion. Movant Laton Subblefield has filed a Motion arguing that staff members at Dixon Correctional Center are in violation of the settlement agreement. Movant specifically complains, among other things, about the amount of time inmates have out of their cells and the lack of confidentiality in therapy sessions. Movant is advised that he should pursue any individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017 1505 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017 1506 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1503 Motion. Movant Tony Gentry has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that the Court authorize a transfer to Big Muddy River or Dixon Correctional Facility. The Court declines to issue the relief requested. However, because the Movant indicates a situation where he believes his safety is in jeopardy, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movant's filing to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is further advised that he should pursue any individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017 1507 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1501 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a supplement to his previously filed Motion (ECF No. 1496) complaining about Pontiac Correctional Center staff members removing funds from inmate trust accounts. The Court previously addressed this issue in its TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 8/22/2017. The Court declines to revisit the issue, but, DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide the Court Monitor with a copy of the filing for his consideration. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 144 of 306

08/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1502 Motion to Compel. Movant Richard Kelly has filed a Motion requesting that the Court direct the Defendants comply with the settlement agreement. Movant is housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges that the institution is "totally undermining" the settlement agreement. Movant is advised that he should pursue any individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. However, at this time, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017 1508 MOTION to Compel filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/28/2017 1509 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/28/2017 1510 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/29/2017 1511 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1508 Motion to Compel. Movant Richard Kelly is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center and has filed a Motion complaining that staff members at the institution are not complying with the settlement agreement. Movant complains, among other things, that the institution is not providing adequate behavior treatment. Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1505 Motion, 1506 Motion, 1507 Motion, 1509 Motion, and 1510 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed several new Motions in this matter. (ECF Nos. 1505, 1506, 1507, 1509, and 1510). In his first Motion (ECF No. 1505), Movant indicates that the mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center (and in IDOC generally) is deficient. Movant complains about, among other things, the effectiveness of group therapy. In the second Motion (ECF No. 1506), Movant complains about the grievance process and also about his recent complaints about dietary issues. In his third Motion (ECF No. 1507), Movant complains that there is an inadequate crisis team available to inmates. In his fourth Motion (ECF No. 1509), Movant complains that inmates in crisis or segregation are denied certain privileges and basic rights. Finally, in his final Motion (ECF No. 1510), Movant indicates several of his previous Motions/Complaints have been resolved. Movant has frequently filed Motions in the Court. The Court has directed Class Counsel to forward many of the Movant's filings on to the Court Monitor for his review and consideration as part of his role in this case. As for the recent filings, the Court again DIRECTS Class Counsel to do the same with these filings. That being said, Movant should also consider directly communicating with Class Counsel on his various issues and concerns. Movant is again advised that he should pursue any individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. As for any specific relief at this time, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1511 Motion and NOTICE TO CLASS COUNSEL. On August 14, 2017, this Court directed Class Counsel to address concerns that there had been no commutations between Class Counsel and one of the named plaintiff (Don Collins). See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 8/14/2017. Movant has made an additional filing noting that the lack of communication between him and Class Counsel has been 67 days, not 10−11 months as the Court previously indicated. Nonetheless, as of today's date, the Court has received not information from Class Counsel. Class Counsel is DIRECTED to provide the overdue information no later than September 6, 2017. Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 1512 Response by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro re Order, . (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 145 of 306

08/30/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER RE: Notice to Counsel dated 8/29/2017. The record shows Plaintiffs' counsel timely provided a response to the Court's directive regarding inmate's complaint of lack of communications. (See ECF No. 1500). No further response is required at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/30/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017 1513 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 9/5/2017− MOTION filed by Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 9/5/2017 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017 1514 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 part 2)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017 1515 Letter from Michael Woodrome. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017 1516 MOTION filed by Tony Gentry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/31/2017 1517 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

08/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1516 Motion. Movant Tony Gentry has filed a Motion asserting that Pontiac Correctional Center has violated the settlement agreement. Movant complains, among other things, that he has not been seen by mental health professionals. Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

08/31/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1517 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that Class Counsel has refused to communicate with him despite sending 5 letters. The Motion also addresses the allegations of overall lack of communications. The Motion is DENIED at this time, but will be reviewed in the context of Class Counsel's recent response addressing the issue. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/31/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

09/01/2017 1518 DECLARATION filed by Kennado K. Taylor. (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

09/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1373 Sealed Document. All Parties have taken the position that the First Annual Report of the Monitor Pablo Stewart, MD should be unsealed. (See ECF Nos. 1512, 1480, and 1479). The document was sealed at the general request of the Parties during the June 5, 2017, hearing for a period of 120 days. Given the Parties' recent positions, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to unseal the Report (ECF No. 1373). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

09/01/2017 1519 MOTION filed by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/15/2017 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

09/05/2017 1520 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

TEXT ORDER STRIKING 1513 MOTION. Motion filed in the wrong case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/5/2017. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/06/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1519 Motion and 1520 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two additional Motions providing information regarding the treatment of SMI inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's complaints include allegations of retaliation. Movant is again advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017 1521 Declaration of Kennado Taylor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017 1522 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 146 of 306

09/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1522 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that Pontiac Correctional Center "has no structural outlet for RTU." Specifically, contends that there are unsafe practices related to housing (and utilization of building space) that place serious mentally ill inmates in danger. Movant is again advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

09/08/2017 1523 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017 1524 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/11/2017 1525 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

09/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1523 Motion and 1525 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two additional Motion (ECF Nos. 1523 and 1525) complaining about his treatment while being incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center and communication with class counsel. In his first Motion, Movant continues to complain that the institution is retaliating by denying and/or restricting his dietary meals. Movant is again advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Finally, with respect to this Motion, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward a copy of the Motion to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED. As for the second Motion, Movant again complains about the lack of communication with class counsel. Movant should consider the overall burden Class Counsel has in this case as it may impact the timing of any communication with individual class members. At this time, the Court declines to grant any relief as to this Motion. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

09/11/2017 1526 OBJECTION to Payment of Attorney Fees filed by Detrick Cullum. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

09/13/2017 1527 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/13/2017 1528 Letter from Jean Faison. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2017)

09/14/2017 1529 MOTION (filed as Motion on Receipt of 09/11/17 Alan Mills Letter) by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/28/2017 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/14/2017 1530 MOTION (filed as Updated Motion) by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/28/2017 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1527 Motion for Reconsideration. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion again complaining about the lack of communication with class counsel. Class counsel has addressed this complaint in their response dated August 22, 2017. (See ECF No. 1500). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the Response. At this time, the Court declines to grant any relief as to this Motion. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

09/15/2017 1531 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/29/2017 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/15/2017 1532 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/29/2017 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/18/2017 1533 Letter from Marcus Hall. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/19/2017

ORDER denying 1529 Motion and 1531 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two motions related to his communication (or lack thereof) with Class Counsel. (ECF Nos. 1529 and 1531). Movant's prayer for relief in both Motions is vague, yet appears to be a statement directed to Class Counsel. (ECF No. 1531 at 2, "Officers of the Court are advised to refrain [from] jumping to mislead[ing] statements because [they are]

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 147 of 306

dissatisfied with matters not necessarily part of this case or inapplicable to Motion 1525;" and ECF No. 1529 at 1, "Do to false remarks and placing co−counsel, as well as defendant (Antholt), in unusual circumstance, reply (sic) to other class counsel, Mr. Mills is being evaluated for direction."). Accordingly, the Motions are summarily DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2017)

09/19/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1532 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a document docketed as a Motion indicating he was issued a "renewed medical permit." This filing appears to be for information purposes only. Accordingly, the Court finds the Motion MOOT. Should the Movant be seeking some additional relief with respect to this filing, he should so inform the Court. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2017)

09/19/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1530 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion again raising issues about "meal deliveries." The Court declines to address Movant's complaint in the manner Movant seeks in the context of this litigation. The Court has previously directed the Court Monitor to consider the complaint(s) raised by Movant as part of his role. Moreover, Movant has been advised on numerous occasions that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2017)

09/19/2017 1534 Emergency MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2017)

09/20/2017 1535 NOTICE to Monitor and Attorneys filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/21/2017 1536 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/21/2017 1537 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/21/2017 1538 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/21/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1536 Motion and 1537 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two additional Motions in this case. Both Motions relate to previous Motions he has filed this case. In the first Motion (ECF No. 1536), Movant indicates that a previous filing contained 2 pages including a one page exhibit of the medical permit. (See ECF No. 1532). The Court would note that Motion (ECF No. 1532) does contain the "Medical Permit (New Order)" exhibit. Since the Movant does not request any additional relief with respect to this Motion, the Motion is otherwise DENIED. In his second Motion (ECF No. 1537), Movant raises additional issues regarding the Medical Permit and alleged wrongdoing on the part of prison staff. Movant specifically complains that he was given a medical permit to have his meals brought to his cell, only to later have that medical permit "torn−up," and replaced with a medical permit to allow him to bring his meals to his cell. While this complaint may involve issues related to mental health treatment, Movant is again advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. However, the Court will DIRECT Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/21/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/21/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1534 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion requesting that the Court Monitor and other attorneys visit with another inmate. Movant indicates that the inmate engaged in self−injurious behavior, and further noted that the staff members at the prison had been provoking the inmate to engage in such behavior. While the Movant's concern is commendable, moving on someone else's behalf is problematic. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to review the filing, and further DIRECTS Class Counsel to forward a copy of the filing to the Court Monitor. The Motion is otherwise DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/21/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/22/2017 1539 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 148 of 306

09/22/2017 1540 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/22/2017 1541 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/22/2017 1542 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/25/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1539 Motion, 1540 Motion, 1541 Motion, and 1542 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed four new Motions in this case. (ECF Nos. 1539, 1540, 1541, and 1542). In his first Motion, Movant requests that the Court confirm, and going forward identify, the number of pages attached to each of his filing. (ECF No. 1539). The Court declines to do so. Movant has concerns the documents he is filing does not contain all the pages he sought to file. Based on Movant filing, and this Court's review, there is no indication his filings have been somehow altered. The Court would note, however, document 1529 contains only one page (and is identified on the filing as such), despite the Movant indicating it contained 2 pages. The Motion is DENIED. In his second Motion, Movant inquires whether the Court is open to receiving filings concerning feedback regarding the Court Monitor's report. (ECF No. 1540). Movant also indicates that he intends to have class members send their feedback to him directly. First, Movant is ADMONISHED while he is a named Plaintiff in this case he is NOT counsel. Movant is free to make filings on his behalf, HOWEVER, he cannot move on behalf of others as the class is represented by class counsel. Inmates should contact class counsel to determine what means would be the best to communicate their concerns with the Court. The Court has no position on the matter at this time other than the admonishments noted above. The Motion is DENIED. In his third Motion, Movant indicates there are still communication issues between him and counsel. (ECF No. 1541). The Court declines to grant any relief based on the Motion, but the Court will address the communication issue at a later date. NONETHELESS, Class counsel is also reminded that the Movant is a named plaintiff in this case. The Motion is DENIED. In his fourth Motion, Movant complains about the delivery of ice at the institution during the recent heat. Movant's complaints are serious, but appear to fall outside the scope of this litigation. Movant is ADMONISHED that he should pursue these types of complaints through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he deems appropriate. In the context of this case, the Motion is DENIED. Class counsel is DIRECTED to provide a copy of each of the Movant's filings to the Court Monitor. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/25/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/25/2017 1543 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/25/2017 1544 MOTION filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1543 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a new Motion related to meal deliveries. Movant specifically complains about the fact that medical permits were destroyed by correctional staff. Movant seeks to have the Court Monitor made aware of this situation (and the content of his Motion). In that regard, Class counsel is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the Movant's filings to the Court Monitor. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1544 Motion. Movant Richard B. Kelly has filed a Motion requesting that the Court "stop security guard staff [member] from interfering with [the] job of the mental health department [ ] at Pontiac [Correctional Center]." Movant's specific complaint appears to involve, among other things, the selection and admittance to movies. Movant specifically requests that the Court direct staff members to "pick good mind, body [and] soul movies," "go door−to−door letting SMI men know the[y're] on the list to go to (SMI) movies for the day," and to have the staff member mind her own business. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. The Motion is DENIED. Movant is ADMONISHED that he should pursue these types of complaints through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he deems appropriate. Class counsel is DIRECTED to provide a copy of each of the Movant's filings to the Court Monitor. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/26/2017 1545 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/27/2017 1546 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 149 of 306

09/27/2017 1547 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/28/2017 1548 Letter from Carlos Garcia. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2017)

09/29/2017 1549 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

09/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1545 Motion, 1546 Motion, 1547 Motion, and 1549 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed four additional Motions in this case. In the first Motion (ECF No. 1545), Movant provides information related to his communication with Class Counsel. Movant should communicate his concerns directly with Class Counsel. Unless Movant requests some specific relief from this Court, the Court declines in get involved at this time. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. In the second Motion (ECF No. 1546), Movant provides additional information regarding the high temperature at the institution. Movant is again admonished he should pursue these types of complaints through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. In his third Motion (ECF No. 1547), Movant clarifies his activities related to comments from inmates to the Monitor's Report. Movant should consider discussing any activities regarding this matter with Class Counsel. The Motion is DENIED. In his final Motion (ECF No. 1549), Movant raises concerns regarding medical permits and issues surrounding certain medical issues. Movant is again admonished he should pursue these types of complaints through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Class counsel is DIRECTED to provide a copy of each of the Movant's filings to the Court Monitor. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

10/02/2017 1550 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/02/2017 1551 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/02/2017 1552 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

10/03/2017 1553 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

10/03/2017 1554 MOTION to Reopen filed by James Dorn. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

10/05/2017 1555 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017 1556 Emergency MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1550 Motion, 1551 Motion, 1552 Motion, 1553 Motion, and 1555 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed five additional Motions in this case. In the first Motion (ECF No. 1550), Movant complains that filings he has made to the Court are supposed to be privileged. In that regard, Movant argues that each time a filing is "emailed" at the library, it is no longer confidential/privileged. As such, Movant argues that "class offenders" are at risk each time they make a filing. The Court is not in a position to make a determination on IDOC's policy regarding the filings. That being said, most of the documents, unless otherwise sealed, are publically available and are not "privileged." Indeed, any filing to this Court is not "privileged," but again, could be sealed or confidential. Perhaps Movant should communicate his concerns directly with Class Counsel and determine if there is a way documents could be filed as confidential in this matter. To the extent Movant seeks some redress regarding the IDOC's policy, he must pursue that type of complaint through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. In his second Motion (ECF No. 1551), Movant states he is not satisfied with the Court's reply with his previous Motions. Movant alleges his Motions were not fully reviewed. To the contrary, each Motion filed by the Movant is reviewed by the Court. Moreover, the Court finds it premature to address Movant's complaints regarding counsel at this time. The Motion is DENIED. Parenthetically, Movant again complains that he is being addressed as "Movant." The Court means no disrespect in the terms and simply uses the terminology as the person who has filed Motion. In his third Motion (ECF No. 1552), Movant provides a supplement on several complaints he has previously raised to the Court. Class counsel is DIRECTED to provide a copy of Movant's filing to the Court Monitor. Nonetheless, the Motion is DENIED. In his fourth Motion (ECF No. 1553), Movant complains about his dietary permits/restrictions. Movant complains that, with (or even without) class counsel contact, this matter is urgent. The Court has instructed Movant to pursue his individual grievance through the IDOC's grievance procedure or other forum he

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 150 of 306

deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. In his final Motion (ECF No. 1555), Movant provides additional information regarding his communications with class counsel. The filing appears to be an update on the communications and no specific relief is requested of this Court. To that end, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1554 Motion. Movant James Dorn has filed a Motion seeking to reopen this case alleging the Defendants have failed to adhere to the settlement agreement. Movant is currently an inmate at Menard Correctional Center and raises complains regarding his treatment. Movant is advised that he should pursue an individual complaints regarding his treatment through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/06/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1556 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining about the treatment of mentally ill inmates. Among other things, Movant specifically complains that these inmates are subject to strip searches prior to getting treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/6/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017 1557 Letter from James J. Williams requesting information. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017 1558 Emergency Motion for Restraining Order filed by Jesse Lee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/10/2017 1559 MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 10/24/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/10/2017 1560 MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/11/2017 1561 NOTICE of Request for Writ of Duces Tecum filed by Aaron Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

10/12/2017 1562 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

10/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1558 Motion. Movant Jesse Lee has filed an "Emergency Motion" requesting a restraining order suggesting inmates and security guards are taking action to hurt SMI inmates. The filing indicates he wanted the pleading filed in this case, but there are additional indications he is seeking to file a new case. To the extent Movant seeks relief in this case, it is DENIED. That being said, the Court directs Class Counsel to review this filing and determine if any additional action is needed on their part. Finally, Movant is DIRECTED to inform the Court if he would like this pleading filed as a separate lawsuit. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

10/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1560 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion requesting leave to send confidential letters to monitor sealed and unread by prison staff. Movant indicates that his mental illness is severe and he needs to talk to the monitor. Movant additionally requests that the Court monitor see fellow inmate Corrie Singleton. Movant should contact Class Counsel to determine a way to get any privileged/confidential information to the Court Monitor. Class Counsel should also consider directly responding to Movant's filing. However, the Court will not grant the Motion under the present circumstances. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

10/13/2017 1563 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/13/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1562 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion generally criticizing Class Counsel for their communication (or lack thereof) with

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 151 of 306

him. Movant also complains that the Court does not examine or otherwise consider the issues that he has raised even if these issues fall outside the settlement agreement. The Parties have reached a settlement in this case, and at this time, the agreement controls the relationship of the Parties (as to the issues raised herein). Movant has been diligent in raising issues and concerns regarding the treatment of SMI inmates. Many of those are simply outside the scope of this proceeding at least at this time or otherwise individualized such that Movant should pursue his claim(s) in a separate action. As for matters related to this proceeding, Movant should work with Class Counsel to determine the best course of action. Nonetheless, Movant's present Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/13/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/16/2017 1564 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 10/30/2017. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017 1565 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 10/18/2017− MOTION filed by Jarad W. Williams. Responses due by 10/30/2017 (SAG, ilcd) Modified on 10/18/2017 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017 1566 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 10/18/2017− MOTION to Request Counsel filed by Jarad W. Williams. Responses due by 10/30/2017 (SAG, ilcd) Modified on 10/18/2017 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017 1567 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 10/18/2017− MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jarad W. Williams. Responses due by 10/30/2017 (SAG, ilcd) Modified on 10/18/2017 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017 1568 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER. (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017 1569 MOTION in letter form by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 10/30/2017. (LN, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/17/2017 1570 Emergency MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER striking 1565 Motion, 1566 Motion to Request Counsel, and striking 1567 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Movant Jarod W. Williams has filed three Motions that have been docketed in this case. While Movant has filed the documents with the case number for this case, based on this Court's review of all of the filings, it is clear to the Court Movant seeks to open a new case. Movant's filings include a "Complaint" (ECF No. 1565), a Motion to Request Counsel (ECF No. 1566), and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1567). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file these documents as a new case, and the documents are stricken from this matter. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1564 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion listing several areas he believes the Defendants in this case have been non−compliant with the settlement agreement. The document explains its purpose is "for consideration in reviewing non−compliance process." (ECF No. 1564 at 2). Class Counsel is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this filing to the Court Monitor. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1563 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about certain health related matters, including re−raising issues of meal−related medical permits. Movant specifically raises allegations regarding correctional staff's conduct in interfering with meal deliveries pursuant to his medical permits. The Court has admonished Movant on several occasions that individualized complaints should be pursued through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum outside this proceeding. If Movant is seeking specific relief regarding his circumstance, then he should proceed as previously directed. If not, at this point IN THIS PROCEEDING, the information will be forwarded to the Court Monitor for his consideration as it relates to his duties in this case. In that regard, the Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is otherwise DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 152 of 306

10/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1569 Motion. Movant Ashoor Rasho has filed a Motion raising allegations that officers at Dixon Correctional Center are abusing SMI inmates. Movant's complaints include allegations of officers beating inmates while in handcuffs. Movant requests that he have the opportunity to speak with the Court and his lawyers. The Court finds that, at this time, it would be most appropriate for Movant to discuss this matter with Class Counsel. Furthermore, the Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1570 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining about his mental/medical treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests a transfer to Joliet Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. Movant is advised that complaints regarding his treatment should be pursued through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. That being said, because the Movant raises issues about self−harm, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Motion to Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court also DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/19/2017

NOTICE OF Status Conference set for 10/20/2017 at 02:00 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2017)

10/19/2017 1571 MOTION for Status filed by Steve Dinwiddie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 1572 NOTICE of Request for Writ of Duces Tecum filed Marcus Hall. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 1573 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 1574 Letter from Chester Holmes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1571 Motion. Movant Steve Dinwiddie has filed a Motion requesting an update on the status of this case and a copy of the docket sheet. Movant should contact Class Counsel for a current status of the case. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with contact information for Class Counsel. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1573 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are "using food" as a means of punishment. Movant specifically complains, among other things, that the staff members have failed to honor his meal permits. Movant also complains about the delays in the grievance process. In the end, Movant requests that Class Counsel consider seeking changes to the grievance process for matters involving health concerns. As Movant requests no relief from this Court, the Motion is DENIED. The Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 1575 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Laura Miller and Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs, Attorney Terence Corrigan for the Defendants, Attorney Chris Higgerson for IDOC and Attorney Andrew Ramage for Wexford for Status Conference held on 10/20/2017. Discussion held regarding 1559 MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement. Defendants make Oral Motion for Extension of Time to file response to 1559 MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and to be excused from the page limitation. So ordered. Response to be filed on or before Tuesday, 11/7/2017. Reply to be filed on or before 11/16/2017. Status Conference set for Wednesday, 11/22/2017 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Evidentiary Hearing regarding enforcement of settlement agreement set for Monday, 12/18/2017 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 153 of 306

Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/23/2017 1576 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/23/2017)

10/25/2017 1577 Letter from Gerald Dempsey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 1578 Letter from Ashoor Rasho. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 1579 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 1580 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 1581 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/27/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1575 Motion, 1576 Motion, 1579 Motion, 1580 Motion, and 1581 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed five additional Motions [1575, 1776, 1579, 1580, and 1581] in this case addressing many issues he has previously raised to the Court. In his Motions, Movant requests that Class Counsel and the Court Monitor review he information contained in his motions as support for the Class Members' Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement 1559 . The Court DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor. No further relief is granted. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

11/01/2017 1582 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/01/2017 1583 EMERGENCY MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/01/2017 1584 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/01/2017 1585 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/02/2017 1586 NOTICE filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1582 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion generally complaining of the lack of attention the Court has given his previous Motions. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's recent submission is a missive of how the Court has routinely denies his Motions and forwards them to the Court Monitor for review. As previously been explained to the Movant, this is a Class Action wherein the Class is represented by counsel. Movant should direct his concerns to the Class Counsel to determine the best course of action with regard to these matters. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/2/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1583 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's Motion contains a profane−laced complaint about those involved in this case, as well as, correctional staff members. The Motion is DENIED. Furthermore, because of the information contained in the Motion, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/2/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1584 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion complaining that he is being sexually harassed by a staff member. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court allow him to speak with the "legal team." The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/2/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 154 of 306

11/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1585 Motion. Movant Rasheed McGee has filed a Motion complaining that there has been a violation of the agreed order. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that mental health professional remove themselves from the adjustment committee so inmates can't receive a fair hearing. Movant does not request any specific relief. The Motion is DENIED, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/2/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/03/2017 1587 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 1588 Letter from Isaiah Culter regarding monetary award on settlement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/03/2017 1589 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/06/2017 1590 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2017)

11/06/2017 1591 Emergency MOTION filed by Ned James on behalf of Cory Singleton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2017)

11/06/2017 1592 MOTION to Compel filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2017)

11/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1592 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that staff members are refusing to allow him to attend movies and have his television. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court direct the Court Monitor to speak to him and transfer him to an RTU at a different mental health facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1591 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion purportedly on behalf of another inmate. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that he be permitted to speak to class counsel. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant also indicates his fellow inmate has or could engage self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden along with a copy of this TEXT ONLY ORDER. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1587 Motion, 1589 Motion, and 1590 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three Motion complaining that about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Generally, Movant does not request any specific relief, except as it relates to his out−going mail. Plaintiff provides detailed information regarding the inability to send mail. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. In addition, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 1587) to the Warden for consideration. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017 1593 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017 1594 MOTION to Compel Monitors filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 155 of 306

11/07/2017 1595 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017 1596 EMERGENCY MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/07/2017 1597 RESPONSE to Motion re 1559 MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement filed by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 11/07/2017)

11/08/2017 1598 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Main Document 1598 replaced on 11/8/2017) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/08/2017 1599 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/08/2017 1600 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1600 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center have assaulted him in retaliation of complaints he has made. Movant requests that this Court order an investigation and transfer him to another correctional center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1594 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center has refused to allow him: (1) out−of−cell time, (2) mental health services, and (3) movie time. Movant requests that this Court direct the Court Monitor to speak to him and transfer him to another correctional center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1596 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Motion is DENIED, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Finally, because of the information contained in the Motion, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's Motion (and ECF No. 1595) to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1593 Motion, 1598 Motion, and 1599 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three additional Motions complaining about the conditions and treatment of mentally ill inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant makes several comments and suggestions for this Court regarding the Court Monitor, and further complains of the conditions of the cells in segregation and general population. Movant also again indicates frustration regarding the Court Monitor's purpose in this case. (See ECF No. 1599). The Court has previously admonished Movant on several occasions that individualized complaints should be pursued through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum outside this proceeding. If Movant is seeking specific relief regarding his circumstance, then he should proceed as previously directed. As to the areas of his complaints that raise more generalized concerns, the Court has directed Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion(s) to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Court does so again with respect to these filings. Finally, Movant request information on any upcoming hearing related to the Court Monitors status report. An Evidentiary Hearing has been set for December 18, 2017. Movant may want to contact Class Counsel for additional information regarding the hearing. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/9/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 156 of 306

11/13/2017 1601 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/13/2017 1602 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/13/2017 1603 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/13/2017 1604 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/13/2017 1605 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/13/2017 1606 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1601 Motion and 1602 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two Motions (ECF Nos. 1601 and 1602) complaining about retaliation from staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center and his perceived lack of attention to these issues by the Court. Movant specifically complains that the Court ignores his Motion and has no interest in reading them. Contrary to Movant's beliefs, the Court has reviewed all of the filings made by the Movant. Nonetheless, the class is represented by counsel, and motions and requests ultimately should come through counsel. Movant is again admonished that he should communicate with counsel regarding his concerns. The Court is aware that Movant has reached out to Class Counsel on multiple occasions, and is also aware several of the areas raised by Movant are generally contained in the Court Monitor's report. Movant has previously been advised of the hearing scheduled regarding Defendants' compliance with the settlement agreement. With that being said, the Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1603 Motion, 1604 Motion, 1605 Motion, and 1606 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. has filed four Motions (ECF Nos. 1603, 1604, 1605, and 1606) raising issues of alleged inmate abuse at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's complaints include issues involving himself (e.g. being sexually abused, not allowed out of cell time, being punched) and other inmates (attempted suicide with inadequate response by staff members). Movant requests that this Court have the Court Monitor investigate the complaints, and further requests that the Court require the Warden to resolve his grievance. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/15/2017 1607 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/15/2017)

11/16/2017 1608 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017 1609 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by A Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1609 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion purportedly on behalf of a fellow inmate. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court allow him or his fellow inmate speak with counsel regarding the inmate's cell condition. The Movant is, of course, free to reach out to counsel on his own. However, the Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. However, because Movant also indicates his fellow inmate could engage in self−injurious behavior, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/16/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 157 of 306

11/16/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1607 Motion and 1608 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two additional Motions complaining about his conditions and treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Specifically, Movant again raises complaints about being denied meal permits. Movant also complains that his meal permits were destroyed by staff members. Movant does not request any specific relief but rather insinuates the Court will do nothing about this situation. The Court has frequently admonished Movant that he needs to utilize the grievance process for his individualized complaints. To the extent the matters deal with global prisoner conditions, as in the past, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/16/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017 1610 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1559 MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/17/2017 1611 MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 1612 NOTICE filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/17/2017 1613 MOTION for Emergency Intervention filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/20/2017 1614 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1615 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1616 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1617 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1618 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1619 MOTION for Sanctions and Damages filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1620 Letter from Anthony White. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1621 MOTION to Compel filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1614 Motion, 1615 Motion, 1616 Motion, 1617 Motion, 1618 Motion, and 1619 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed six additional Motions (ECF No. 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, and 1619) in this case. This TEXT ONLY ORDER is intended to address all of these Motions. First, Movant complains that this Court fails to understand how the grievance process is actually used by prisoners. Movant accuses this Court of being "uneducated and ignorant" as to what happens "in the field." (ECF No. 1614 at 1). Movant's other Motions address the treatment of inmates including discontinued services (ECF No. 1615), failure to get responses from the Court (ECF No. 1616), medical permits for meals/staff threats and abuse (ECF No. 1617), other meal complaints (ECF No. 1618), and finally, requesting the class counsel determine if class member testimony is necessary at the upcoming hearing (ECF No. 1619). As for Movant's Motion (and comments in other Motions) related to his complaints of the Court, the Court declines to grant any relief. Movant has previously been admonished as to the current status of this case and his need to raise complaints with Class Counsel. (See e.g. TEXT ONLY ORDERS dated 11/14/2017, 11/9/2017, and 11/2/12017). As for Movant's complains regarding the general treatment of inmates, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. As for Movant's complaint he is not receiving certain orders of this Court, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant a copy of TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/14/2017. Finally, Class Counsel is DIRECTED to provide a status report on whether or not class member testimony will be presented during the upcoming hearing. In all other respects, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 158 of 306

11/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1613 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion complaining that he is in need of medical attention. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that the Court direct that he receive medical attention and do an investigation into his circumstances. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, because of the nature of the complaint, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1611 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining that he received a "Red I.D." identifying him as a security risk. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that the Court direct the removal of his security designation. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1621 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining that he was housed in segregation while on crisis watch. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests the Court compel IDOC to stop housing him in segregation while on crisis watch. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1622 Letter from Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 1623 Letter Samuel Span, II. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/21/2017 1624 Letter from Maurice Shaw. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

11/22/2017 1625 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Christopher Knox and Byan Kirkpatrick. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

11/22/2017 1626 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

11/22/2017 1627 Emergency MOTION for Medical Attention... filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

11/22/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, and Amanda Antholdt for the Plaintiffs, Attorneys Terence Corrigan and Brent Stratton for the Defendants, Attorney Chris Higgerson for IDOC and Attorney Andrew Ramage for Wexford for Status Conference held on 11/22/2017. Discussion held regarding Evidentiary Hearing set for 12/18/2017. Court raises concerns regarding the parameters of the hearing. Parties present positions. Discussion held regarding witnesses, exhibits, and length of Evidentiary Hearing. Parties directed to file Exhibit list on or before 12/11/2017. Defendants to provide Exhibits referenced in filing by December 1, 2017. Plaintiffs to provide the names of witnesses to Defendants no later than 11/29/2017. Parties to file Witness lists with the Court on or before 12/1/2017. Evidentiary Hearing remains set for 12/18/2017 at 9:00am. Parties to confer with Clerk no later than 12/4/2017 regarding where video witnesses will be testifying from for hearing. Clerk to issue video writs. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

11/27/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1625 Motion. Movants Christopher Knox and Byan Kirkpatrick jointly filed a Motion complaining about housing situation for seriously mentally ill inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movants note that seriously mentally ill inmates are treated similar to inmates who are in segregation. Movants requests that the seriously mentally ill inmates be separated or otherwise transferred to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 159 of 306

Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movants are further advised that any individual complaint regarding their housing should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1626 Motion. Movants Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center is mistreating and threatening him. Movants requests that the staff member be ordered to stay away from him or that Movant be transferred to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movants is further advised that any individual complaint regarding his treatment should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1627 Motion. Movant George A. Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining that about his medical treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's request from this Court is unclear, however, it appears he seeks some assistance from the Court in getting certain medical testing. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Finally, because the Movant asserts this is an "emergency" motion, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of the Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017 1628 MOTION (filed in letter format) for copy of docket sheet filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017 1629 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017 1630 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017 1631 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017 1632 Emergency MOTION filed by Anthony Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/27/2017 1633 MOTION filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/28/2017 1634 MOTION to Enforce Corrective Action Plan by Dennis Rush. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 1635 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Anthony Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 1636 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 1637 MOTION for Urgent Intervention filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 1638 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Sean Hanks. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 1639 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1638 Motion. Movant Sean Hanks has filed a Motion complaining that alleged violations of the Settlement Agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been the subject of "physical assault, deterrence, retaliation, [and] deliberate indifference to serious medical need." Among other things, Movant complains that he has been encouraged to commit suicide and pepper sprayed for no reason. Movant requests, among other things, that this Court transfer him to another facility, enter a TRO against an employee, be given television and telephone privileges, and have cameras placed in the facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 160 of 306

on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1637 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion complaining that he is being retaliated against by staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been placed in an empty cell with none of his property including no mattress, bedding or hygiene products. Movant requests that this Court that the Court assist him in getting his property. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1636 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center is refusing to give him his mental health medication. Movant requests that this Court enter an order directing that he receive his medication and to have certain employees disciplined. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1640 MOTION filed Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1641 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1632 Motion and 1635 Motion. Movant Anthony Fields has filed two Motion complaining about the treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that there has been no group therapy and other issues regarding segregation. Movant also complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel. Notably, in one of his Motions, Movant purportedly moves on his behalf and the behalf of other inmates. It should be noted that the class is represented by counsel, and moreover, Movant cannot file on behalf of others in any event. Movant also complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel. Movant requests that this Court direct a transfer to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1642 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1643 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1634 Motion. Movant Dennis Shareef Rush has filed a Motion complaining about the new mental health administrator at Menard Correctional Center. Movant complains about, among other things, being taken off of crisis watch and given inadequate medication. Movant requests that this Court intervene in his treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant notes that he has been unable to file his grievances because of staff member interference. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Nonetheless, Movant is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum (including separate lawsuit, if necessary) the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1633 Motion. Movant Tony Benson has filed a Motion complaining that there has been a lack of group therapy at the institution and

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 161 of 306

he has been kept in segregation in violation of the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1644 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1629 Motion, 1630 Motion, 1631 Motion, 1640 Motion, and 1641 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed five additional Motions in this matter. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been refused a religious diet, has had his medical permit(s) voided, the Court has not carried out its own directive to have counsel review his complaints, and counsel has ignored the Courts directive. (ECF No. 1629). Movant also complains about the adequacy of mental health treatment at the institution. (ECF Nos. 1630 and 1631). Movant also filed a Motion noting that he has had additional medical services/testing provided at the University of Illinois Chicago Hospital that "currently do[es] not reflect direct correlation in connection with issues in Rasho claim" (ECF No. 1640), but notes that his low weight is due to issues related to his previous complains including inhumane treatment, harassment and previously noted meal issue (ECF NO. 1641). Movant complains of the Court's and Class Counsel's handling of these matters. Nonetheless, in some of his Motions, Movant asks that these matters be considered at the upcoming hearing. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Class Counsel should also consider the appropriateness of raising these issues during the upcoming hearing. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. As for any additional relief, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1645 MOTION to Enforce filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1642 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that he was not taken to his scheduled mental health group. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court enter an order directing that Movant receive all of his mental health activities. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1643 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion complaining that he is in danger because staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are retaliating against him. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Finally, because of the nature of the complaints raised, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1628 Motion and denying 1645 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay has filed two Motions in this matter. In his Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 1645), Movant complains that he is being punished for engaging in self−injurious behavior. Movant argues that such action is in violation of the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 162 of 306

housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order the Defendants to provide/create a plan for the Movant to be released from long−term punitive segregation and further order the Defendants to restore Movant's good time credits. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor. The Court REQUESTS that the Court Monitor review the circumstances underlying Movant's complaint and be prepared to report back to the Court. Nonetheless, Movant is ADVISED that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. This Motion is DENIED. Movant also requests a copy of the docket sheet in this matter. (ECF No. 1628). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy the docket sheet from the past two years. Should Movant seek additional information regarding the status of this case, he should reach out to Class Counsel. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide the contact information of Class Counsel to the Movant. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017

TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2017. The Court is in receipt of the Court Monitor's Midyear Update Report 2017. The Document is filed herein under seal. The Document will be unsealed in 7 days absent any objection from the Parties. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/29/2017 1646 . COURT MONITOR'S MIDYEAR UPDATE 2017 REPORT (VH, ilcd) Modified on 12/7/2017 to UNSEAL DOCUMENT(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/29/2017)

11/30/2017 1647 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Anthony Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

11/30/2017 1648 MOTION to Appear before Judge... filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

11/30/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1647 Motion. Movant Anthony Fields has filed a Motion complaining that he is being mistreated and retaliated against while incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that he was forced to sit in a crisis cell and forced to clean feces. Movant also complains about the ineffectiveness of counsel. Movant requests that he be transferred to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

12/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1648 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion requesting that he appear before the Court to explain to the Court why his "life is in extreme danger" at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant does not offer any additional information in his Motion. The Court declines to issue the relief requested, nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this TEXT ONLY ORDER and Movant's Motion to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court further directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/01/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1644 MOTION. Class Counsel is DIRECTED to provide a response to Movant's Motion. Class Counsel should address the allegations made by named plaintiff and their role as class counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/1/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/01/2017 1649 MOTION filed By Steven Lisle. Responses due by 12/15/2017 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/01/2017 1650 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 12/15/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 163 of 306

12/01/2017 1651 NOTICE: Violation of Agreed Order filed by Anthony Fields. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/01/2017 1654 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/01/2017 1655 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/01/2017)

12/04/2017

1656

MOTION for Leave to Appear by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/18/2017 (Schult, Nicole) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1657 RESPONSE to Motion re 1644 MOTION filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Schult, Nicole) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1658 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1659 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1660 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1661 MOTION to Enforce filed by Lamar Robinson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1662 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1650 Motion, 1658 Motion, 1659 Motion, and 1660 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed four additional Motions (ECF Nos. 1650, 1658, 1659, and 1660) complaining about various aspects of his incarceration. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's complaints revolve around the isolated nature of his incarceration (ECF No. 1650), inadequate psychiatric services (ECF No. 1658), being denied "Thanksgiving meals" (ECF No. 1659), and unlicensed/practicing physicians (ECF No. 1660). Movant does not request any specific relief. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but generally seeks to have these matters reviewed during the upcoming hearing. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, what may be helpful for his presentation during the upcoming hearing. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. In all other respects, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1649 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion requesting that the Court "order that Director Baldwin follow up and make sure [his] grievance is processed by the Pontiac Correctional Center." Movant further requests that this Court direct the video tape of the November 12, 2017, alleged assault be saved, copied, and delivered to this Court. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. However, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy Movant's Motion to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1661 Motion. Movant Lamar Robinson has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that he has received inadequate mental health treatment, including the lack of group therapy, one−on−one sessions, and inadequate out−of−cell time. Movant requests, among other things, that the Court direct the Defendants to create a plan for Movant's release from long−term segregation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 164 of 306

12/04/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1662 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion requesting that the Pontiac South Mental Health United be closed due to "hazardous environmental conditions" and further requests that he be transferred to another facility. In support of his Motion, Movant complains that the remodeling of the facility is creating exposure to friable asbestos. Movant also complains that he is being exposed to sewage. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of the Movant's Motion to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/4/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1663 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1664 MOTION Informing the Court... filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1665 Letter from Maurice Shaw. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1666 MOTION for Clarification filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1667 Emergency MOTION for Access to Legal Boxes... filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017 1668 MOTION in Violation of Settlement filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/05/2017 1669 Emergency MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Anthony Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1664 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that he has been mistreated by staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017 1670 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order... filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017 1671 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017 1672 Supplemental MOTION and Notice to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

NOTICE OF Status Conference set for 12/12/2017 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. The Parties should be prepared to discuss the scope of the hearing in light of Section XXIX of the settlement agreement and Plaintiffs' proposal to have some portion of the hearing at, or viewing of, Pontiac Correctional Center. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017 1673 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Nicole Rae Schult on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Schult, Nicole) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 1656 Motion for Leave to Appear. Appearance has been entered by attorney. (See ECF No. 1673). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1667 Motion and 1672 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed two Motions requesting assistance in getting access to his legal files. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he is being denied access to his legal files. Movant also complains that the living conditions in the South Mental wing is life threatening because of friable asbestos and mold. Finally, Movant notes other issues of alleged inmate mistreatment. The Court declines to grant the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 165 of 306

relief requested. However, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the Motions to the Warden for his review. Moreover, Class Counsel is directed to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017 1674 NOTICE to Court filed by Eduardo Navejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1668 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. has filed a Motion detailing an inmates alleged difficulty in receiving mental health treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant does not make any specific requests for relief. As such, the Court declines to grant any relief requested. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1669 Motion. Movant Anthony Fields has filed a Motion complaining that he is being retaliated against by staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1670 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion complaining that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are mistreating him and his life is in danger. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to a different facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, however, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of Movant's Motion to the Warden. Furthermore, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1671 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion arguing there is a lack of investigation of staff misconduct at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any relief, as none was specifically requested (other than to have this matter addressed at hearing), however, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/5/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/05/2017

1675

MOTION Motion to Amend Request for Relief and Memorandum on the Enforcement Process by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/19/2017 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/06/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1666 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay clarification regarding this Court's directive to the Court Monitor to review the circumstances underlying Movant's complaint and be prepared to report back to the Court. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/29/2017). The directive to the Court Monitor is simply that, a directive to review the Movant's complaint and report back to the Court − with particular emphasis on the class component in this case, not individualized relief. The Court has not fixed any particular time requirement, but expects the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 166 of 306

Monitor will timely comply with the Court's directive. That being said, Movant should pursue any individualized relief as he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/6/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017 1676 MOTION in Limine to Strike Defendants' Witnesses by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 12/20/2017 (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017 1677 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017 1678 MOTION Informing the Judge... filed by Malique Cunningham (VH, ilcd) Modified on 12/7/2017 to correct name(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017 1679 MOTION filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017 1680 MOTION to Enforce filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017

1681

MOTION to Amend Request for Relief and Memorandum on the Enforcement Process (Corrected) by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/20/2017 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/07/2017 1682 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017 1683 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017 1684 NOTICE of Motion to Court filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 1675 Motion. Corrected Motion filed by Plaintiffs − see ECF No. 1681. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1680 Motion. Movant Ralph King has filed a Motion complaining that he has been denied counseling. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court require the Defendants to provide him treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1679 Motion. Movant Tony Benson has filed a Motion complaining that there has been no group therapy at Pontiac Correctional Center for weeks. Movant also complains that he was given segregation without any consideration being given to his mental illness. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1678 Motion. Movant Malique Cunningham has filed a Motion complaining that he had been assaulted by a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order an investigation into his alleged assault. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1677 Motion, 1682 Motion, and 1683 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a three new Motions in this matter. (ECF Nos. 1677,

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 167 of 306

1682, and 1683). In his first Motion, Movant complains that there is discrimination against class members residing in the mental units. Movant specifically notes that seriously mentally ill inmates are unable to purchase soda. In another Motion, Movant indicates a previous filing was intended to be two separate Motions. (ECF No. 1682; see also ECF No. 1650−1). (ECF NO. 1650−1) provides additional information regarding Movant's medical treatments. Finally, Movant complains about housing situation at Pontiac Correctional Center and allegations that the Pontiac is not adhering to the settlement agreement. Parenthetically, Movant made another filing indicating his displeasure with the Court's handling of his Motions. (ECF No. 1684). The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Movant's Motions to the Court Monitor for his review to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary or the information contained in the Motions can be useful for the up−coming hearing. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/07/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1646 Sealed Document. Pursuant to this Court's TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 11/30/2017, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal Court Monitor's Midyear Update (ECF No. 1646). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

12/08/2017 1685 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/08/2017 1686 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/08/2017 1687 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/08/2017 1688 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/08/2017 1689 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/08/2017 1690 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/11/2017 1691 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017 1692 MOTION for copies filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017 1693 NOTICE of Settlement Violation filed by Rodney Dees. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1685 Motion, 1686 Motion, 1687 Motion, 1688 Motion, and 1689 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a five additional Motions in this case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motions, Movant complains about a myriad of issues related to his incarceration, how the IDOC functions, and his filings. As for his issues regarding his filings, Plaintiff indicates the size of his filings have been reduced (ECF 1686). However, the Court would note Movant's filings have all been received by this Court in a reasonable legible format. Movant also complains that he has not received a response to a previous Motion (ECF No. 1644). Notably, the Court has not ruled on that Motion at this time. Movant also makes additional complaints regarding the conduct of staff members (ECF Nos. 1687 and 1689), makes suggestions regarding treatment for SMI offenders (ECF No. 1688). Ultimately, Movant indicates these matters should be consider by the Court at the upcoming hearing or the Court Monitor. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. However, to the extent the Motions seek other relief, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1691 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion inquiring whether the Court received his exhibit contained in Docket Entry 1650−1. The Court has received the information. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 168 of 306

12/11/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1692 Motion. The Motion is granted insofar as the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant the cost of the documents sought by the Movant. Movant may work directly with the Clerk of the Court to obtain the documents he seeks. Should Movant experience difficultly in getting the institution to provide remit his funds, he may contact the Court. Until that time, the Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/11/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017 1694 MOTION to Bifurcate , or In the Alternative, to Continue Hearing by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. Responses due by 12/26/2017 (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017 1695 Exhibit List by John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/11/2017 1696 Exhibit List (Plaintiffs' Exhibit List) by Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/12/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1690 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion complaining that he faces retaliation from this Court forwarding his previous Motion to the Warden. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that several staff members have mentioned Movant's previous filing and his meeting with internal affairs. The Court has great concerns with the allegations made by the Movant. The Court again DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of this Order and the Movant's Motion to the Warden. The Court further DIRECTS Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Defendants are DIRECTED to investigate the allegations of the Movant and file a status report. The Motion is otherwise DENIED at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/12/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

12/12/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by phone, Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Amanda Antholt/Alan Mills for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan/Chris Higgerson/Mike Arnold/Doug Rees/Andy DeVooght/Andrew Ramage for Defendants for Status Conference held on 12/12/2017. Discussion held re: Scope of the Evidentiary Hearing. Discussion held re: witnesses appearing by video. Discussion re: 1694 Motion to Bifurcate, or, in the Alternative to Continue Hearing. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 1694 . Plaintiffs' evidence will be presented at hearing beginning on December 18, 2017, with Defendants' evidence to be presented at a hearing beginning on February 26, 2018, at 9:00 A.M. in Courtroom B. Plaintiffs to provide exhibits to Court and Defendant by 12/14/2017. Court RESERVES RULING as to Plaintiffs' 1676 Motion in Limine to Strike Defendants' Witnesses and 1681 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Request for Relief and Memorandum of the Enforcement Process. Status Conference re: Plaintiffs' exhibit list is set for 12/14/2017 at 2:00 p.m. by phone. (Court Reporter NM.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

12/12/2017

Set/Reset Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing set for 12/18/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/26/2018 09:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

12/13/2017 1697 VIDEO WRIT issued to Pontiac C.C. and Logan C.C. for 12/19/2017. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/13/2017 1698 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/13/2017 1699 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/13/2017 1700 NOTICE to Court of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 169 of 306

12/13/2017 1701 Emergency MOTION/Notice to Parties and Monitor filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/13/2017 1702 MOTION to Inform Judge filed by Marquette Buie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/13/2017 1703 MOTION to Enforce filed by Aaron Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/13/2017 1704 Exhibit List (Plaintiffs' Amended Exhibit List) by Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1698 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion providing information regarding various inmate activities as a result of Rasho Settlement and subsequent compliance by the IDOC. Movant explains that offenders have been filing less grievances, less motion, and have opted out of participation in therapy groups. Movant requests that this Court Monitor review the "in−house hourly rounds of [mental health providers]." The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1699 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about the uneven treatment received by seriously mentally ill inmates. Movant complains that some inmates housed in certain areas are entitled to privileges, while others are not. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court have the Court Monitor review the information for the upcoming hearing. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1701 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion providing information regarding certain events wherein he alleges staff misconduct at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant does not requests any specific relief from this Court. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1702 Motion. Movant Marquette Buie has filed a Motion alleging that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center assaulted him. Movant requests that this Court order an investigation into his allegations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1703 Motion. Movant Aaron Smith has filed a Motion complaining that he is entitled to a review of his disciplinary record under the terms of the Rasho settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017 1705 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by R. Douglas Rees on behalf of All Defendants (Rees, R.) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 170 of 306

12/14/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by phone, Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan/Chris Higgerson/Mike Arnold/Doug Rees/Andrew Ramage for Defendants for Status Conference held on 12/14/2017. Discussion held re: 1696 Plaintiffs' Exhibit List, specifically, exhibit 3, Cohen Report. Arguments held. Over the objection of Plaintiffs' counsel, the Cohen Report will not be allowed to be introduced as evidence during the hearing, however, the Court will allow references as contained in the bond statement and Dr. Patterson's report. (Court Reporter NM.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/15/2017 1706 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017 1707 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017 1708 Letter from Ashoor Rasho on behalf of Basil Mohandie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017 1709 RESPONSE to Motion re 1681 MOTION to Amend Request for Relief and Memorandum on the Enforcement Process (Corrected) filed by Defendants John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro. (Corrigan, Terence) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/18/2017 1710 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities on Deliberate Indifference by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/18/2017 1711 MEMORANDUM Summarizing Settlement Terms at Issue by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/18/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1644 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion explaining that he was not selected to testify at the upcoming hearing in this matter. Movant implies that his testimony may be useful given he is a "named plaintiff who [has] been [an] active vocal participant [in this case]." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. While Movant does not say it outright, it is clear he seeks to participate at the upcoming hearing. The Court declines to grant this relief. Class Counsel has explained Movant, while he has raised serious and significant issues, is not in the best position to testify on the issues they plan to advance at the hearing. (See ECF No. 1657). The Court finds it appropriate to defer to Class Counsel on this issue at this time. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/18/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/18/2017 1712 MOTION for Immediate Transfer filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/18/2017 1713 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/18/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholt/Brian Pflaum/Nicole Schult for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan/Chris Higgerson/Doug Rees for Defendants for Evidentiary/Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 12/18/2017. Discussion held re: Nature of this Hearing. Court makes its ruling. Discussion re: Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List. Opening statement by Plaintiffs' counsel. Witnesses sworn. Testimony heard. Hearing continued to 12/19/2017 at 9:15 am in courtroom B, before Judge Michael M. Mihm.(Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/19/2017 1714 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Allen Brown for (Sean Hanks). (VH, ilcd) Modified on 12/19/2017 to correct name (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/19/2017 1715 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Allen Brown, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/19/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1715 Motion. Movant Allen Brown Jr. has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains, among other things, that he has been denied proper treatment, has had his HIPAA rights violated, and denied access to group therapy. Movant does not requests any specific relief. As such, the Court declines to grant any relief, but directs Class

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 171 of 306

Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/19/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/19/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholt/Brian Pflaum/Nicole Schult for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan/Chris Higgerson/Doug Rees for Defendants for Continued Evidentiary/Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 12/19/2017. Witnesses sworn. Testimony heard. Oral motion by Plaintiffs' counsel for entry of Preliminary Injunction. Motion DENIED. Evidentiary Hearing will resume on 2/26/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/19/2017 1716 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST re: Evidentiary Hearing held on 12/18/17−12/19/2017. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1713 Motion. Movant Rashee McGee has filed a Motion arguing the Defendants have violated the "Agreed Order." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant explains that he is being held in segregation, continuing to get tickets, and going on crisis watch. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1712 Motion. Movant Tony Benson has filed a Motion requesting that the Court take immediate action and transfer him to another facility. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant provides several areas wherein he alleges the Defendants have been violating the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1707 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed another Motion providing additional information regarding his complaint that the law library is refusing to submit his entire filing to the Court. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court have Class Counsel review this Motion. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 1717 MOTION filed by Anthony White. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 1718 Emergency MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 1719 NOTICE to Court filed by Sean Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 1720 NOTICE to Court filed by Aaron Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1714 Motion. Movant Allen Brown has filed a Motion apparently drafted by inmate Sean Hanks. Mr. Hanks is apparently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. While the intentions of Movant Brown are certainly honorable, seriously mentally ill ("SMI") inmates are represented by Class Counsel. As such, it would be

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 172 of 306

appropriate for Class Counsel to file motions on behalf of SMI inmates in this matter. As such, the Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1718 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining that he is being retaliated against, denied medical attention, and denied his religious jewelry. Movant also notes that he is being kept in segregation, which makes his mental illness worse. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant does not request any specific relief. As such, the Motion is DENIED. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1717 Motion. Movant Anthony White has filed a Motion complaining that he and other inmates are subject to sexual harassment by staff employees Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court investigate his claim. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/21/2017 1721 Emergency MOTION/Notice filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/22/2017 1722 Emergency MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

12/22/2017 1723 MOTION for Copy of Text Order to Document (1692) filed by Anthony Gay. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

12/22/2017 1724 MOTION filed by Delmar Gray. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

12/22/2017 1725 MOTION filed by James Hughes, Jr. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

12/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1721 Motion and 1722 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed two Motions complaining that he is not receiving certain medical attention. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant explains that he would like to be contacted by Class Counsel. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1723 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay states he has not received a copy of this Courts TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 12/11/2017. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 12/11/2017. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1724 Motion. Movant Delmar Gray has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member had made inappropriate comments to him and he was subsequently unable to participate in group therapy. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant generally asks that the Court assist with his issue. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 173 of 306

deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1725 Motion. Movant James Hughes Jr. has filed a Motion explaining his current situation, including how he became incarcerated and he is currently being housed in segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant asserts generally that he is in the need of assistance. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/26/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1726 MOTION for Copies filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1727 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1728 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1729 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/26/2017: # 1 Violation of Agreed Order) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1730 NOTICE to the Court filed by George Fernandez (Attachments: # 1 Attachments)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1731 Letter from Joshua Nirchi requesting information re: 842 . (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/26/2017 1732 Letter from Cezar Waskowski. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

12/27/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1726 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion requesting copies of certain pleadings in this case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested at this time. However, Movant should direct his inquiry to Class Counsel who should be able to provide him with copies of documents he is seeking in this case. Should Movant experience difficulty obtaining documents from Class Counsel, he may submit another Motion with the Court. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2017)

12/27/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1729 Motion. Movant Rasheed McGee has filed a Motion alleging the Defendants have violated the Agreed Order. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically argues that Pontiac Correctional Center does not have trained mental health security. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/27/2017. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2017)

12/27/2017 1733 MOTIONS to INFORM THE COURTS filed by Steven D Lisle, Jr. Responses due by 1/10/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Motion to inform re medication)(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2017)

12/28/2017 1734 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 1/11/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/28/2017)

12/29/2017 1735 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/29/2017)

12/29/2017 1737 NOTICE to the Court by Samuel Span. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/02/2018 1736 Plaintiff's MOTION to Enforce the Settlement Agreement filed by Samuel Span. Responses due by 1/16/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 174 of 306

01/02/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1736 Motion. Movant Samuel Span has filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains the Defendants are not adhering to the settlement agreement by failing to provide him with "agreed treatment." Movant also complains that he is not receiving certain "privileges" as directed. Movant seeks injunctive relieve by ordering the Defendants to provide him treatment within the terms of his individual treatment plan. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/2/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/02/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1733 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member at Pontiac Correctional Center continues to harass him. Movant requests that this Court order that the staff member be required to stay away from him. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/2/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/02/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1728 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that the Defendants are not adhering to various treatment obligations under the Illinois Administrative Code and/or the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court and Class Counsel address these violations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested in the matter set forth in the Movant's filing, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/2/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/02/2018 1738 NOTICE to Court filed by Charles Mohamed Robinson. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/02/2018)

01/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1727 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion raising concerns that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are "censoring" his filings by removing certain exhibits such as case law and/or articles. The Court is extremely concerned that staff members are reviewing the documents to determine what is "relevant" to the litigant's case. From other cases, the Court is aware of this practice by Pontiac. It is somewhat troubling that the library staff is making determinations of what is relevant and/or essential to the pleading. Defendants' Counsel is DIRECTED to investigate the Movant's allegations and report back to this Court within 30 days. The Court declines is issue any other relief at this time. After Defendants file their report, the Court will determine if any further relief is necessary. At this time, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1739 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1740 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1741 MOTION to Compel filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1742 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1743 Letter from Marcus Hall Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1740 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about unequal treatment for inmates with mental illnesses (ECF No. 1740). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant generally requests that Class Counsel address this issue. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 175 of 306

Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1734 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about the treatment of mentally ill inmates specifically related to transfers (ECF No. 1740). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests Class Counsel raise this issue when the Court reconvenes the evidentiary hearing in February. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1744 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Christopher Knox and Michael Raggs. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1745 MOTION Informing the Court filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1746 MOTION filed by Kilsey Shearrill. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1747 Renewed MOTION to Enforce filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1748 MOTION for Violation of Agreed Order filed by Jamale Douglas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1749 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/03/2018 1750 MOTION Informing the Court filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1744 Motion. Movants Christopher Knox and Michael Raggs have filed a Motion explaining that Pontiac Correctional Center staff members have not documented their hunger strikes. Movants also assert that they are on hunger strikes "to bring to light [ ] the lack of mental health treatment [ ]." Movants request they they be interviewed and that the reason for their hunger strikes be investigated. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1745 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion asserting that he has been housed at Pontiac Correctional Center in a cold cell with inadequate bedding. Movant also complains that he has not been given his medication. Movant requests that this Court direct that he receive medical treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Court also directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movant's filing to the Warden. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1746 Motion. Movant Kilsey Shearrill has filed a Motion complaining the Pontiac Correctional Center has failed to adhere to the directives of the Court. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains, among other things, about the shower situation at the institution and ability

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 176 of 306

to possess an electric shaver. Movant requests that he be allowed to have an electric razor. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1747 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay has filed a Motion renewing his previous Motion seeking restoration of good time credits. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court previously directed the Court Monitor to review Movant's situation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for his review previously directed by this Court. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1748 Motion. Movant Jamale Douglas has filed a Motion complaining that his duration in segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court help him with the reduction of his segregation time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1749 Motion. Movant Tony Benson has filed a Motion complaining that his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about, among other things, staff's failure to document his hunger strike, HIPAA violations, and threats of violence by staff members. Movant requests that this Court address issues raised in his letter. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018 1751 Letter from Delmar Gray. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1750 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a second Motion complaining about being in a cold cell without appropriate bedding. This is Movants second Motion on the matter. For the same reasons previously provided by the Court, the Motion is DENIED. Nonetheless, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1741 MOTION to Compel and 1739 MOTION. Two inmates have has filed Motions (ECF Nos. 1739 and 1741) indicating that they are not receiving the Court's rulings on their Motions. Both Movants are currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Additionally, both Movants have recently filed Motions with the Court. One of the Movants suggest that retaliation is the underlying cause for this action by the staff members. Defendants are directed to respond to these Motions within 21 days of this Order. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018 1752 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 177 of 306
01/05/2018 1753 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
01/05/2018 1754 MOTION Requesting Transfer filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
01/05/2018 1755 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
01/05/2018 1756 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
01/08/2018 1757 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. I − held on 12/18/17, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Terence Corrigan.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/9/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
01/08/2018 1758 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. II − held on 12/19/17, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Terence Corrigan.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/9/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
01/08/2018 1759 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
01/08/2018 1760 MOTION to Compel filed by Lamar Robinson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
01/08/2018 1761 MOTION to Enforce filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 178 of 306

01/08/2018 1762 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018 1763 MOTION to Compel filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018 1764 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018 1765 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018 1766 NOTICE to Court filed by Eduardo Nauejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1762 Motion. Movant Tony Benson has filed a Motion complaining that he is not getting any of the mental health treatment or out−of−cell time because he is currently on hunger strike. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court take "immediate action" on matters raised in his complaint. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1761 Motion. Movant Samuel Spann has filed a Motion requesting that this Court enter an order allowing seriously mentally ill inmates the ability to participate in "Behavior Treatment Programs." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1754 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining that he continues to receive death threats and is being denied medical attention. Movant has previously raised these concerns. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to another institution or place in a cell that can be seen by cameras. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1752 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining of various alleged violations of the settlement agreement and general complaints about treatment of inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court the Court Monitor be replaced and the services at Pontiac be reevaluated. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/09/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER RE: 1753 Motion, 1759 Motion, and 1763 Motion. Several inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center have complained about alleged retaliation related to having their Court filings "censored" or otherwise modified by having exhibits removed. The Court has directed Defendants to respond to these allegations. Some of the Movants indicate a new "Bulletin" has been issued by IDOC or the institution restricting what can be allowed as exhibits. Defendants should address this issue in its response. Additionally, some Movants have filed multiple Motions on this issue, and in order to effectively manage the Motions, the Court will deem any subsequent filing by Movant as a "supplement" to their original Motion (ECF Nos.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 179 of 306

1753, 1759 and 1763 are deemed supplements/moot as Motions). The Court will rule on the pending Motions after receipt of the Defendants' response. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/9/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2018)

01/09/2018 1767 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Desiree K Kumar on behalf of John R Baldwin, Willard Elyea, Eddie Jones, Wendy Navarro (Kumar, Desiree) (Entered: 01/09/2018)

01/10/2018 1768 MOTION to Enforce/Motion to Compel filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2018)

01/10/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1768 Motion. Movant Samuel Span has filed a Motion to Enforce the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been in long term segregation confinement in excess allowed under the settlement agreement based on the types of disciplinary tickets he received. Movant requests that this Court reduce his segregation time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/10/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2018)

01/11/2018 1769 Emergency MOTION for Court's Intervention filed on behalf of Lamar Robinson and Tony Benson filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/11/2018 1770 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/11/2018 1771 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/11/2018 1772 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/11/2018 1773 Renewed MOTION for Copies filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/11/2018 1774 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/11/2018 1775 MOTION to Enforce filed by Lamar Robinson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/12/2018 1776 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/12/2018)

01/16/2018 1777 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/16/2018 1778 MOTION to Investigate by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/16/2018 1779 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/16/2018 1780 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/16/2018 1781 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/16/2018 1782 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

01/17/2018 1783 Letter from Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

01/17/2018 1784 Letter from Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

01/18/2018 1785 MOTION for Objection and/or Enforcement of Settlement... filed by Kelvin Merritt. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1785 Motion. Movant Kelvin Merritt has filed a Motion complaining about the treatment of mentally ill inmates at Menard Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Menard. Movant specifically complains about, among other things, the confidentiality of treatment, having to choose between yard and group therapy, and lack of effective treatment plans. Movant requests that this Court find Menard is not a facility for treatment of mentally ill inmates. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 180 of 306

the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/18/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1778 Motion. Movant Samuel Span has recently made several filings in this case. (ECF Nos. 1782, 1781, 1780, 1779, 1778, and 1774). These filings address a myriad of issues arising out of his incarceration at Pontiac Correctional Center. Span details the struggles of a fellow inmates (ECF Nos. 1782, 1778, and 1772), information regarding his own medical condition (letters to various individuals (ECF Nos. 1781. 1780, 1779)), and issues regarding the librarian (1774). The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested by Movant, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of each of Span's Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/18/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1769 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay has filed a Motion on behalf of two inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court review the segregation placement of his fellow inmates. Movant is advised that he cannot seek relief on behalf of fellow inmates. As such, the Court declines to grant the relief requested, but nonetheless directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/18/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1775 Motion. Movant Lamar Robinson has filed a Motion complaining that he is receiving inadequate mental health treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In support of his Motion, Movant details several incidents of self−harm. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of the Motion to the Warden. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/18/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER RE: 1770 Motion, 1771 Motion, 1776 Motion, and 1777 Motion (finding Motions as moot/as supplements). Movant Don Collins has filed several Motions to supplement his previously filed Motion related to issues at the Pontiac Correctional Center's library. The Court will consider these filings in the context of the original Motion (as supplements). Parenthetically, Movant indicates that he has not received a copy of the the Court's Order related to his 1707 Motion. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with another copy of the TEXT ONLY Order dated 12/20/2017, addressing his Motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/18/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1773 Motion. Movant seeks copies of certain documents in this case. Movant indicates that he has submitted the voucher to cover the costs of copies to the correctional center. The Court has not received the funds necessary for the copies. Movant should confirm with the correctional center regarding his submission of the voucher. At this time, the Court declines to direct the correctional center to take action. If the Movant's confirms he has submitted the voucher, and is still not getting the voucher issued, he may refile the Motion attaching all relevant documents. At this time, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/18/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018 1786 MOTION to Investigate filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018 1787 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018 1788 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 181 of 306

01/18/2018 1789 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/19/2018 1790 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order... filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/19/2018 1791 MOTION to Investigate filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/22/2018 1792 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 1793 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 1794 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 1795 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018 1796 MOTION to Investigate filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1787 Motion, 1788 Motion, 1789 Motion, 1792 Motion, and 1793 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a series of Motions complaining about various aspects of this litigation or his treatment while being incarcerated. (ECF Nos. 1787, 1788, 1789, 1792, and 1793). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complaints include, among other things, alleged retaliation and unjust punishment by staff members (ECF Nos. 1792 and 1793), inadequate diet (soy) (ECF No. 1789), and deficiencies of class counsel (ECF Nos. 1787 and 1788). In one of his Motions, Movant suggests that an outside agency should be put in place to monitor the prison. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, except to the extent the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/22/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1786 Motion, 1791 Motion, and 1796 Motion. Movant Samuel Span has filed three Motions requesting that the Court investigate Pontiac Correctional Center staff members treatment of mentally ill inmates. The Movant provides several examples of issues related to the inmates treatment in support of his request. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/22/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1790 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion alleging that Pontiac Correctional Center is in violation of the settlement agreement related to his treatment. The Movant requests that the Court transfer him, and several other inmates, to a joint treatment center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/22/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

01/23/2018 1797 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

01/23/2018 1798 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

01/23/2018 1799 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2018)

01/24/2018 1800 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2018)

01/24/2018 1801 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2018)

01/24/2018 1802 MOTION filed by Anthony Gay. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2018)

01/24/2018 1803 MOTION in Violation of Settlement Violation filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 182 of 306

01/24/2018 1804 Emergency MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Laton Stubblefield. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2018)

01/25/2018 1805 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 2/8/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

01/25/2018 1806 MOTION (filed as Motion for Compensation/Legal Fees) filed by Samuel Span. Responses due by 2/8/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

01/25/2018 1807 MOTION (filed as Motion to Investigate) filed by Samuel Span. Responses due by 2/8/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

01/25/2018 1808 MOTION (filed as Settlement Violations) filed by Mario English. Responses due by 2/8/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

01/25/2018 1809 RESPONSE to Motion re 1727 MOTION, 1741 MOTION to Compel, 1739 MOTION concerning receipt of court rulings filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 01/25/2018)

01/26/2018 1810 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018 1811 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018 1812 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018 1813 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018 1814 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018 1815 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018 1816 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1797 Motion, 1800 Motion, 1801 Motion, 1805 Motion, 1810 Motion, 1811 Motion, and 1812 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a series of Motions complaining about various matters, including Class Counsel's lack of attention to matters in this case (ECF Nos. 1797 and 1910), mental health professionals' treatment and placement of mentally ill inmates (ECF Nos. 1801 and 1811), the lack of, and cutting of, programs for mentally ill inmates (ECF No. 1800), and an increase in segregation inmates going into crisis (ECF No. 1805). Movant also requests a status on the previously raised issue regarding the library. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests various relief, including the reassignment of this case to other class counsel. (ECF No. 1797). The Court declines to grant the relief requested, except the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the Defendants' Response to the library issue. (ECF No. 1809). Furthermore, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/26/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1806 Motion and 1807 Motion. Movant Samuel Span has filed two Motions (ECF Nos. 1807 and 1808) and several letters (ECF Nos. 1814, 1815, 1816) complaining about various issues related to his incarceration. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court direct Class Counsel to provide him legal fees for the research he has performed. Additionally, Movant requests that this Court investigate a matter concern another inmate. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/26/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/26/2018)

01/29/2018 1817 Letter from James Pender requesting copies and how to qualify for the class. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 183 of 306

01/29/2018 1818 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 1819 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 1820 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/30/2018 1821 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2018)

01/30/2018 1822 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2018)

01/31/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1813 Motion. Movant Ned James apparently has filed a Motion on behalf of another inmate. Both the Movant and the fellow inmate are currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court transfer the fellow inmate to another location. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. Nonetheless, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant also indicates the fellow inmate could engage self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

01/31/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1803 Motion and 1808 Motion. Movant Mario S. English has recently filed two Motions in this matter complaining that there have been violations of the settlement agreement. In his Motions, Movant details information about his treatment and the treatment of other inmates. Movant does not request any specific relief. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

01/31/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1802 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay has filed a Motion regarding the previously raised issue of seeking restoration of good time credits. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court previously directed the Court Monitor to review Movant's situation. The Court declines to grant any additional relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor for his review previously directed by this Court. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

01/31/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1804 Motion. Movant Laton Stubblefield has filed a Motion complaining about the treatment of mentally ill inmates at that Dixon Correctional Center. The Movant does not request any specific relief. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

01/31/2018 1823 MOTION for Reconsideration... filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

01/31/2018 1824 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2018)

02/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1823 Motion for Reconsideration. Movant Samuel Spann has filed a Motion requesting that this Court reconsider its previous order denying his Motion for attorneys' fees. (See TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 1/26/2018). Movant argues that the Court denied the Motion prior to receiving a response from Class Counsel. The Court declines to reconsider its decision. No response was necessary from Class Counsel as the decision could be made strictly on the Movants filing. The Movant is not entitled to any fees. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 184 of 306

02/01/2018 1825 MOTION for Objection and/or Enforcement of Settlement Agreement... filed by Winfred Bryant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018 1826 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018 1827 NOTICE filed by Harrison Hardimon regarding change of address. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018 1828 MOTION filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1825 Motion. Movant Winfred Bryant has filed a Motion purportedly to object to, or highlight a violation of, the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant states that the Defendants are not adhering to the settlement agreement by, among other things, failing to provide confidentiality to inmates and failing to properly provide treatment plans. Movant requests that this Court find the Defendants in default and to impose sanctions. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1828 Motion. Movant Charles Donelson has filed a Motion asking the Court to fire the Court Monitor and visit Stateville Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Stateville Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/02/2018 1829 Letter from Terrence Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018 1830 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018 1831 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/05/2018 1833 MOTIONS by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 2/20/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Motion, # 2 Exhibit)(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 1834 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Allen Brown, Jr. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 1835 NOTICE of Settlement Violations by Anthony S. White. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/06/2018 1836 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/06/2018 1837 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1831 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion seeking to have this Court enter an order to shut down two galleries on Pontiac Correctional Center's South Mental Unit. Movant claims, among other things, there is a "raw sewage issue" on these galleries. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/6/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/07/2018 1838 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 2/21/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 185 of 306

02/07/2018 1839 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Allen Brown. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1837 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion indicating he has not received a response from the Court on a previous filing. Notably, the Court had not issued any response to (ECF No. 1784) as of the date of this order. Nonetheless, in his previous filing, Movant request that the Court Monitor review his complains of staff misconduct. The Court declines to require the Court Monitor to take any specific action at this time, however, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/7/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/08/2018 1840 MOTION (filed in letter format) by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1840 Motion. Movant Rasho McGee has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment while incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant attaches a copy of a grievance he has filed. Movant requests that this Court take action in assisting him. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. If Movant intended for his filing to be a new Complaint (separate action), he should resubmit the filing and specifically note he seeks to open a new case. In the context of this case, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1820 Motion, 1821 Motion, 1830 Motion, and 1838 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed four additional Motions in this case complaining of class counsels' conduct. In his Motion (ECF No. 1821), Movant complains that Class Counsel does not adequately represent the class in this matter. Movant also implies the Court has an improper bias that allows Class Counsel to continue in their role (noting one attorney in particular). Movant is admonished that making such allegations have serious consequences and such allegations must be supported by facts. The Court affirmatively states that no such relationship is present in this case that would create a bias. Moreover, Movant's complaints regarding his counsel should be directly addressed with class counsel. The Motion is DENIED. Movant has also filed Motions complaining of the treatment of mentally ill inmates by staff members. (ECF No. 1820 and 1838). Movant, again, notes that Class Counsel has ignored his concerns. Finally, in (ECF No. 1830), Movant complains that about counsels' assistance with his medical permits. Movant does not request any specific relief with respect to these Motions Nonetheless, the Court directs Class Counsel to review the Movant's Motions, and further provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor, to determine if any further action is necessary. As to any other relief, the Motions are DENIED. Movant is again advised that any individual complaints should go through the IDOCs grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018 1841 MOTION for Rehearing filed by Kelvin Merritt. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 1739 Motion, 1741 Motion to Compel, and 1760 Motion to Compel and denying 1833 Motion. Movants Lamar Robinson, Samuel Span, and Don Collins have filed Motions (1760, 1741, and 1739) raising similar complaints regarding the filing practices at the Pontiac Correctional Center law library. Specifically, the Movants complain about receiving orders of the Court and their ability to file exhibits. This Court directed the Defendants to respond to the Motions. On January 25, 2018, the Defendants responded. (See ECF No. 1809). First, the Defendants note that it has issued a reminder to the correctional centers that all materials submitted by the inmates must be scanned and filed. Second, the Defendants note that the Court's responses to Motions are printed and provided to the inmates.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 186 of 306

The Court is satisfied with the Defendants' Response. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the Defendants' Response to the Movants. Furthermore, the Court understands the Movants may not be satisfied with the Defendants' Response. However, in the context of this case, the Court is satisfied that filings will be made, and Movants will receive the Court's Orders related to their Motions. Should Movant want to seek additional remedies, they must pursue their issues through the normal grievance procedure or in another forum they deem appropriate. Parenthetically, Movant Collins indicates that there are additional restrictions being put in place regarding requesting case law (and having to return the printed copy or pay a fee) (ECF No. 1833). This would be an issue that Movant may want to pursue through the grievance process. Here, it is DENIED. Finally, the Court would note that it has access to all published Court cases and it is unnecessary the Movants to attached such documents to their Motions. Put another way, Movants are free to exclude those documents if they so choose. In sum, in the context of this litigation, the Motions are now MOOT. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018 1842 Letter from Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018 1843 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Anthony Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018 1844 NOTICE to Court filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1843 Motion. Movant Anthony Fields has filed a Motion complaining that certain correctional staff members are harassing him. Movant further complains about his medical treatment while in prison. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Movant indicates he could be in harm − either by staff members or self−harm. The Motion is DENIED. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Because Movant also indicates he could engage self−injurious behavior, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/09/2018 1845 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 1846 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 1847 MOTION filed Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 1848 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 1849 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 1850 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed Anthony Fields. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/12/2018 1851 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by William Holtz. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018 1852 Letter from Maurice Shaw. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/13/2018 1853 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018 1854 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1847 Motion, 1848 Motion, 1849 Motion and 1854 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed several additional Motions in this case (ECF Nos. 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1854). The subjects of the Motions vary, but generally Movant complains of staff misconduct (including alleged misconduct toward other inmates), Defendants' failure to adhere to the settlement agreement, class counsels' performance, and this Court's review of his Motions. As it relates to the latter, Movant complains that this Court does not thoroughly review his Motions. To be clear, the Court thoroughly reviews the Movant's Motions, however, it is mindful that the class is represented by counsel. Movant, while a named plaintiff, is not counsel for the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 187 of 306

class. As such, the most appropriate action for this Court to take when presented by Movant's Motions is to forward them to Class Counsel (and/or the Court Monitor) for review and determination if additional action is needed. As to the conduct of Class Counsel, the Court has seen no evidence that they are deficient in their representation of the class. That being said, Movant should continue to communicate with Class Counsel regarding his concerns. As to the present Motions, the Court declines to grant any relief other than the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/15/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018 1855 NOTICE of Continued Settlement Violation filed by Anthony White. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/16/2018 1856 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 3/2/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/16/2018 1857 Proposed Findings of Fact by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/20/2018 1858 MOTION in Limine to Bar Defendants From Submitting New Exhibits At Trial by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/20/2018 1859 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/20/2018 1860 Letter from Michael Chennault. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/20/2018 1861 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/20/2018 1862 MOTION Informing the Court...filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1862 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion complaining about the conduct of certain staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order an investigation into the matter. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1856 Motion and 1859 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two recent Motion providing information regarding his medical treatment (ECF No. 1856) and the discontinuation of certain services (ECF No. 1859). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates that he has raised these issues with Class Counsel and has not received a satisfactory response. Movant also requests that the matters be reviewed by the Court, either independently or at the upcoming hearing. The Court declines to grant the relief specific requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1845 Motion. Movant Anthony S. White has filed a Motion raising several concerns about his treatment while incarcerated. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically states that he has been denied opportunities to participate in group and individual therapy, current placement, and the failure to review his disciplinary reports to determine whether his mental illness contributed to his infractions. Movant requests that this Court "enforce the settlement agreement by ordering IDOC − Pontiac Correctional Center's compliance on the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 188 of 306

violations [he alleges]." The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1841 Motion. Movant Kelvin Merritt has filed a Motion requesting "rehearing" on his previously filed Motion alleging the IDOC has breached the settlement agreement as it relates to treatment of mentally ill inmates at Menard Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that the Court did not have the Defendants respond to the Motion, he was filing on behalf of class members, and nothing has been done to address the Defendants' actions. The Motion is DENIED. First, the Plaintiffs in this case are represented by counsel. Motions regarding the class should be brought by Class Counsel. As such, Movant should direct his concerns to Class Counsel to determine whether action should be brought on behalf of the class. Second, it should be noted that Class Counsel has brought a Motion alleging the Defendants have not adhered to the settlement agreement. Finally, based on the Movant's filing, the Court found it could rule without the need for a response. While the Motion is DENIED, the Court again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1850 Motion. Movant Anthony Fields has filed a Motion raising concerns about the South Mental Unit at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court action to remove him from the South Mental Unit. Movant complains that he has written grievances on this issue and no change has been made. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of the Movant's filing to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center for his consideration. Finally, Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018 1863 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018 1864 MOTION to Enforce Settlement filed by Christopher Knox. (Attachments: # 1 Motion)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018 1865 Emergency Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/21/2018

TEXT ONLY NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER setting Briefing Schedule for 1858 MOTION in Limine to Bar Defendants From Submitting New Exhibits At Trial filed by Ashoor Rasho. At the Parties' request, the Evidentiary Hearing is now set to resume on Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 09:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Defendants are directed to respond to 1858 MOTION in Limine on or before close of business Friday, February 23, 2018. A Status Conference regarding 1858 MOTION in Limine is set for Monday, February 26, 2018 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. The Status Conference will be vacated if the Parties report to the Court by close of business Friday, February 23, 2018, that all matters related to the 1858 MOTION in Limine have been resolved. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

02/22/2018 1867 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 3/8/2018 (Pflaum, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/22/2018 1868 MOTION to Amend/Correct Exhibit 23 by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 189 of 306

02/22/2018 1869 MEMORANDUM Summary of Settlement Terms at Issue by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/22/2018 1870 Exhibit List (amended and updated) by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1867 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brian Alexander Rand Pflaum terminated. Class remains represented by other attorneys. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/23/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1868 Motion to Amend/Correct. Exhibit 23 to be replaced with Corrected Exhibit 23. (See ECF No. 1716). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/23/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1864 Motion. Movant Christopher Knox has filed a Motion claiming he is being denied adequate mental health treatment and access to mental health programs and being denied a transfer to another institution. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court investigate his claims. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/23/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/23/2018 1871 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/23/2018 1872 RESPONSE to Motion re 1858 MOTION in Limine to Bar Defendants From Submitting New Exhibits At Trial filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/25/2018 1873 Exhibit List updated 2/25/18 to add DX49 by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 02/25/2018)

02/26/2018 1874 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

02/26/2018 1875 Letter from Abdul Love. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

02/26/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt and Nicole Schult for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan, Desiree Kumar and Doug Rees for the Defendants and Attorney Andrew Ramage for Wexford for Status Conference held on 2/26/2018. Discussion held regarding 1858 MOTION in Limine to Bar Defendants From Submitting New Exhibits At Trial by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Motion GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and WITHDRAWN IN PART. The Court directs Defendants to comply with Plaintiffs' requests for information regarding exhibits DX−34,35,36,38,43, and 48 as discussed on the status forthwith. Resolution on exhibits DX−31 and 42 reached insofar as Defendants may seek to offer these exhibits after certain testimony. Defendants to have available witnesses (2) who are knowledgeable and responsible for gathering information related to DX−/DX−35/DX48. Evidentiary hearing to start 2/27/2018. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1863 Motion, 1871 Motion, and 1874 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three additional Motions in this case raising concerns and complaints regarding: (1) the lack of responses to previously filed pleadings and counsels' performance (ECF No. 1863, referring to ECF Nos. 1341, 1784, 1842, and 1854), (2) institutional staff members' job performance, and complaints regarding treatment and conditions (ECF No. 1871), and (3) retaliation for raising the issues related to the library (ECF No. 1874). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests various measures of relief, including requesting new counsel, removing the court monitor, and ordering investigations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the present Motions and the Movant's previous filings (ECF Nos. 1341, 1784, 1842, and 1854) to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 190 of 306

Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/27/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/27/2018 1876 NOTICE in violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 1676 Motion in Limine re: Witnesses. Defendants have filed new witness list (ECF No. 1832). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/27/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

02/27/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholt/Nicole Schult for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Terence Corrigan/Doug Rees/Andrew Ramage for Defendants for Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/27/2018. Opening statement by Defendants' counsel. Witnesses sworn. Testimony heard. Evidence entered. Discussion held regarding admission and/or objections to exhibits. Evidential Hearing continued to 2/28/2018 at 9:00 am in courtroom B, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter K. Sullivan.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018 1877 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018 1878 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion to Compel... filed by Denzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018 1879 Letter from Denzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018 1880 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018 1881 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

02/28/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholdt/Nicole Schult for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees/Camille Lindsay/Andrew Ramage for Defendants for Evidentiary Hearing held on 2/28/2018. Discussion held regarding Court's proposal to have further testimony of Dr. Stewart. Witnesses sworn. Testimony heard. Evidence entered. Evidentiary Hearing continued to Thursday, 3/1/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 1882 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 1883 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 1884 Letter from Marcus Hall. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018 1885 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2018)

03/01/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholdt for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees/Camille Lindsay/Chris Higgerson for Defendants for Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/1/2018. Witnesses sworn. Testimony heard. Evidence entered. Evidentiary Hearing continued to Friday, 3/2/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

03/02/2018 1886 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

03/02/2018 1887 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

03/02/2018 1888 Letter from Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

03/02/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholdt for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees/Camille Lindsay/Chris Higgerson for Defendants for Evidentiary Hearing held on 3/2/2018. Witnesses sworn. Testimony heard. Evidence entered. Final argument heard. Plaintiff's Amended Request for Relief tendered to the Court. Defendants to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 191 of 306

filed on or before Friday, 4/6/2018. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) Modified on 3/5/2018 to correct the date the Defendant's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are to be filed. (JS, ilcd). (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/02/2018 1893 BRIEF in Support of 1559 MOTION Enforcement of Settlement Agreement by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho.(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/02/2018 1894 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST from Evidentiary Hearing 2/27/2018 − 3/2/2018. Exhibits held by Clerk stored in Clerk's Office Vault.(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/05/2018 1889 NOTICE filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/05/2018 1890 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/05/2018 1891 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/05/2018 1892 MOTION filed Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1877 Motion, 1882 Motion, 1886 Motion, 1887 Motion, 1890 Motion, 1891 Motion, and 1892 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed seven recent Motions raising concerns regarding the staffing of mental health professionals in IDOC (ECF No. 1882), welfare checks for inmates in crisis (ECF No. 1877), staff retaliation (ECF No. 1877), status of previous Motions (ECF No. 1886), the Court's handling of his Motions (ECF No. 1886), counsel's failure to respond to his written requests (ECF No. 1887), the conditions of the prison (ECF No. 1890 and 1892), and library's failure to comply with filing rules (ECF No. 1891). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court directs Class Counsel to respond to Movants request regarding documents. For the remaining documents, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions (and other referenced documents) to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1878 Motion. Movant Denzell Thrower has filed a Motion requesting certain medical treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he engaged in self−injurious behavior and continues to have problems related to that incident. Movant requests that this Court require the IDOC provide medical treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movant's filing and this Order to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court further directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/05/2018)

03/06/2018 1895 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/06/2018 1896 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/06/2018 1897 EMERGENCY NOTICE of Violation by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2018)

03/07/2018 1898 Emergency MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/07/2018 1899 MOTION filed by James Lewis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/08/2018 1900 MOTION Amended Request for Relief by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/08/2018 1901 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/09/2018 1902 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 192 of 306
03/09/2018 1903 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. III − held on 2/27/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber K. Sullivan, Telephone number 217−492−4810. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman, A. Antholt, A. Mills, Douglas Rees, T. Corrigan.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
03/09/2018 1904 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. IV − held on 2/28/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman, A. Antholt, A. Mills, Douglas Rees, T. Corrigan.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
03/09/2018 1905 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (REDACTED) of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. V − held on 3/1/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman, A. Antholt, A. Mills, Douglas Rees, C. Higgerson.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 193 of 306

public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
03/09/2018 1906 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. VI − held on 3/2/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman, A. Antholt, A. Mills, Douglas Rees, C. Higgerson.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

03/12/2018 03/12/2018
03/12/2018

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 1900 Motion. Motion filed by Class Counsel is duplicate of document presented during the hearing and docketed at (ECF No. 1893). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/12/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1898 Motion and 1901 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed two Motions complaining about his medical treatment and treatment/retaliation from institutional staff members. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to a different facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Because the Movant indicates an "emergency" medical need, the Court also directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of Movant's Motions to the Warden. Finally, Movant is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1895 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion providing information about, among other things, his treatment by staff members as it relates to medical permits. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates that he would like class counsel to "consider a new position" on these matters. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 194 of 306

Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/12/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1899 Motion. Movant James Lewis has filed a Motion arguing that there have been violations of the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Dixon Correctional Center. Movant's filing is somewhat unclear, however, he states he would like justice delivered because there has been "foul play" and a "conspiracy." The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/12/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1907 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1908 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1909 MOTION for Copies of Filings by Samuel Spann. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1910 MOTION for Order by Stephen Lisle. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1911 MOTION for Copy of Docket by Stephen Lisle. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1912 MOTION Compelling Court Monitor and Counsel all IDOC Officials and Pontiac Wardens and Mental Health Employees to provide Lisle Treatment by Stephen Lisle. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018 1913 MOTION to Court of Denial of Medical Treatment and Continued Retaliation by Stephen Lisle. Responses due by 3/26/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1907 Motion and 1908 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two recent Motions in this case complaining about the health services provided in the correctional institution (ECF No. 1908) and suggesting class counsel should withdraw from this case (ECF No. 1907). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also complains that the Court is reluctant to provide any remedy. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/13/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1910 Motion for Order, 1912 Motion to Compel, and 1913 Motion and granting 1911 Motion for copy of the docket sheet. Movant Stephen Lisle has filed four Motion complaining about his medication and withholding of his legal mail (ECF Nos. 1910, 1912, and 1913) and seeking a copy of the docket sheet (1911). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates, among other things, that he has been denied his psychotropic medication and that the he is suffering harm on the hands of staff members. Movant seeks this Court to intervene on these matters. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. As for Movant's request for a copy of the docket sheet, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy the docket sheet from the past twelve months. Should Movant seek additional information regarding the status of this case, he should reach

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 195 of 306

out to Class Counsel. The remaining Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/13/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1909 Motion. Movant Samuel Span has filed a Motion requesting copies of all the filings he has made in this case. Movant has made numerous filings in this docket, and in his recent filing fails to identify the specific filing that he needs, nor does he identify the specific need for any such document. The Court declines to scour the docket for every one of the Movant's filings. Movant can contact the Clerk of the Court directly for copies of the documents he so desires. However, the Movant will have to pay the copying charge. Alternatively, Movant may want to contact class counsel. In any event, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/13/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/14/2018 1914 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018 1915 MOTION to Compel Defendants... filed by Steven Lisle Jr. Responses due by 3/28/2018 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018 1916 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018 1917 Emergency MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/15/2018 1918 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018 1919 MOTION to Intervene filed by Steven Wuebbles. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/16/2018 1920 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018 1921 MOTION filed by Allen Brown Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1921 Motion. Movant Allen Brown Jr. has filed a Motion providing information regarding the increase in inmates participating in self−injuries behavior, and the lack of treatment for these inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests, among other things, that this Court order an immediate transfer of inmates in the residential treatment unit to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1914 Motion, 1918 Motion, and 1920 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three Motions in this matter. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motions, Movant complains about the library staff (ECF No. 1920) and class counsels handling of matters (ECF No. 1918, including attachment and 1914). The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 3/16/2018 to correct wording (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1919 Motion to Intervene. Movant Steven Wuebbles has filed a Motion providing information about the condition of a fellow inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac. Movant requests that this Court direct an independent monitor to investigate. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant also indicates the inmate has engaged in engage self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 196 of 306

03/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1916 Motion and 1917 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed two Motions in this case complaining that the Court and Class Counsel are failing to protect from (or further placing him in) danger. (ECF Nos. 1916 and 1917). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center]. Movant requests that this Court order an immediate transfer to another facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1915 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed a Motion requesting the Court compel the Defendants to provide seriously mentally ill inmates with out−of−cell time and employ more psychiatrist. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/19/2018 1922 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/19/2018 1923 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/20/2018 1924 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/20/2018 1925 MOTION filed by Ronnie Hervey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/20/2018 1926 MOTION filed by Willie Walls. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/21/2018 1927 MOTION filed by Rishon Travers. (VH, ilcd) (Main Document 1927 replaced on 3/21/2018) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1928 MOTION filed by Rafael Kennedy. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1929 NOTICE of Settlement Violations filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1930 MOTION filed by Romell Sturdivant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1931 MOTION filed by Jose Perez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1932 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1933 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1922 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motions raising two distinct issues. First, Movant indicates that he believes correspondences with the Court should be confidential. That is a misunderstanding. Any communication with the Court should be done with the understanding that filing will be made public, unless there is a compelling reason to seal the filing. Movant may find it beneficial to communicate and coordinate with Class Counsel on his filings. Second, Movant indicates the Court and Class Counsel should consider providing Mental Health Program Director and related staff members with "real−time" information on filings related to medical and mental health. Individuals should NOT use this docket as a means of addressing individual health concerns. Any health concern should be raised directly with the health care provider. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 1934 Letter from Joshua Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1923 Motion, 1924 Motion, 1932 Motion, and 1933 Motion. Movant Don Collins has recently filed four additional Motion in this case. Movant filings contain complaints related to this Court's review of his Motions, Class Counsel's response to his inquiries, inadequate treatment by Mental Health Staff

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 197 of 306

03/21/2018 03/21/2018 03/21/2018 03/21/2018

members, treatment plans (receiving copies and other non−compliance related thereto), and inmate transfers. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Notably, the Movant does not believe his complaints are being adequately addresses by the Court. As previously explained, Movant is free to raise his complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. In this case, the Plaintiffs are represented by Class Counsel. Movant stresses there has been a lack of communication with Class Counsel, nonetheless, it should be noted that Class Counsel recently participated in a hearing wherein they alleged various issues of non−compliance of the settlement agreement by the Defendants. Some of the issues raised are related to those Movant has brought up in the past. Movant is again encouraged to work directly with Class Counsel. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1931 Motion. Movant Jose Perez has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment while in the custody. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he is in long term segregation and has not been able to see Mental Health staff as needed. Movant requests, among other things, that this Court order that he be released from segregation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, based on the specific health issues raised in the Motion, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1925 Motion. Movant Ronnie Hervey has filed a Motion complaining that the Defendants are not adhering to the terms of the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he has been denied recreation time and medication. Movant requests that this Court, among other things, investigate his claims. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1930 Motion. Movant Romell Sturdivant has filed a Motion complaining about being held in long term solitary confinement and the impact it has had on him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court investigate his claim. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1926 Motion. Movant Willie Walls III has filed a Motion complaining about his treatment while in custody. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically outlines almost two dozen areas wherein he believes he and/or inmates are being mistreated. Movant requests that this Court conduct an investigation into his complaint. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 198 of 306

M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1928 Motion. Movant Rafeal Kennedy has filed a Motion complaining about the staffing levels at Pontiac Correctional Center and the use of long−term segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court investigate his complaint. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1927 Motion. Movant Rishon K. Travers has filed a Motion in this case requesting, among other things, that he be "paroled on [his] MSR date." Movant indicates that he is currently in segregation, and states that nothing is being done by field service to find him a halfway house despite his upcoming release on May 4, 2018. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, and Movant is advised that any individual complaint, such as the one raised in Movant's filing, should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/21/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/22/2018 1935 MOTION to Compel Defendants filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/22/2018 1936 MOTION to Intervene filed by James Wright. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/23/2018 1937 NOTICE of Violation filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 1938 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 1941 Letter from Dwayne Croom requesting information regarding the requirements of mental health professionals. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1936 Motion. Movant James Wright has filed a Motion purportedly on behalf of another inmate. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates that a fellow inmate has been put in danger and retaliated against by staff members. Movant requests that Class Counsel "intervene" on behalf of this inmate. While Movant's actions and intentions should be commended, he cannot represent another inmate. That being said, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/26/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/26/2018 1939 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/26/2018 1940 NOTICE in Violation of Equal Protection filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1935 Motion to Compel. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion related to a recent visit with the Court Monitor. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates that his meeting with Monitor resulted in a recommendation that, among other things, he be placed in a residential treatment unit. Movant requests that the Court compel the Defendants to follow the Monitor's recommendations. Movant does not provide any supporting documentation regarding the Monitor's recommendation. Nonetheless, the Court declines to grant the relief requested at this time, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/26/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 199 of 306

03/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1938 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that that his Court does not adequately address his Motions. Movant specifically accuses the Court of "spe[eding over" his "in−depth motions." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In the past year, Movant has filed over 150 motions in this case. Many of his Motions highlight issues with the Defendants' compliance with the settlement agreement or matters of mental health treatment that he has experienced and/or witnessed while incarcerated. Movant has often complained that Class Counsel has not been responsive to his communications and/or suggestions. Movant additionally has often complained that this Court has not adequately addressed his filings − either with sufficient amount of time or action. However, it should be clear, despite the fact that Movant has made many filings in this case, he is not Counsel. Class Counsel has been approved to represent the class. Movant's complaints about Class Counsel's lack of response have been addressed in this docket on several occasions. (See e.g. ECF No. 159, TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 5/18/2016, TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 2/8/2018, and TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 3/21/2018). Notably, Class Counsel has filed several pleadings raising numerous concerns with the Defendants' compliance with the settlement agreement. (See ECF Nos. 1893, 1869, 1681, and 1559). Nonetheless, as previously noted by this Court, Movant is represented by Class Counsel, and as such, the most appropriate action for this Court to take when presented by Movant's Motions is to forward them to Class Counsel (and/or the Court Monitor) for review and determination if additional action is needed. As such, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/26/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/27/2018 1942 MOTION by George Fernandez filed as "Emergency Motion for Finding of Non−Compliance and Relief". Responses due by 4/10/2018 (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018 1943 Letter from Samuel Span. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1939 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion questioning why RTU inmates cannot have the same services they had prior to the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates there has been a reduction in structured time, unstructured time, health services, and other services for these inmates. The Court declines to take any specific action at this time, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/27/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1942 Motion. Movant George Fernandez has filed a Motion complaining that he was involuntary forced to take medication. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court hold a hearing and find the Defendants in violation of the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/27/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/28/2018 1944 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/28/2018 1945 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/29/2018 1946 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 200 of 306

03/29/2018 1947 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

03/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1944 Motion, 1945 Motion, 1946 Motion, and 1947 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed four additional Motions in this case raising several complaints including specific complaints regarding the Court's and Class Counsels' handling of his Motions. (ECF Nos. 1944, 1945, 946 and 1947). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In the Motions, Movant also provides "clarification" on previously filed Motions, highlighting issues that he believes the Court and Class Counsel have misunderstood. As to more specifics, Movant explains that he has been out of segregation for over one−year, has had no disciplinary tickets, and has had recommendations to be transferred. (ECF Nos. 1944 and 1945). Movant also raises concerns regarding Class Counsels' selection of issues to raise to the Court, the failure to provide treatment plans in the institution (ECF No. 1946), and improper copying charges (ECF No. 1947). The Court has advised Movant on numerous occasions that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. To the extent Movant is raising more general concerns regarding treatment of SMI inmates and compliance with the settlement agreement, the Court finds it appropriate to direct Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Court fully understands Movant has complaints regarding his communications with Class Counsel, nonetheless, the class is represented by Class Counsel. Movant should work with Class Counsel on the issues he raises. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

04/02/2018 1948 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1949 MOTION filed by Marcus Brown. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1950 MOTION to Intervene filed by Sedrick Griffin. (VH, ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2018: # 1 Motion) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1951 MOTION to Intervene filed by Tyree Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/2/2018: # 1 Motion) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1952 MOTION to Intervene filed by Stephen Knox. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1953 NOTICE of Settlement Violation filed by James Glazier. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1954 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1955 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1956 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/02/2018 1957 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1948 Motion, 1956 Motion, and 1957 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three additional Motion in this case addressing issues such as denial of services (ECF Nos. 1957 and 1956), cases that have been filed regarding the same (ECF No. 1957), and staff member's failure to properly handle grievances (ECF No. 1948). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant does not request any specific relief, but generally seeks action by the Court and to further educate the Court on the various violations of IDOC's rules and the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1955 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion requesting that he Court provide him with structured out−of−cell time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant explains that he has only been receiving

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 201 of 306

"unstructured" time out of his cell. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1952 Motion. Movant Stephen Knox has filed a Motion regarding alleged retaliation by staff members against another inmate. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he has personally witnessed several members of Pontiac Correctional Center retaliate against his fellow inmate. Movant requests that this Court "intervene" on behalf of the inmate. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1950 Motion and 1951 Motion. Movants Tyree Harris and Sedrick Griffin have filed Motions informing the Court about the condition of a fellow inmate. Movants are currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movants are not the only individuals to mention this inmate by name. (See also ECF No. 1952). Movant requests that this Court intervene on behalf of this inmate. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. However, given the number of inmates that have reached out regarding this particular inmate (see also ECF Nos. 1855, 1835, and 1717), the Court directs Class Counsel to pay particular attention to these filings and further directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Court also directs the Clerk of the Court to provide copies of Movants' filings and the other recent filing (ECF No. 1952) to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1949 Motion. Movant Marcus Brown has filed a Motion requesting that the Court issue an order releasing him from maximum segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant argues his placement is in violation of various regulations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/3/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/04/2018 1958 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/04/2018 1959 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1958 Motion and 1959 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed two Motion in this case. In his first Motion, Movant requests that this Court have him released from segregation and place him in the residential treatment unit. (ECF No. 1958). In his second Motion, Movant requests that the Court order an investigation into his allegations of harassment. (ECF No. 1959). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 1941 Letter. Movant Dwayne T. Croom has filed a letter in this case indicating concerns over the handling of crisis intervention. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Statesville Correctional Center. Movant requests information regarding crisis

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 202 of 306

intervention. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to review the document to determine if any additional steps should be taken on their part. The Court further directs Class Counsel to forward this filing to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Finally, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to forward this filing to the Warden for his consideration. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/05/2018 1960 Letter from Denzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

04/05/2018 1961 Letter from Denzel Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

04/06/2018 1962 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018 1963 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018 1964 MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 4/20/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl Ex 37, # 2 Exhibit Pl Ex 38, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex 39, # 4 Exhibit Pl Ex 40)(Schult, Nicole) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018 1965 Proposed Findings of Fact by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018 1966 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 4/20/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/09/2018 1967 NOTICE to Court filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1968 MOTION filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1969 MOTION to Intervene filed by Bryan Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1970 MOTION to Intervene filed by James Wright. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1971 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1972 MOTION filed by Ramell Sturdivant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1973 MOTION filed by Ronnie Hervey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1974 MOTION filed Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/09/2018 1975 MOTION filed by Steve Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

04/10/2018 1976 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

04/10/2018 1977 MOTION filed by Danzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Main Document 1977 replaced on 4/10/2018) (RK, ilcd). (Entered: 04/10/2018)

04/10/2018 1978 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

04/10/2018 1979 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

04/10/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1962 Motion, 1978 Motion, and 1979 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed several new motions in this case. (ECF Nos. 1979, 1978, and 1962). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In one of his Motions, Movant states he has not received a Court response to previously filed Motions. (ECF No. 1962). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant with a copy of the TEXT ONLY ORDER dated March 29, 2018, addressing his Motions. In his remaining Motions, Movant raises concerns over placement review for transfers (ECF No. 1979) and an inmates receipt of treatment plans (ECF No. 1978). It is implicit that Movant seeks judicial review of these issues. The Court declines to grant any specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/10/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 203 of 306

04/11/2018 1980 MOTION filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/11/2018 1981 MOTION to Intervene filed by Deondre Winters. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/12/2018 1982 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/12/2018 1983 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1974 Motion and 1975 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle has filed two Motions involving his medical treatment and overall treatment while incarcerated. (ECF Nos. 1974 and 1975). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he is not yet been given the medication he has been prescribed. Movant also complains that staff members are retaliating against him. Movant requests that this Court order that he receive a certain medical treatment, and order an investigation his retaliation issue. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/12/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1971 Motion. Movant Ralph King has filed a Motion requesting a reduction in his segregation time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant provides he is in long−term segregation, and is unable to get relief under the settlement agreement. Movant requests that the Court order a segregation time reduction. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/12/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/13/2018 1984 MOTIONS by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 4/27/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Motion No. 2)(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1969 Motion, 1970 Motion, and 1981 Motion. Movants Bryan Jones, James Wright, and Deondre Winters have filed Motions to Intervene stating concerns for a fellow inmate. The Movants are all inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court has previously directed Class Counsel to review this situation. See e.g. TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 04/03/2018. While the Court denies the Motions, the Court again directs Class Counsel to pay particular attention to these filings and further directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Additionally, the Defendants should also review these Motions to determine if any action is necessary on their part. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018 1985 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order by Plaintiff Rasheed McGee. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1968 Motion and 1980 Motion. Movant Darren D. Evans has filed two Motions arguing that the Illinois Department of Correction is not complying with the settlement or its rules. Movant is currently in the custody of the IDOC and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant indicates that he is serving a long term segregation sentence and not given the appropriate out−of−cell time. (ECF No. 1968). Movant also argues that the IDOC is not appropriately processing his grievance. (ECF No. 1980). Movant requests that this Court address these complaints by ordering the Defendants to take certain action. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 204 of 306

04/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1977 Motion. Movant Danzell Thrower has filed a Motion arguing the Defendants are failing to comply with the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically argues that he is not being provided adequate medical care. Movant requests that this Court award him damages and direct the Defendants to provide him the medical care he believes he should be receiving. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that is he is seeking to file a lawsuit, he should do so outside the context of this lawsuit. Moreover, Movant should contact his private attorney directly himself, as the Court will not do so. Finally, any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1973 Motion. Movant Ronnie Hervey has filed a Motion complaining that the Defendants are not adhering to the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that the Defendants are not providing adequate out−of−cell time (e.g. recreation and shower time). Movant requests that this Court investigate his allegations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1972 Motion. Movant Ramell Sturdivant has filed a Motion complaining about various aspects of his incarceration. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains about his medical treatment and indicates he has not received certain medication. Movant requests that this Court direct that he receive his medication, and other relief. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1982 Motion, 1983 Motion, and 1984 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three additional Motions in this case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his first Motion, Movant states that he has raised, to no avail, the issue of the lack of confidentiality in medical treatment. (ECF No. 1982). Movant also complains about staff conduct. (ECF No. 1983; see also ECF Nos. 1984 and 1984−1). Movant further complains that his transfer is being hindered (by staff members placing certain conditions on his transfer). (ECF No. 1984−1). Finally, Movant is critical of the Court's handling of his Motions. The Court has previously informed Movant that the class is represented by counsel in this matter. Movant should communicate his concerns with Class Counsel or otherwise go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In the context of this case, the Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2018. The Motions are DENIED. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/17/2018 1986 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018 1987 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018 1988 MOTION to Compel Pontiac Employees to Comply with Settlement... filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 205 of 306

04/17/2018 1989 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1988 Motion to Compel; denying 1989 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. has filed two Motions arguing that the Illinois Department of Correction is not complying with the settlement or its rules and complaining about various aspects of his incarceration. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains about his medical treatment and indicates he has not received certain medication. Movant requests that this Court direct that he receive his medication, and other relief. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/17/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/18/2018 1990 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2018)

04/20/2018

Status Conference set for 4/25/2018 at 09:30 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/20/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018 1991 MOTION filed by Matthew Echevarria. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1991 Motion. Movant Matthew Echevarria has filed a Motion complaining that the Defendants are retaliating against mentally ill inmates for participating in the case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that the Defendants are not providing adequate out−of−cell time (e.g. recreation and shower time) and that Defendants are preforming improper shakedowns. Movant requests that seriously mentally ill inmates stop being targeted and harassed. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018 1992 MOTION filed by Abdul Love. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1986 Motion; denying 1987 Motion; denying 1990 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three additional Motions in this case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his first Motion, Movant states issues with class members receiving copies of their treatment plans. (ECF. 1986). Movant also complains about staff conduct including mental health rounds not being completed and tactical teams being used instead of crisis teams. (ECF No. 1987). Movant further complains about the staffs treatment of a potentially suicidal inmate. (ECF No. 1990). The Court has previously informed Movant that the class is represented by counsel in this matter. Movant should communicate his concerns with Class Counsel or otherwise go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. In the context of this case, the Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/23/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018 1993 MOTION filed by Danzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018 1994 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1993 Motion. Movant Danzell Thrower has filed a Motion complaining how he is not receiving adequate time with his therapist. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that Defendants follow the settlement agreement and that he be able to see his therapist twice a month for an hour. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 206 of 306

action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/23/2018. (BA, ilcd) Modified on 4/23/2018 to correct the document number (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1992 Motion. Movant Abdul Love has filed a Motion requesting the Court appoint a monitor to the Danville Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Danville Correctional Center. Movant indicates, among other things, that he has received day−room restrictions as a result of minor disciplinary infractions. Movant argues this is a violation of IDOC's rules and the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/23/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/24/2018 1995 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/24/2018 1996 MOTION filed by Ramell Sturdivant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/24/2018 1997 MOTION filed by Traver Rishon. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/25/2018 1998 MOTION filed by Jose Perez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018 1999 MOTION filed by Matthew Echevarria. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018 2000 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018 2001 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by phone, Attorneys A Antholt/H Hirshman for Plaintiffs and Attorneys C Higgerson/D Rees/T Corrigan/C Lindsay/A Ramage for the Defendants for Status Conference held on 4/25/2018. Discussion held re: pending motions. Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 1964 GRANTED. Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and Amended Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1966 GRANTED. Court announces its oral ruling on 1559 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and 1681 Amended Motion, and sets hearing on relief. Final appealable written order to enter after Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2018 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom B, in Peoria, before Judge Michael M Mihm. (Tape #PR−B 9:28 AM.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018 2002 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1995 Motion, 1996 Motion, 1997 Motion, and 1999 Motion. Movants Steven D. Lisle Jr., Ramell Sturdivant, Traver Rishon, and Matthew Echevarria have filed Motions requesting an investigation into the tactics used by the "orange crush" unit. Movants are currently inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Movants each detail a situation involving one particular inmate. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1998 Motion. Movant Jose Perez has filed a Motion complaining that the IDOC is using improper tactics to deter inmates from seeking out−of−cell time. Movants is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order an investigation of Pontiac. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) Modified on 4/25/2018 to correct language (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 04/25/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 207 of 306

04/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 1994 Motion, 2000 Motion, and 2001 Motion. Movant Don Collins has made three recent filings in this case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his first Motion, Movant provides information regarding his forum related to this matter (ECF No. 1994). In his second Motion, Movant reiterates issues with inmate's receipt of treatment plans. (ECF No. 2000). In his last Motion, Movant raises issues regarding class counsel. (ECF No. 2001). The Court has addressed the latter issues in the past. The Court declines to grant any relief, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/26/2018 2003 MOTION filed by Pierre Jordan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018 2004 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018 2005 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018 2006 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018 2007 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018 2008 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2005 Motion, 2006 Motion, 2007 Motion, 2008 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed four additional Motion in this case. (ECF Nos. 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's Motions address issues with the law library (missing motions, over−charges), previously filed motions (updating), allegations that correctional staff members do not address inmates' basic needs, and "Equal Protection" allegations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/27/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 2009 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 2010 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 2011 MOTION filed by Rasheed McGee and Danzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 2012 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 2015 Letter from Reginald Smith to Judge Mihm. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018 2013 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018 2014 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 5/14/2018 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

05/01/2018 2016 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018 2017 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018 2018 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018 2019 MOTION filed by Ramell Sturdivant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018 2020 MOTION filed by Rishon Travers. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/02/2018 2021 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2009 Motion, 2010 Motion, 2012 Motion, 2013 Motion, 2014 Motion, 2016 Motion, and 2017 Motion. Movant Don Collins has

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 208 of 306

recently filed several Motions in this case. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant's Motions address issues related to class counsel representation (ECF Nos. 2017 and 2016), denied transfer (ECF Nos. 2014 and 2013), law library staff's conduct (ECF Nos. 2012 and 2009), and settlement agreement violations (along with Court's and Class Counsel's handling of the matters) (ECF No. 2010). In these Motions, Movant provides additional information regarding his complaints. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/2/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2018 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his current Motion, Movant complains that the prison subjected him to sexual assault in retaliation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/02/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/03/2018 2022 MOTION to Intervene filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018 2023 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2003 Motion. Movant Pierre Jordan has filed another Motion complaining about his treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his current Motion, Movant complains that the "Orange Crush" subjected him to excessive force and sexual assault to deter participation in out of cell time. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/03/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/04/2018 2024 MOTION for New Judge and Replacement Counsel by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 5/18/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 2025 Emergency NOTICE to Monitor and Court and Plaintiffs and Defendants Counsel filed by George A. Fernandez. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2019 Motion. Movant Ramell Sturdivant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his current Motion, Movant complains that the prison subjected him to sexual assault. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/04/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2020 Motion. Movant Rishon Travers is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his current Motion, Movant complains about sexual harassment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but again directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/04/2018.(BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2022 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that the Defendants are not providing adequate

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 209 of 306

outside recreation, refusing audio/visual privileges and segregation time reductions. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/04/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/07/2018 2026 MOTION (filed as Motion for Leave to File Enforcement of Injunction and Sanction for Violation Settlement) filed by class member Charles Donelson. Responses due by 5/21/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 2027 NOTICE of Filing Motion re 2026 MOTION for Leave to File Enforcement of Injunction and Sanction for Violation Settlement filed by class member Charles Donelson. (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 2028 MOTION (filed as Motion to Judge Mihm to Stay the New Policy at Pontiac CC filed by William Buck. Responses due by 5/21/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 2029 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 5/21/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 2030 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 5/21/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2004 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion requesting that the Court initiate an investigation into his allegations of wrongdoing by staff members at the institution, and further direct that certain video footage be saved. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested in the context of this case, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is FURTHER ADVISED that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/7/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2011 Motion. Movant Rasheed McGee has filed a Motion complaining about an incident wherein he alleges two correctional officers assaulted him. Movant further complains about the lack of medical treatment he has received. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/7/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2026 Motion. Movant Charles Donelson has filed a Motion complaining the Defendants have failed to adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Stateville Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court issue an injunction. The Court declines to grant the relief as requested in Movant's filing, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/7/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2028 Motion. Movant William Buck has filed a Motion requesting that the Court stay a new policy at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac. Movant indicates, among other things, that Pontiac is requiring inmates who go to the "mental health movie" to be stripped searched. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 210 of 306

should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/7/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

2031

RESPONSE to Motion re 2024 MOTION by Collins filed by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2023 Motion, 2024 Motion, 2029 Motion, and 2030 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed several additional Motions in this case complaining about matters such as class counsel's handling of this case (and ARDC response to his complaint) (ECF Nos. 2024 and 2029), this Court's handling of his Motions (ECF No. 2024), correcting/supplementing previous filings (ECF No. 2023), IDOC's failure to comply with the settlement agreement despite this Court's recent ruling (ECF No. 2030). Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Movant has been previously informed that the class is represented by counsel in this matter. While it is clear Movant would like to immediately advance certain issues in this case, Movant should communicate his concerns with Class Counsel. Movant is further advised that he may advance his individual complaint through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Court declines to grant any relief requested, but will again direct Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/7/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/08/2018 2032 NOTICE to Court filed by Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/08/2018 2033 MOTION to Intervene filed by Charles Bender. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/09/2018 2034 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/09/2018 2035 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/09/2018 2036 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/10/2018 2037 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 2038 MOTION filed by Jareon Hawkins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 2039 NOTICE of Violation filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/11/2018 2040 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/11/2018 2041 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/11/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2033 Motion. Movant Charles Bender is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant has filed a Motion complaining about the staff retaliating against another inmate. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/11/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2038 Motion. Movant Jareon Hawkins has filed a Motion complaining about his extended time in segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 211 of 306

05/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2034 Motion; denying 2035 Motion; denying 2036 Motion; denying 2037 Motion; denying 2040 Motion; denying 2041 Motion.Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of misconduct by the mental health professionals and IDOC officials resulting in violations of the settlement agreement [ECF Nos 2034, 2037 and 2041], issues related to class counsel representation [ECF Nos. 2035 and 2036], and issues with the Joliet Treatment Center [ECF No. 2040]. The Movant has been previously informed that the class is represented by counsel in this matter. While it is clear Movant would like to immediately advance certain issues in this case, Movant should communicate his concerns with Class Counsel. Movant is further advised that he may advance his individual complaint through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Court declines to grant any relief requested, but will again direct Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05−13−2018.(BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2018)

05/14/2018 2042 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/14/2018 2043 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/14/2018 2044 NOTICE of Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment filed by Danzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2042 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that his treatment plan has not been updated, that he has been in segregation in an extended time, and that he has not received recreation privileges. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05−14−2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2043 Motion. Movant Steven D. Lisle Jr. has filed a Motion complaining of wrongdoing by staff members, specifically the Orange Crush Unit and his placement in a cell. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. He requests the Court to transfer him to Stateville. The Court declines to grant the relief requested in the context of this case, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is FURTHER ADVISED that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/14/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

05/15/2018 2045 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/15/2018 2046 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/16/2018 2047 MOTION to Intervene filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 2048 NOTICE to Court filed by Henry Barrows. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 2049 MEMORANDUM on Form of Preliminary Relief by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/17/2018 2050 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/17/2018 2051 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2047 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that individuals in crisis are being held in segregation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 212 of 306

his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/18/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 2052 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 2053 NOTICE of Settlement Violations filed by Mario English, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 2054 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by James Wright. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 2055 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 2056 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2054 Motion. Movant James E. Wright is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that he was denied the opportunity to participate in group therapy, is not receiving structured out of cell time and being held in segregation instead of a residential treatment unit. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/18/2018.(BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 2057 MEMORANDUM Response to Defendants' Memorandum on Form of Preliminary Relief re 2049 Memorandum by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/21/2018

2058

MOTIONS: 1. of Inmates Mutilating and Harming theirselves in the Pontiac North Houseing Seg Unit while on Suicide Watch; 2. to Save Camera Footage from 5/20/2018 7:30−9:30 AM; 3. requesting a investigation and camera footage from 5/19/2018 be saved from 8AM − 2:55PM; FILED BY Steven Lisle. Responses due by 6/4/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018 2059 MOTION to Investigate Mistreatment of SMI filed by Sean Hanks. Responses due by 6/4/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018 2060 NOTICE of VIOLATION OF AGREED ORDER filed by Sean Hanks. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018 2061 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/4/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2059 Motion. Movant Sean Hanks is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that that inmates are being assaulted and are not receiving proper medications and food. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/21/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2058 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically refusing him medication and by holding inmates on crisis watch in segregation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 213 of 306

the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/21/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2045 Motion; denying 2046 Motion; denying 2050 Motion; denying 2051 Motion; denying 2052 Motion; denying 2055 Motion; denying 2061 Motion. Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of issues related to class counsel representation [2045, 2046, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2061], the actions of Mental Health Professionals, including problems with rounds, group therapy sessions [2051, 2052, 2055], and treatment plans [2052, 2055]. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/21/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/22/2018 2062 EMERGENCY NOTICE TO COURT filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018 2063 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018 2064 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018 2065 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018 2066 Letter from Delmar Gray. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys A Mills/H Hirshman/A Antholt/L Miller/S Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys D Rees/C Higgerson/C Lindsay for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 5/22/2018. Discussion held re: pending motions and preliminary relief. Written Order to enter by end of business on Friday, May 25, 2018. (Court Reporter NM.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 2067 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 2068 MOTION to Supplement filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 2069 Letter from Gregory Spence. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2068 Motion to Supplement. Movant Charles Donelson submitted a copy of his Adjustment Committee Final Summary Report and requests that the Court supplement the report as an exhibit. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/23/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2063 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that inmates on suicide watch are being held in segregation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/25/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2070 ORDER granting 1559 Motion and granting 1681 Motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/25/2018. See full written Order. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2064 Motion; denying 2065 Motion; denying 2067 Motion. Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about staffing issues within Pontiac Correctional Center [ECF No. 2064 and 2067] and

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 214 of 306

issues with class counsel [ECF No. 2065]. He also states that he did not receive the copies of the Courts text orders for Motions 2050, 2052, 2053, and 2055 but they were entered the evening before he filed this motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/25/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2071 Letter from Bob Donley (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2072 MOTION filed by Rojah Dillard. Responses due by 6/8/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2073 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/8/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2074 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/8/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2075 MOTION filed by Jabbar Harmon. Responses due by 6/8/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2076 MOTION filed by Jose Martinez. Responses due by 6/8/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/25/2018 2077 MOTION filed by Derrick Williams. Responses due by 6/8/2018 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/29/2018 2078 MOTION to Intervene by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2079 MOTION filed by Fredrick Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2080 MOTION filed by Michael Russell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2081 MOTION filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2082 MOTION filed by Willie Walls. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2083 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2084 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2085 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2081 Motion. Movant Darren Evans is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff is using excessive force with the inmates during their out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/30/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/29/2018 2086 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Samantha R Reed on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Reed, Samantha) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/30/2018 2087 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/30/2018 2088 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/30/2018 2089 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/30/2018 2090 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/30/2018 2091 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/30/2018 2092 MOTION filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/31/2018 2093 MOTION filed by Carl Allen Furrell Jr.. Responses due by 6/14/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 215 of 306

05/31/2018 2094 MOTION filed by Carl Allen Furrell Jr.. Responses due by 6/14/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2072 Motion. Movant Rojah Dillard is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that IDOC is not properly providing group therapy. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2075 Motion. Movant Jabbar Harmon is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff is not providing enough group sessions, are using excessive force to move inmates in and out of group and are monitoring group so that it is not a confidential mental health environment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2076 Motion. Movant Jose Martinez is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff is not providing enough group sessions, are using excessive force to move inmates in and out of group and are monitoring group so that it is not a confidential mental health environment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2077 Motion. Movant Derrick Williams is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff is not providing enough group sessions, are using excessive force to move inmates in and out of group and are monitoring group so that it is not a confidential mental health environment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2079 Motion. Movant Fredrick Walker is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff members are retaliating against class members and discouraging them from going to group therapy by making them submit to strip searches and destroying their property when they are out of the cell. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 216 of 306

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2080 Motion. Movant Michael Russell is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff members are retaliating against class members and discouraging them from going to group therapy by making them submit to strip searches and destroying their property when they are out of the cell. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2078 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff is using excessive force with the inmates during their out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2089 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of excessive force used by the correctional officers. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2082 Motion. Movant Willie Walls is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that the correctional staff members are retaliating against class members and discouraging them from going to group therapy by making them submit to strip searches and destroying their property when they are out of the cell. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018 2095 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/15/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018 2096 MOTION filed by George A Fernandez. Responses due by 6/15/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2096 Motion. Movant George Fernandez is under the custody of the Illinois Department Corrections and is housed at Pontiac Correctional Facility. He claims that he needs to be transferred to Dixon because he has been threatened by numerous prison gangs and prisoners. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2073 Motion; denying 2074 Motion; denying 2083 Motion; denying 2084 Motion; denying 2085 Motion; denying 2087 Motion; denying 2088 Motion; denying 2090 Motion; denying 2091 Motion; denying 2095 Motion. Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 217 of 306

Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant Complains about class counsel and his lack of contact with class members [2073, 2074. 2083, 2084, 2087, 2088, 2090, 2091, 2095], retaliation against class members, lack of treatment plans [2083, 2084, 2095], placement with high risk offenders in segregation 2085 , and conflicting information by mental health professionals. 2095 . The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/01/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/04/2018 2097 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018 2098 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018 2099 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018 2100 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018 2101 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018 2102 MOTION (filed in letter format requesting information) by Kavin Nathan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2092 Motion. Movant Richard B. Kelly has filed a Motion requesting the Court intervene in various matters on his behalf. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges he has been subject to improper tactics and threatened by the staff at the correctional center. The Movant also indicates that he will take certain matters into his own hands, including "protect[ing]" himself by force against his cellmate, if the Court does not intervene. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Finally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2093 Motion and 2094 Motion. Movant Carl Allen Furrell Jr. has filed two Motions complaining about his mental health treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court direct that he receive mental health treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/2/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2103 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2104 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2105 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Tony Benson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2106 NOTICE of Violation of Court Order filed by Allen Brown Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2107 Letter from Allen Brown Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2108 NOTICE of Violation of Court Order filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2109 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/05/2018 2110 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 218 of 306

06/05/2018 2111 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2102 Motion. Movant Kevin Nathan is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Lawrence Correctional Center. After referring to the attorney's fees section of the settlement agreement, he asks if there is a claim form. The only fees associated with the case are for attorney's fees not for class members. Movant is further directed to contact class counsel for any other inquiries into the matter. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/06/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2018)

06/06/2018 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 6/20/2018 (Reed, Samantha) (Entered: 06/06/2018)

06/07/2018 2113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ashoor Rasho re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction (Reed, Samantha) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/2018 2114 NOTICE to Court filed by Carl Furrell Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/2018 2115 NOTICE to Court filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/2018 2116 MOTION to Judge Mihm filed by William Buck. Responses due by 6/21/2018 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/2018 2117 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/2018 2118 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2116 Motion. Movant William Buck has filed two Motions complaining about his mental health treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he is not receiving his medications as he should. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/08/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2119 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2120 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2121 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018

NOTICE of Hearing: A Status Conference is set on Thursday, 6/21/2018, at 2:00 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Defendants are directed to provide a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction [ECF No. 2112] prior to the hearing. (DLH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2122 SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD. filed on 6/8/2018. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2123 MOTION to Compel filed by Lenell Coe. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2124 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018 2125 Letter from Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2098 Motion; denying 2099 Motion; denying 2100 Motion; denying 2101 Motion; denying 2103 Motion; denying 2104 Motion; denying 2110 Motion; denying 2111 Motion; denying 2119 Motion; denying 2120 Motion; denying 2121 Motion. Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant Complains about class counsel [2098, 2100, 2103, 2104, 2110, 2119, 2121], funds allocated for mental health are allegedly being used to construct a dining hall 2099 , lack of updates to Pontiac mental health facilities and the living conditions of class members, 2100 , treatment plans, treatment review meetings and staffing issues

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 219 of 306

[2101, 2120], group therapy 2103 , lack of individual therapy 2120 , lack of RTU housing [2110, 2119], prison programs 2121 , out of cell time 2121 , and harassment of inmates 2111 . The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/08/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2123 Motion. Movant Lenell Coe is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically regarding his long term segregation sentence. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/08/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/11/2018 2126 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2127 MOTION fled by Arkeith Mosby. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2128 MOTION filed by Joe Milton. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2129 MOTION filed by Lovell Adams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2130 MOTION to Intervene filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2131 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2132 MOTION filed by Tyree Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2133 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2134 NOTICE to Court filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2135 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018 2136 MOTION filed by Kendrick Butler. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2127 Motion. Movant Arkeith Mosby is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains IDOC correctional officers are retaliating against class mates and using excessive force. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2136 Motion. Movant Kendrick Butler is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains IDOC correctional officers are retaliating against class members and using excessive force during out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2132 Motion. Movant Tyree Harris is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains IDOC correctional officer are retaliating against class members and using excessive force during out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 220 of 306

grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2128 Motion. Movant Joe Milton is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains correctional officers are retaliating against class members and using excessive force during out of cell time.The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2129 Motion. Movant Lovell Adams is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains correctional officers are retaliating against class members and using excessive force during out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2131 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains correctional officers are retaliating against class members and using excessive force during out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/11/2018

ORDER denying 2130 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains the mental health staff is retailiating against him and he not receiving adequate therapy. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/11/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/11/2018)

06/12/2018 2137 MOTION to Intervene filed by Sean Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/12/2018 2138 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/12/2018 2139 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/12/2018 2140 MOTION filed by Stephen Knox. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/12/2018 2141 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/12/2018 2142 Letter from Bob Donley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/13/2018 2143 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018 2144 MOTION filed by George A. Fernandez. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018 2145 MOTION filed by Ned James. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2145 Motion. Movant Ned James is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he is in danger at Pontiac and requests to be moved to the JTC. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 221 of 306

the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/14/2018 2146 MOTION filed by Pierre Jordan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/14/2018 2147 MOTION filed by Martino Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/14/2018 2148 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/14/2018 2149 MOTION filed by Don Colliins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2137 . Motion Movant Sean Williams is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically regarding his long term segregation sentence and his lack of out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2140 Motion. Movant Stephen Knox is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains correctional officers are retaliating against class members and using excessive force during out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2144 Motion. Movant George Fernandez is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that was threatened by gang members and requests a transfer. The Court declines to grant the relief requested. Class Counsel is directed to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2146 Motion. Movant Pierre Jordan is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about cell transfer procedure, lack of out of cell time, refusal of medication distribution and correctional officers using excessive force. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2147 Motion. Movant Martino Smith is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about not receiving adequate out of cell time, and confidentiality in treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018 2150 MOTION filed by Kendrick Butler. Responses due by 6/29/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 222 of 306

06/15/2018 2151 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/29/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Report)(FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018 2152 MOTION to Compel for the Provision of Settlement Agreement filed by Devin Seats. Responses due by 6/29/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2150 Motion. Movant Kendrick Butler is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about not receiving adequate out of cell time, and correctional officers using excessive force and harassing mentally ill inmates. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2152 Motion to Compel. Movant Devin Seats is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about not receiving adequate out of cell time, not having monthly one−on−one therapy, not having access to crisis teams and that correctional officers are using excessive force. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/15/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/18/2018 2153 Letter from Ryan Kirkpatrick (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/18/2018 2154 MOTION filed by Samuel Span. Responses due by 7/2/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2126 Motion; denying 2135 Motion; denying 2138 Motion; denying 2139 Motion; denying 2143 Motion; denying 2148 Motion; denying 2149 Motion; denying 2151 Motion. Motion Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about issues with class counsel [ECF Nos. 2126, 2135, 2138, 2139, 2143, 2148, 2151], treatment plans and copies of his treatment plans [ECF Nos. 2126, 2143, 2148], out of cell time [ECF Nos. 2135, 2149] and mistreatment by prison staff [ECF Nos. 2138, 2151]. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/18/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/19/2018 2155 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/19/2018 2156 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/19/2018 2157 NOTICE to Court in Violation and Transfer to Elgin or Joliet Treatment Center filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/19/2018 2158 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Kyle Joseph Steinmetz on behalf of Ashoor Rasho (Steinmetz, Kyle) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/19/2018 2159 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

06/20/2018 2160 MOTION to Compel filed by Devin Seats. Responses due by 7/5/2018.(SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018 2161 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 7/5/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2160 Motion to Compel. Movant Devin Seats is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about not receiving adequate out of cell time, lack of group therapy, not having access to crisis teams and that correctional

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 223 of 306

officers are using excessive force. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/21/2018 2162 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/21/2018 2163 MOTION filed by Pierre Jordan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/21/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by phone, Attorneys A Mills/A Antholt/H Hirshman/S Reed/K Steinmetz for Plaintiffs and Attorneys C Higgerson/D Rees/C Lindsay/A Ramage/A DeVooght for Defendants for Status Conference held on 6/21/2018. Discussion held re: 2112 Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction. Discussion re: discovery. Discovery deadline 8/3/2018; "Agreed deposition deadline 8/20/2018." Status Conference by telephone set on 8/10/2018 at 1:00 p.m. Trial on Motion for Permanent Injunction set for 8/27/2018 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Hearing will be 4 days. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/22/2018 2164 Addendum re 2162 MOTION by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018 2165 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2162 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains the mental health staff is retailiating against him, and that he is not receiving individual therapy or adequate out of cell time. He also documents the alleged suicide attempts of various other inmates. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/22/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2163 Motion. Movant Pierre Jordan is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about out of cell time and correctional officers using excessive force. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/22/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2154 Motion. Movant Samuel Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains Defendants are in violation of this Court's May 25, 2018 Order because they have not been reviewing and updating treatment plans when inmates are transferred from crisis watches. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/22/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2155 Motion; denying 2156 Motion; denying 2161 Motion; denying 2165 Motion. Motion Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about issues with class counsel [ECF Nos. 2156, 2161], mental health professionals running group therapy [ECF No. 2155], low risk and high risk offenders being placed together [ECF No. 2156], mental health rounds teams [ECF No. 2161], usage of tactical teams [ECF No. 2161], and harassment by IDOC employees [ECF No. 2165]. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 224 of 306

further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/22/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018 2166 Letter from Anthony Gray requesting copy of docket sheet. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/22/2018 2167 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/22/2018)

06/25/2018 2168 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 2169 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 2170 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 2171 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 2172 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 2173 MOTION to Compel filed by Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 2174 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Elizabeth N Mazur on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Mazur, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/26/2018 2175 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/27/2018 2176 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018 2177 MOTION to Compel filed by Jerry Osborne. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018 2178 Letter from Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018 2179 Letter from Bob Donley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2172 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of denial of RTU Treatment and lack of group therapy. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/27/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

06/28/2018 2180 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 7/12/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/28/2018 2181 MOTION by Ned James. Responses due by 7/12/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/28/2018 2182 MOTION by Ronald Patterson. Responses due by 7/12/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/29/2018 2183 AFFIDAVIT by Hannibal Eason. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/29/2018 2184 Letter from Bob Donley for Brent Phillips. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/29/2018 2185 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2182 Motion. Movant Ronald Patterson is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the IDOC is not in compliance with the settlement, specifically that he was denied the opportunity to participate in group therapy, and is being block from the RTU. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/29/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 225 of 306

06/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2181 Motion. Movant Ned James is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges that he has been beaten by correctional officers at Pontiac and requests to be transferred to the RTU at Joliet. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Finally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/29/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/29/2018

ORDER denying 2167 Motion; denying 2168 Motion; denying 2169 Motion; denying 2170 Motion; denying 2171 Motion; denying 2175 Motion; denying 2176 Motion; denying 2180 Motion; denying 2185 Motion. Motion Movant Don Collins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about issues with class counsel [ECF Nos. 2167, 2168, 2176, 2180], actions taken by the tactical team [ECF Nos. 2169, 2170], and the law library not filing exhibits and having documents available. [ECF Nos. 2171, 2175]. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 06/29/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

07/02/2018 2186 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2187 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2188 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2189 MOTION to Intervene filed by Demondre Burnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2190 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2191 MOTION filed by Sean Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2192 MOTION filed by Ronald Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 2193 MOTION filed by Ronald Weeden. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/03/2018 2194 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

07/03/2018 2195 MOTION to Intervene filed by River Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

07/03/2018 2196 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

07/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2173 Motion to Compel. Movant Terrance Godfrey is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains Defendants are in violation the Settlement Agreement complaining of less groups, yard time and movies being offered, not allowing crisis teams when requested, not receiving monthly one−on−ones, not receiving segregation cuts and inadequate daily cell side treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2177 Motion to Compel. Movant Jerry Osborne is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains Defendants are in violation the Settlement Agreement complaining the his medicine is not working, that he is not receiving proper therapy, and that he has not received an adequate treatment plan. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 226 of 306

07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018

complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2189 Motion to Intervene. Movant Demondre Burnett is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of excessive force used while transporting him to group therapy. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2190 Motion. Movant Ned James complains Defendants are retaliating against him for his complaints against the correctional officers. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2191 Motion. Movant Sean Williams complains of inappropriate conduct by Pontiac Correctional Staff, specifically that one mental health professional is sexually abusing him. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2192 Motion. Movant Ronald Patterson is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the staff is scheduling yard and group therapy at the same time making the inmates choose between them and not allowing for inmates to have enough out−of−cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2193 Motion. Movant Ronald Weeden is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that being in segregation is causing him to decompensate and requests that he be transferred to the RTU. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2195 Motion to Intervene. Movant River Williams is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that his assigned Mental Health Provider has not provided him with one−on−one therapy, created a treatment plan, assigned him to group therapy and that he has issues with his medication. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 227 of 306

07/05/2018 2197 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/05/2018 2198 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/05/2018 2199 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/05/2018 2200 MOTION to Intervene filed by Cory Sloat. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/05/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2200 Motion to Intervene. Movant Cory Sloat is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has not received adequate medication to treat the side effects from his psychotropic medication. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/05/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2186 Motion; denying 2187 Motion; denying 2188 Motion; denying 2194 Motion; denying 2196 Motion; denying 2197 Motion; denying 2198 Motion; denying 2199 Motion. Movant Don Collins complains of retaliation by tactical team that includes shakedown of cells, strip searches and stealing of property (ECF Nos. 2186, 2187, 2188 and 2197), law library staff censoring court documents (ECF Nos. 2186, 2187 and 2188), a lack of RTU at Pontiac (ECF No. 2187), class counsel (ECF Nos. 2194, 2196 and 2198), that new construction done by the IDOC has been unhelpful to SMI inmates (ECF Nos. 2194 and 2196), the conditions of Joliet Treatment Center (ECF Nos. 2194 and 2196), data reports on the use of isolated confinement (ECF No. 2197), the conduct of the individuals involved in the matter (ECF No. 2199), the tactical team replacing the crisis team, and access to medical records. (ECF No. 2198). The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/06/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/09/2018 2201 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2202 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2203 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2204 MOTION filed Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2205 MOTION filed by Bryan Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2206 MOTION to Compel filed by Brandon Arriage. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2207 MOTION to Intervene filed by Cory Sloat. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/09/2018 2208 MOTION to Intervene filed by Ronald Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/10/2018 2209 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 2210 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 2211 MOTION for Default Judgment filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 2212 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 2213 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 2214 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 2215 MOTION to Enforce filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/11/2018 2216 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 228 of 306

07/11/2018 2217 MOTION to Compel filed by Danzell Thrower. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/11/2018 2218 MOTION filed by Frederick Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2201 Motion; denying 2204 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. requests to receive one−on−one counseling weekly, to be assigned to a different mental health professional, and the Court to order video footage of actions by the Orange Crush Officer be saved. (ECF Nos. 2201 and 2204). The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/12/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/12/2018 2219 Letter from Chad A Pickett requesting information. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2218 Motion. Movant Frederick Harris complains he was lead to attempt to commit suicide by the actions of the correctional staff and because of his long term segregation. He also mentions his transfer, inappropriate actions by correctional officers including excessive force, denial of crisis team members, and counsels unwillingness to meet with him. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/12/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2217 Motion to Compel. Movant Danzell Thrower requests the Court to compel treatment of his ulcer. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/12/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2215 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings complains that he was forced to go on crisis watches, has not seen a psychiatrist, has not developed a treatment plan, is not receiving adequate out of cell time, and has not had re−evaluations. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/12/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/13/2018 2220 MOTION to Compel filed by Danzell Thrower. Responses due by 7/27/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 2221 Letter from Terrance Godfrey (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 2222 Letter from Karl Roberts (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2203 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams complains that the conditions of Pontiac, specifically in segregation are worsening the symptoms of mentally ill offenders, that there is not enough group therapy provided or activities for the prisoners to do. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2205 . Motion Movant Bryan Jones complains of excessive force used by correctional officers. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 229 of 306

grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 2223 MOTION filed by Gerald Jones. Responses due by 7/27/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2206 Motion to Compel. Movant Brandon Arriaga complains mental health professionals are not providing one−on−one therapy sessions, and correctional officers are using excessive force. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2207 Motion to Intervene. Movant Cory Sloat complains about not receiving adequate follow−ups from mental health professionals after being taken off crisis watches. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2208 Motion to Intervene. Movant Ronald Patterson complains of staff not allowing inmates to go to movie time because of disciplinary violations, and therefore, refusing them treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2211 Motion. Movant Ned James makes a request for another inmate to be released from segregation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2220 Motion to Compel. Movant Danzell Thrower requests the Court to compel treatment of his ulcer. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2223 Motion. Movant Gerald Jones complains of correctional officers using excessive forces, refusing him crisis care, his lack of participation in his treatment planning and that correctional and mental health staff are discarding his grievances. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2212 Motion; denying 2213 Motion; denying 2214 Motion; denying 2216 Motion. Movant Don Collins complains of denial of transfer (ECF No. 2212), the quality of group therapy (ECF No. 2213), not receiving counseling (ECF No. 2214), class counsel (ECF Nos. 2214 and 2216) and that inmates have not received ice during days with hot temperatures (ECF No. 2216). The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 230 of 306

complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/16/2018 2224 MOTION to Compel filed by Brandon Arriaga. Responses due by 7/30/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018 2225 MOTION to Intervene filed by Joe Champs. Responses due by 7/30/2018 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018 2226 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018 2227 Letter from Hannibal Eason. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/17/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2224 Motion to Compel. Movant Brandon Arriaga complains mental health professionals are not providing one−on−one therapy sessions, or group therapy and about the unsanitary conditions. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07−17−2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2225 Motion to Intervene. Movant Joe Champs complains he was forced into crisis, about the cleanliness of the crisis cell the safety smock, that he has not received one−on−one counseling and that he has not been receiving adequate out of cell time. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 07/17/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018 2228 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018 2229 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/18/2018 2230 Letter from James Lewis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/18/2018 2232 Letter from Hannibal Eason (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/19/2018 2231 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/19/2018)

07/20/2018

2233

MOTION for Order (Motion to Order Payment of Deferred Attorneys' Fees) by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. Responses due by 8/3/2018 (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018 2234 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018 2235 NOTICE of Settlement Violations filed by Vidal Rainey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018

2236

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2226 Motion, 2228 Motion, 2229 Motion, and 2234 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed several additional Motions in this case (ECF Nos. 2226, 2228, 2229, and 2234). The subjects of the Motions vary, but generally Movant complains of the fact that offenders do not receive copies of their treatment plans without cost, the lack of supervision of mental health providers, class counsels' conduct and handing on various matters, and various allegations of breaches of the settlement agreement on the part of the Defendants. As previously noted, the Court thoroughly reviews the Movant's Motions, however, it is mindful that the class is represented by counsel. While the Court recognizes Movant has had frustration with Class Counsel, he should continue to communicate with Class Counsel regarding his concerns. As to the present Motions, the Court declines to grant any relief other than the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 231 of 306

grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/20/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2231 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion complaining about the duration this case has been pending, and generally, the lack of results. Movant also complains that his prescription for medication has expired. The Court declines to grant any relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/20/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/23/2018 2237 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 8/6/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/23/2018 2238 NOTICE of Violation of Agreed Order by Rasheed McGee (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/23/2018 2239 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement bu Ryan C. Kirkpatrick. Responses due by 8/6/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/23/2018 2240 NOTICE filed by Hanibal Eason (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 07/23/2018)

07/24/2018 2241 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

07/24/2018 2242 MOTION to Compel filed by Jerry Osborne. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

07/24/2018 2243 MOTION to Intervene filed by Demondra Burnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

07/24/2018 2244 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

07/25/2018 2245 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/25/2018 2246 MOTION to Intervene filed by Demondra Burnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/25/2018 2247 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/25/2018 2248 Letter from Jessie Marinez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/26/2018 2249 MOTION filed by Michael Russell. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/26/2018 2250 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2243 Motion and 2246 Motion. Movant Demondra Burnett has filed two Motions in this case complaining about his medical treatment (ECF Nos. 2246 and 2243). Movant is currently an inmate housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been taken off of SMI status, and has had his treatments halted. Movant also states that he is on "hunger strike." Movant request that this Court put him back on SMI status. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/26/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/26/2018 2251 MOTION in Limine by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 8/9/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Monitor's Assessment Tool, # 2 Exhibit email exchange)(Rees, R.) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/26/2018 2252 MOTION to set date for expert disclosures by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 8/9/2018 (Rees, R.) (Entered: 07/26/2018)

07/27/2018 2253 MOTION filed by Brian Blach. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 232 of 306

07/27/2018 2254 NOTICE to Court filed by Harley Miller. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/27/2018)

07/30/2018 2255 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018 2256 MOTION to Compel filed by Devin Seats. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018 2257 MOTION filed by Kendrick Butler. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018 2258 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018 2259 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018 2260 NOTICE to Court filed by Maurice Shaw. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018

Set Hearing: Status Conference set for 8/1/2018 09:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2237 Motion, 2241 Motion, 2245 Motion, and 2255 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed several additional Motions in this case taking issue with Class Counsels' handling of this case (ECF No. 2245), issues regarding the addition of counsel and named plaintiffs (ECF No. 2241), and complaints regarding inmate treatment (ECF Nos No. 2237 and 2255). The Court declines to grant any relief based on the content of these motions, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Parenthetically, as in relates to Movant's observation that "new" named plaintiffs have been added to this case, it should be noted that this was apparently an inadvertent mistake on the part of class counsel. Those individuals had previously been terminated as named plaintiffs in this case. (See ECF No. 258). Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/30/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/31/2018 2261 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

07/31/2018 2262 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

07/31/2018 2263 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Laura K Bautista on behalf of John R Baldwin, Wendy Blank, Willard Elyea, Roberta Fews, Melody Ford, John Garlic, Eddie Jones (Bautista, Laura) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

07/31/2018 2264 RESPONSE to Motion re 2252 MOTION to set date for expert disclosures , 2251 MOTION in Limine filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Reed, Samantha) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

08/01/2018 2265 Letter from Hayes Minor. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Elizabeth Mazur, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Chris Higgerson, Camile Lindsay, Andy DeVooght, Andrew Ramage, Laura Bautista, and Melissa Jennings for Defendants for Status Conference held on 8/1/2018. Discussion held regarding 2252 MOTION to set date for expert disclosures and 2251 Motion in Limine. 2251 Motion in Limine and 2252 Motion to set date for expert disclosures are DENIED. Discussion regarding "back−up" data in the possession of Monitor. Court directs his law clerk to contact Monitor regarding status/schedule of production of data. Discussion held regarding Proposed Pretrial Order. Parties to confer regarding witnesses and exhibits to create a joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order. Proposed Final Pretrial Order to be filed on or before Thursday, 8/9/2018 at 3:00 P.M. Parties to inform Clerk of witnesses that will be testifying via video. Final Pretrial Conference remains set for Friday, 8/10/2018 at 1:00 P.M. by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018 2266 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 233 of 306

08/01/2018 2267 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018 2268 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2261 Motion, 2262 Motion, 2267 Motion, and 2268 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed Motions in this case raising concerns regarding seriously mentally ill inmates being removed from the mental health unit and staffing related issues (ECF Nos. 2268 and 2261), complaints about class counsel inclusion of previously terminated named plaintiffs in their pleadings (ECF No. 2267), and information related to the state budget and funding for IDOC expenses (ECF No. 2262). The Court declines to grant any relief based on the content of these motions, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2249 Motion. Movant Michael Russell has filed a Motion complaining about the staff members obtaining medical attention for inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that guards refuse to seek medical providers when inmates engage in self−harm. The Court declines to take any specific measures at this time, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2239 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Movant Ryan C. Kirkpatrick has filed a Motion complaining that patient confidentiality is being violated by requiring the door to be open during his treatment sessions. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. The Court declines to take any specific measures at this time, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED at this time. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2258 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle, Jr. has filed a Motion indicating a fellow inmate may have attempted suicide. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any relief based on this Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Additionally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2257 Motion. Movant Kendrick Butler is requesting that the Court hold the Defendants in contempt of court. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that SMI individuals are not being adequately treated, and provides specific examples of individuals who have engaged in self−harm. The Court declines to grant any relief based on the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Additionally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED.. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 234 of 306

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2256 Motion to Compel. Movant Devin Seats has filed a Motion complaining about the conduct of a specific mental health provider. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any relief based on the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2253 Motion. Movant Brian Blach has filed a Motion complaining that he is not getting the proper medical treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant specifically complains that he is having issues with his mental health provider. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2242 Motion to Compel. Movant Jerry Osborne has filed a Motion requesting, among other things, that the Court have him removed from segregation and placed in a residential treatment unit. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/1/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/02/2018 2269 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 2270 MOTION to Intervene and Settlement Violations filed by Vidal Rainey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/03/2018 2271 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 2272 MOTION to Intervene filed by Joe Champs. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 2273 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 2274 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 2275 Letter from Bob Donley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/03/2018 2276 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2233 MOTION for Order (Motion to Order Payment of Deferred Attorneys' Fees) filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/06/2018 2277 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

08/06/2018 2278 NOTICE to Court filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

08/06/2018 2279 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

08/06/2018 2280 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

08/07/2018 2281 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 8/21/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/07/2018 2282 MOTION by Steven Lisle Jr.. Responses due by 8/21/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 235 of 306

08/07/2018 2283 Letter from Hannibal Eason (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2273 Motion; denying 2274 Motion; denying 2279 Motion; denying 2282 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he is not receiving adequate out of cell time (ECF No. 2273), not receiving one−on−one counseling (ECF No. 2274), the use of chemical agents on inmates (ECF No. 2279), and that his medicine is being altered (ECF No. 2282). The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED.Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/07/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2271 Motion; denying 2280 Motion; denying 2281 Motion. Movant Don Collins complains that inmates are not getting proper treatment plans (ECF No. 2271), that weekend staff is denying inmates ice when the temperatures are hot (ECF Nos. 2280 and 2281), and that mentally ill inmates are being improperly classified. (ECF No. 2280). The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/07/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/08/2018 2284 Letter from Terrance Godfrey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/09/2018 2285 MOTION for Il Dept of Corrections Director and Pontiac CC Officials to be Sanction filed by Fredrick Walker. Responses due by 8/23/2018 (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018 2286 Proposed Pretrial Order by John R Baldwin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Plaintiffs' Witness List, # 2 Exhibit B: Defendants' Witness List, # 3 Exhibit C: Plaintiffs' Exhibit List, # 4 Exhibit D: Defendants' Exhibit List)(Rees, R.) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/10/2018 2287 MOTION filed by Ronald Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018 2288 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2270 Motion. Movant Vidal Rainey complains that the mental health staff is not conducting proper interviews for inmates on crisis watches. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/10/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Brett Legner, Laura Bautista, Andrew Ramage and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Final Pretrial Conference held on 8/10/2018. Proposed Pretrial Order 2286 reviewed. Parties to submit to the Court the IDOC Quarterly Report no later than end of business today. Court directs his law clerk to contact Monitor regarding document production. Trial on Motion for Permanent Injunction remains set for Monday, 8/27/2018 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Parties estimate the hearing to last 10 days. (Tape #PR−B 12:59 PM.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2287 Motion. Movant Ronald Patterson is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that there are not enough crisis watch cells. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 236 of 306

Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2244 Motion for Reconsideration. Movant Gerald Jones has filed a Motion for Reconsideration complaining the Court's previous response to his Motion was unsatisfactory. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to reconsider its previous ruling. Movant should be aware this case is intended to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. (See ECF No. 695). The Settlement Agreement requires the IDOC to take certain measures regarding mental health services. That being said, Movant should pursue his own individual complaint in a forum he deems appropriate. The Court recognizes Movant indicates his use of the grievance process has been thwarted, but he has other avenues to pursue relief, including filing a lawsuit. The Court DENIES the Motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/13/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2272 Motion. Movant Joe Champs is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that SMI individuals are not being adequately treated, and provides specific examples of individuals who have engaged in self−harm. He also complains that he has not received a proper treatment plan, one−on−one counseling and medication. Movant states because of his lack of treatment he has homicidal and uncontrollable sexual thoughts. The Court declines to grant any relief based on the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Additionally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2285 Motion for Sanctions. Movant Fredrick Walker is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that correctional officers are taking retaliatory actions against him and using excessive force. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/13/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2289 MOTION filed by Bryan Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2290 MOTION filed by Frederick Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2291 MOTION filed by James Tate. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2292 MOTION for Emergency Intervention filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2293 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Keon Lipscomb. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2294 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Robert Douglas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2295 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Denzel Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2296 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Jeremiah Dorsey. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2297 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Tyrene Nelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 237 of 306

08/13/2018 2298 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by LaDarryl House. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2299 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Anthony White. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2300 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Craig Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2301 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Dircky Graves. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2302 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Jaquan Bankhead. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 2303 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Tavaris Burks. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/14/2018 2304 Letter from Frederick Harris. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018 2305 MOTION to Intervene an Order of an Protection Order filed Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018 2306 MOTION to Inform in Intervene filed Ronald Patterson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2293 Motion, 2294 Motion, 2295 Motion, 2296 Motion, 2297 Motion, 2298 Motion, 2299 Motion, 2300 Motion, 2301 Motion, 2302 Motion, and 2303 Motion. Movants Tavaris Burks, Jaquan Bankhead, Dircky Graves, Craig Williams, Anthony White, LaDarryl House, Tyrene Nelson, Jeremiah Dorsey, Denzel Walker, Robert Douglas, and Keon Lipscomb have each filed separate Motion(s) to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Movants are currently inmates housed at Menard Correctional Center. The Motions, while handwritten, are nearly identical, and generally complain of the treatment being provided by Dr. Lisa Goodman. The Movants provide that they are willing to discuss this matter with the Court Monitor. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motions. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/14/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/15/2018 2307 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018 2308 MOTION to Inform the Court filed by Jamale Douglas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018 2309 MOTION to Compel filed by Joshua Matthews. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018 2310 VIDEO WRITS issued for Pontiac Correctional Center and Dixon Correctional Center for 9/5/2018. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/16/2018 2311 MOTION to Notice filed by Michael Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018 2312 NOTICE filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/17/2018 2313 NOTICE Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/17/2018 2314 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/17/2018 2315 MOTION filed by Lovell Adams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2307 Motion; denying 2314 Motion. Movant Don Collins complains about the prison grievance process and ice not being delivered to the inmates (ECF No. 2307) as well as the law library staff retaliating against him. (ECF No. 2314). The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 238 of 306

Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2315 Motion. Movant Lovell Adams is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that the Pontiac Extraction Team is using excessive force. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2289 Motion. Movant Bryan Jones is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of the correctional officers using excessive force against the prisoners. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2316 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2290 Motion. Movant Frederick Harris is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains the staff of the West Segregation Cell House are harassing and taunting mentally ill inmates to provoke them into violence. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Additionally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2311 Motion. Movant Michael Johnson is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that correctional officers are using excessive force against the mentally ill inmates in the West Cell House. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) Modified on 8/20/2018 to remove language inadvertently added(VH, ilcd). Modified on 8/20/2018 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2291 Motion. Movant James Tate is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains of correctional officers using excessive force, specifically the use of pepper spray. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) Modified on 8/20/2018 remove language inadvertently added (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 08/20/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 239 of 306

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2309 Motion. Movant Joshua Matthews is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he is suicidal and not in a proper crisis watch cell. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. Additionally, because of the nature of the Movant's filing, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the Movant's filing to the Warden. The Motion is DENIED (BA, ilcd) Modified on 8/20/2018 to remove language inadvertently added (VH, ilcd). Modified on 8/20/2018 to add language (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2305 Motion. Movant Gerald Jones is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that correctional officers are using excessive force to retaliate against mentally ill inmates, specifically shaking down cells and using pepper spray. He also complains that correctional officers are not submitting his grievances and ignoring his requests for mental health care. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2308 Motion. Movant Jamale Douglas is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that correctional officers have being using excessive force to provoke mentally ill inmates. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2317 MOTION filed by Patrick Adair. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2318 NOTICE to Court filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2306 Motion. Movant Ronald Patterson is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains about not receiving his medication and that the officers are using excessive force against mentally ill inmates. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2292 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that correctional officers are retaliating against the mentally ill prisoners by assaulting them and denying them meals. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2316 Motion. The Motion has been filed on behalf of Steven Lisle Jr. As a member of the class, Lisle is represented by class counsel and it is inappropriate for another prisoner to file on his behalf. The Motion requests an

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 240 of 306

investigation into the Menard Mental Health Center, all mentally ill inmates be interviewed on the treatment they are receiving, and for Steven Lisle to be treated for his mental illness. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2319 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2317 Motion. Movant Anthony Gay is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. This movant files on behalf of other prisoners and is reminded that they are all represented by class counsel. Movant complains about other inmates put in long term segregation. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/20/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2320 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2321 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2322 NOTICE filed by Kendrick Butler. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 2323 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/21/2018 2324 Letter from Anthony Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018 2325 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/22/2018 2326 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 2327 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 2328 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 2329 MOTION filed by Eduardo Navejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 2330 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 2331 MOTION filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/23/2018 2332 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/23/2018 2333 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/24/2018 2334 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2331 Motion. Movant William Buck is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant describes his suicide attempts that have placed him on crisis watch. He complains that he did not receive adequate care on crisis watch, that he did not receive a personalized treatment plan and that long time segregation is harming his mental health. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/24/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 241 of 306

08/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2330 Motion; denying 2334 Motion. Movant Ned James is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that South Mental Cell House has issues with plumbing, ventilation, and sewage and requests to be transferred. (ECF No. 2330). Furthermore, he states that he is vomiting and being harassed by mental health professionals. (ECF No. 2334). The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/24/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2321 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Movant Travionte Williams is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant details several situations of alleged use of excessive force by correctional officers. Furthermore, he complains that the mental health staff is not providing inmates with adequate therapy, medication or suicide cells and that security staff is not allowing for out of cell time. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/24/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2329 Motion. Movant Eduardo Navajar is under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been unable to be transferred to the RTU facility and that correctional officer have retaliated against him using excessive force. The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/24/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2319 Motion; denying 2320 Motion; denying 2325 Motion; denying 2326 Motion; denying 2332 Motion. Movant Don Collins is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He complains about the labeling of mentally ill offenders (ECF No. 2319), the transfer of SMI offenders from the South Mental Health Unit, (ECF No. 2326), lack of access to an RTU (ECF No. 2326), changes to the grievance process (ECF No. 2326), the lack of treatment planning (ECF No. 2332), and class counsel. (ECF Nos. 2320, 2325, 2332). The Court declines to take any specific relief based on the content of the Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 08/24/2018. (BA, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2288 Motion and 2327 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed two Motions (ECF Nos. 2288 and 2233) criticizing counsel and this Court. Movant does not request any specific relief. The Motions are denied. Parenthetically, Movant indicates he has not received a response to his Motion docketed at ECF No. 1784. Movant should refer to this Courts TEXT ONLY ORDER dated 2/27/2018. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/24/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/27/2018 2335 MOTION to Compel filed by Brandon Arriaga. (Attachments: # 1 Duplicate Motion)(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/27/2018 2336 MOTION filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/27/2018 2337 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 242 of 306

08/27/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 8/27/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Discussion held regarding exhibits. Argument heard, and ruling made. Defendants directed to provide certain documents to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs make Oral Motion to exclude witnesses. So ordered. Opening Statements heard. Evidence presented on behalf of the Defendants. Court adjourned at 5:12 PM until 8/27/2018 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) Modified on 8/29/2018 to correct typographical error (SAG, ilcd). (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/27/2018

Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2018, 8/29/2018, 8/30/2018,8/31/2018, 9/5/2018, 9/6/2018 and 9/7/2018 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/28/2018 2338 MOTION to Intervene by Anthony S. White. Responses due by 9/11/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/28/2018 2339 MOTION filed by Marlon Billops. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/28/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 8/28/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Discussion held regarding source documents for Exhibit DX55. Evidence continues on behalf of the Defendants. Court adjourned at 5:31 PM until 8/29/2018 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporter NM/JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/28/2018 2343 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/29/2018 2340 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/29/2018 2341 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/29/2018 2342 NOTICE filed by Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

08/29/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 8/29/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Discussion held regarding admission of exhibits. Evidence continues on behalf of the Defendants. Court adjourned at 5:03 PM until 8/30/2018 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018 2344 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 8/30/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Discussion held regarding sealing exhibits. Evidence continues on behalf of the Defendants. Court adjourned at 5:26 PM until 8/31/2018 at 9:30 AM.(Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/31/2018 2345 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

08/31/2018 2346 MOTION filed by Richard Kelly. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

08/31/2018 2347 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

08/31/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 243 of 306
Hearing held on 8/31/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Discussion held re: exhibits being admitted. Discussion held re: certifications, and Dfts' counsel directed to provide underlying documents to Plt. Oral motion by Dft objecting to the witness testimony of Mr. Gay. Motion Denied. Portions of deposition of Dr. Hinton read into record by Plts' counsel. Arguments held re: methodology of Holly Andrilla. Court will allow her opinion. Evidence continues on behalf of the Defendants. Court adjourned at 2:30 PM until Wednesday, 9/5/2018 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
09/04/2018 2348 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/18/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
09/04/2018 2349 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/18/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
09/04/2018 2350 MOTION filed by Ronald Patterson. Responses due by 9/18/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
09/05/2018 2351 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
09/05/2018 2352 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Testimony of Melvin Hinton Vol. I − held on 8/28/2018, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber N.Mersot, Telephone number 309−671−4244. Transcript purchased by: Harold Hirshman and Doug Rees.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/26/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2018. (TK, ilcd) Modified on 9/5/2018 to correct names of attorneys (TK, ilcd). (Entered: 09/05/2018)
09/05/2018 2353 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Testimony of Melvin Hinton Vol. II − held on 8/28/2018, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman and Doug Rees.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 244 of 306

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/26/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2018. (TK, ilcd) Modified on 9/5/2018 to correct typo(TK, ilcd). (Entered: 09/05/2018)
09/05/2018 2354 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Testimony of John R. Baldwin − held on 8/28/2018, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman and Doug Rees.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/26/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
09/05/2018 2355 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Excerpt from Testimony of Pablo Stewart − held on 8/30/2018, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman and Doug Rees.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

09/05/2018

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/26/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2340 Motion, 2348 Motion, and 2349 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed three recent Motions (ECF No. 2340, 2348, and 2349) criticizing the conduct of class counsel. Movant specifically complains that class counsel has ceased communicating with him. Movant further notes that he has had advanced complaints against class counsel in other venues. The Court would note that many issues raised by Movant have been raised by class counsel in various

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 245 of 306

09/05/2018 09/05/2018 09/05/2018 09/05/2018 09/06/2018 09/06/2018

proceedings. The Court encourages Movant to continue to communicate with class counsel regarding his concerns. However, based on the Movant's current pleadings and the relief requested, the Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2344 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion taking issue with the conduct of this Court. Movant specifically makes allegations that include the terms "lying" and "corruption." Movant's Motion clearly expresses his frustration with this process in this case. Movant is free to raise his concerns and opinions regarding issues he believes are relevant to this case, but he must do so in a respectful manner and avoid using gratuitous disparaging remarks. Future filings failing to adhere to this direction will be summarily denied. The Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2350 Motion. Movant Ronald Patterson has filed a Motion complaining about the treatment inmates are receiving from mental health providers. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court send in a "federal administrator" to oversee the delivery of mental health treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2341 Motion and 2345 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed two Motions complaining that he is receiving inadequate mental health treatment and needs to be transferred to another facility. Movant also complains that the Court has not do enough to assist him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is AGAIN advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/5/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 9/5/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Evidence continues on behalf of the Defendants. Court adjourned at 5:51 PM until Thursday, 9/6/2018 at 9:00 AM.(Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2335 , Movant Brandon Arriaga's, Motion to Compel. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement. He complains about the lack of mental health treatment being provided to him in long−term segregation and alleges prisoners are being abused by the staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2336 , Movant, Gerald Jones', Motion to Intervene. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement which he also claims is inadequate. He complains about the lack of mental health treatment being provided and alleges prisoners are being abused by the staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 246 of 306

Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2337 , Movant, Markus Mannie's, Notice in Violation of Court Order. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement. He complains about the lack of mental health treatment being provided and alleges he and other prisoners are being abused by the staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2338 , Movant, Anthony White's, Motion to Intervene. Movant is an inmate at Menard Correctional Center seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement. He complains about the lack of mental health treatment being provided and alleges prisoners are being abused by the staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2339 , Movant, Marlon Billops', Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement. He complains about the lack of mental health treatment being provided and alleges he and other prisoners are being abused by the staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018 2356 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018 2357 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018 2358 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2343 , 2347 , and 2351 Movant, Steven Lisle Jr.'s, Motions. Movant is an inmate at Menard Correctional Center. He alleges he was abused by the staff, is not receiving proper medical or mental health treatment, and is not getting the proper amount of time out of his cell. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motions. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2346 , Movant, Richard Kellys, Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He complains about the lack of out of cell structured and unstructured time that he and other inmates are receiving. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 247 of 306

the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/6/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/06/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 9/6/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Evidence continues on behalf of the Defendants. Discussion held re: closing arguments. Proposed Findings of Facts is due by the end of business on 9/26/2018. Status Conference is set for 9/28/2018 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call.) Court adjourned at 2:26 PM until Friday, 9/7/2018 at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporter LC/JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/07/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present in open court by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt, Nicole Schult and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for the Defendants for Motion Hearing held on 9/7/2018 re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. Discussion held regarding exhibits. Closing arguments held. Parties reminded that their Proposed Findings of Facts are due by the end of business on 9/26/2018 and a Status Conference is set for Friday, 9/28/2018 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call.) The Court anticipates entering a written order no later than Friday, 10/12/2018. Court adjourned. (Court Reporter NM.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/07/2018 2362 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST from Motion Hearing held 8/27/2018 − 9/7/2018. (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018 2359 MOTION Informing the Court filed by Sedrick Griffin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018 2360 MOTION for Disclosure of All Information Concerning the B.M.U. filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018 2361 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/11/2018 2363 Letter from Jerry Osbourne and Cesor De La Garza. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 2364 Ex−Parte MOTION for Enforcing Judgment filed by Jerry Osbourne and Cesor De La Garza. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 2365 Letter from Joshua Matthews. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 2366 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 2367 MOTION to Inform filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/11/2018 2368 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum on the Court's Limited Authority to Issue Forward−Looking Relief by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/12/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2359 , Movant, Sedrick Griffin's, Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He complains about the lack of mental health treatment being provided to himself and other prisoners. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/12/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2360 , Movant, Ralph King's, Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He requests the disclosure of all information concerning the Behavior Modification Unit at Pontiac Correctional Center. The

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 248 of 306

09/12/2018 09/12/2018 09/12/2018 09/12/2018 09/12/2018

Movant complains that while he has been moved into the unit, his mental health treatment and status in segregation remains unchanged. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2361 , Movant, Rasheed McGee's, Notice. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He complains that staff is limiting his access to the commissary and not providing him with sufficient toiletries. He also claims his psychiatrist should be ordered to alter his monthly medications. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Notice. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2364 , Movants', Jerry Obourne and Cesar De La Garza, Motion. Movants are inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center. They allege they have suffered numerous unsatisfactory conditions, abuses, and harassment while they were on suicide watch status. They also allege multiple violations of the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movants are further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movants deem appropriate. The Movants' Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2365 , Movant, Joshua Matthew's, Letter. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He alleges he has suffered numerous unsatisfactory conditions, abuses, and harassment at the hands of prison staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2366 , Movant, Samuel Span's, Letter. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He wants to inform the Court that he received no actual treatment while on suicide watch. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2367 , Movant, Darren Evans', Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He alleges he is not receiving his proper structured out of cell time and generally complains about his mental health treatment. He also alleges the security staff is intimidating the mental health staff. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/12/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 249 of 306
09/13/2018 2369 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Law on the Court's Authority to Issue Injunctive Relief by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2370 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. I − held on 8/27/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2371 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. IIA − held on 8/28/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber N. Mersot, Telephone number 309−671−4244. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2372 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. IIB − held on 8/28/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 250 of 306
of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2373 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. III − held on 8/29/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2374 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. IV − held on 8/30/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 251 of 306
that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2375 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. V − held on 8/31/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2376 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. VI − held on 9/5/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2377 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. VIIA − held on 9/6/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Cosimini, Telephone number 217−355−4227. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.
IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 252 of 306

of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/13/2018 2378 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. VIIB − held on 9/6/18, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/15/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2018. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/14/2018 2379 NOTICE of Change of Address by Donald Collins. New address is Hill Correctional Center, P.O. Box 1327, Galesburg, IL 61401 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/14/2018 2380 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/28/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/14/2018 2381 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 9/28/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/14/2018

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2380 and 2381 , Movant, Donald Collins', Motions. Movant is an inmate at Hill Correctional Center. He criticizes Class Counsel, the practice of transferring and locating prisoners by the Defendant, the Court, and his own treatment as an inmate. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motions. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/14/2018. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/14/2018 2382 MOTION to Inform the Court filed by Eric Bernard. Responses due by 9/28/2018 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 253 of 306

09/17/2018 2383 Letter from Samuel Span to Atty Antholt (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/17/2018 2384 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 10/1/2018 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/17/2018

2385

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2382 Motion. Movant Eric Bernard has filed a Motion complaining that his mental health treatment and lack of out−of−cell time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant does not request any specific relief, but generally complains that he (and others) should be getting better treatment. The Court declines to grant any specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Movant also indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED forwarded Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/17/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/18/2018 2386 Letter from Willie Terry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/18/2018 2387 MOTION for Emergency Transfer filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2387 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion for Emergency Transfer requesting that this Court direct the IDOC to transfer him to Joliet Treatment Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In support of his Motion, Movant attaches a letter from Dr. Stewart. In the letter, Dr. Stewart states Movant may benefit from treatment at a residential treatment unit. The Court declines to take any action at this time. Nonetheless, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/18/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/19/2018 2388 Letter from Willie Terry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/19/2018 2389 MOTION to Process Grievance filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/19/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2384 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion clarifying his previous Motion regarding his complaints of Class Counsel and this Court. (See ECF No. 2344). The Court fully reviewed Movant's previous Motion, in which Movant stated: "Now, when you think of the worse financial state and crime spree, add these names to the national leaders in corruptness [ ]" and the "Court covers counsel's lies." (See ECF No. 2344). The Court's previous admonishment was warranted. Nonetheless, the Court again recognizes the Movant's frustration with this case and Class Counsel, but Movant should continue to express his concerns and opinions to Class Counsel. The Court declines to grant any specific relief based on the current Motion, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/19/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/19/2018 2390 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/20/2018 2391 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 2392 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 2393 MOTION to Inform filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 2394 MOTION for Copy of 5/25/2018 Order filed by Edward Barkes, Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 254 of 306

09/20/2018 2395 Letter from Anthony McNeal. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/21/2018 2396 MOTION to Compel filed by Brandon Arriaga. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

09/21/2018 2397 MOTION to Inform & Report filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

09/24/2018 2398 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/24/2018 2399 Ex−Parte MOTION for Protection...filed by Cesar De La Garza. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2389 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings filed a Motion requesting the Court to help process a grievance attached to his Motion. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his grievance, Movant complains of insufficient out−of−cell time and states he never received any formal orientation or an orientation package. Movant requests an orientation and/or documented information of what the Behavior Modification Unit consists of. He also requests additional mental health treatment in accordance with the Residential Treatment Unit level of care. The Court recognizes the Movant's frustrations with the grievance process, but Movant should continue to utilize the grievance process. The Court declines to take any action at this time, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/24/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/24/2018)

09/26/2018 2400 MOTION for copies filed by Tyler Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2401 AFFIDAVIT filed by Tyler Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2402 MOTION to Inform filed by Anthony Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2403 MOTION to Inform and Report filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2404 MOTION to Intervene/Inform filed by Martino Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2395 Letter. The Court is in receipt of the letter written by inmate Anthony McNeal. Mr. McNeal is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. McNeal informs the Court that he would like to stay on single cell status. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. McNeal is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2405 Proposed Findings of Fact by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2406 Proposed Findings of Fact by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2407 MEMORANDUM Proposed Conclusions of Law re 2406 Proposed Findings of Fact by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 09/26/2018)

09/26/2018 2409 Letter from Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2398 Letter. The Court received the Letter from inmate Samuel Span. Mr. Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Span informs the Court that there are not enough staff members in the Residential Treatment Unit to facilitate group sessions and that the inmates on suicide watch do not receive treatment. Mr. Span does not request any specific relief in his Letter, and the Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 255 of 306

determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Span is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018 2408 Letter from Kato Ware (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2408 Letter. The Court received the letter written by inmate Kato Ware. Mr. Ware is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Mr. Ware wants to inform the Court about the conditions of his cell, security staff's treatment of the inmates, and a lack of mental health treatment. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Kato is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2383 Letter. The Court received the letter written by inmate Samuel Span filed on September 17, 2018. Mr. Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Span informs the Court that the aggression level among security staff toward the inmates has risen and that his medication has been expired for more than a week. Mr. Span attaches a copy of a grievance to his Letter. Mr. Span is reminded that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2386 Letter.The Court received the letter written by inmate Willie Terry. Mr. Terry is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Terry informs the Court about Nurse Jade and states that she has threatened him. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Terry is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2397 Motion. Movant William Buck has filed a Motion complaining that correctional officers are mistreating inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order cameras and prosecute officers who abuse inmates. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 9/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2409 Letter. The Court received the Letter written by inmate Rasheed McGee. Mr. McGee is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Dixon Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. McGee informs the Court that he has been in segregation since arriving at Dixon. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. McGee is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2404 Motion to Intervene/Inform. Movant Martino Smith has filed a Motion complaining that he is not getting adequate treatment, that he is

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 256 of 306

being threatened, and that he is not receiving proper out−of−cell time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court intervene to resolve Movant's complaints. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2403 Motion. Movant William Buck has filed a Motion complaining that correctional officers are mistreating inmates and physically assaulting them. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order cameras and prosecute officers who abuse inmates. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/27/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/28/2018 2410 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018 2411 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018 2412 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018 2413 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018 2414 Letter from Joshua Matthews. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018 2415 MOTION filed by Fredrick Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018 2416 Letter from Bob Donley. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

09/28/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Harold Hirshman, Amanda Antholdt and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs, Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Chris Higgerson for the Defendants, Attorneys Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for IDOC, and Attorneys Andrew Ramage and Andy DeVooght for Wexford for Status Conference held on 9/28/2018. The Court informs the parties he intends to issue a written order making a basic finding that the plaintiffs have met their burden on the issue of deliberate indifference and that a permanent injunction will issue. The written order will issue by 10/12/2018. The parties will be informed if there is any significant delay beyond that date. The parties are to address the additional question of the status of the settlement agreement in writing with a simultaneous filing no later than 10/5/2018. Defendants shall submit their proposed remedy within 14 days of the Court's written order. Plaintiffs will have one week to respond. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2392 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion complaining that Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center are not treated the same as RTU inmates at other facilities. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant generally complains that RTU inmates at other facilities may use their radios and TV, have more out−of−cell time, and receive more segregation time reductions and loss of privilege restoration. Movant requests that RTU inmates be treated equally, regardless of what facility they are at. The Court declines to grant any specific relief based on the current Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2393 Motion. Movant Darren Evans has filed a Motion to Inform complaining that a mental health group session was cancelled as a

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 257 of 306

result of one person's bad behavior and that a particular session lasted for about 20 minutes instead of 1 hour and 30 minutes. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that the mental health group sessions be held as scheduled. The Court declines to grant any specific relief based on the current Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ORDER denying 2394 Motion. Movant Edward Barkes Jr. has filed a Motion requesting a copy of the Courts Order dated May 25, 2018. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant should request a copy of the Court's Order from Class Counsel. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2396 Motion to Compel. Movant Brandon Arriaga has filed a Motion complaining about the mistreatment of inmates on suicide watch. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant makes serious allegations, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018 2417 RESPONSE filed by Don Collins re: 2405 . (VH, ilcd) Modified on 10/1/2018 to clarify filing is a response not a motion. (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2415 Motion. Movant Frederick Walker has filed a Motion complaining that he has not heard from Attorney Alan Mills in response to legal mail he sent. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that the Court compel Attorney Alan Mills to consult with him. The Court declines to grant any specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018 2418 MOTION/Complaint filed by Carl Furrell Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2399 Motion. Movant Cesar De La Garza has filed a Motion complaining that correctional staff members are retaliating against him for filing a motion. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests the Court to order protection from defendants, asks the Court to appoint a monitor to investigate the allegations in his Motion, and asks for the assistance of counsel. Movant has made serious allegations, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2400 Motion. Movant Tyler Johnson has filed a Motion requesting a copy of the docket text in this case, Section 1983 and habeas forms, any relevant docket text entries or paperwork, and any documents pertinent to the litigation and settlement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Lawrence Correctional Center. Movant should request Class Counsel to provide him with any pertinent documents. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 258 of 306

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2402 Motion. Movant Anthony Thomas has filed a Motion complaining that Dr. Patricks rather than Crystal Carson is running group sessions, that he is not receiving proper out−of−cell time, and that he is not receiving individual therapy sessions every 15 days. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that the Court order the proper chain of command to be followed. The Court declines to grant any specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/1/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2418 Motion. Movant Carl Furrell Jr. has filed a Motion detailing allegations of mistreatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests to be given mental health treatment, outside medical treatment for his hand, to receive his medications, and for the return of his property. Movant's allegations are serious, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/01/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/01/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2390 , 2391 , 2410 , 2411 , 2412 , and 2413 . Movant Don Collins has filed an additional six motions in this matter. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. In his first Motion 2390 , Movant raises concerns about medical staff and the conditions of the facility. In his second Motion 2391 , Movant complains about the healthcare treatment at Hill Correctional Center. In his third Motion 2410 , Movant complains that he was denied a special needs accommodation related to his eating disorders. In his fourth Motion 2411 , Movant complains that he was denied a transfer on the basis of his disability. In his fifth Motion 2412 , Movant complains that class counsel does not communicate with class members. In his sixth Motion 2413 , Movant complains that documents were sent to Pontiac Correctional Center in error and should have been sent to Hill Correctional Center. The Court has previously admonished Movant that he should pursue allegations of specific misconduct through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. The Court Monitor has, and will, review the various complaints from the inmates. However, ultimately, violations and complaints regarding the State's adherence to the settlement agreement will be brought, if at all, by Class Counsel. The Court declines to grant any specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/1/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

10/02/2018 2419 NOTICE to the Court filed by Anthony White. (VH, ilcd) (Main Document 2419 replaced on 10/3/2018) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/02/2018 2420 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/02/2018 2421 Letter from Bob Donley. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/03/2018 2422 MOTION for copies filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018 2423 MOTION/Complaint filed by Tramain McDonald. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2414 Letter. The Court received a letter from inmate Joshua Matthews. Mr. Matthews is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his detailed Letter, Mr. Matthews informs the Court about allegations of verbal and physical mistreatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Mr. Matthews' allegations are serious, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Matthews is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 259 of 306

Michael M. Mihm on 10/3/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2416 Letter. The Court received the Letter from inmate Bob Donley. Mr. Donley is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Illinois River Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Donley complains that the daily operations of the Correctional Center are running late, which affects meals, showers, etc. and that prison staff are allegedly mishandling inmates' grievances. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Donley is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/3/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2422 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion requesting "last scheduled hearing and next scheduled hearing on atty fees." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested. Movant should request Class Counsel to provide him with any pertinent documents or hearing dates. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/3/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2419 Notice. The Court received a Notice from inmate Anthony White titled "Notice to Court and Class Counsel of Continued Settlement Violations at Menard Correctional Center." Mr. White is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. In his Notice, Mr. White states he has made numerous suicide attempts, was put on crisis watch status, and placed in a regular segregation cell. Mr. White requests that this Court and Class Counsel take notice of the alleged continued settlement violations at Menard Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of Mr. White's Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. White is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Finally, Mr. White's Notice indicates a pattern of self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Mr. White's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/4/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2420 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that Hill Correctional Center does not have adequate outpatient care or therapeutic services. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. While the Motion does not identify any specific relief, Movant indicates that he has been allegedly retaliated against as a result of his health. Movant has been admonished previously that individual complaints are not specifically addressed in this proceeding. Any complaints regarding his treatment should be pursued through the IDOC's grievance procedure. The Court declines to grant any specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/4/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2423 Motion. Movant Tramain McDonald has filed a Motion complaining about his medication, treatment, and crisis evaluations. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court prevent and resolve his complaints. However, individual complaints are not specifically addressed in this proceeding. Any complaints regarding Movant's individualized treatment should be pursued through the IDOC's grievance procedure. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/4/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018 2424 TRIAL BRIEF Memorandum on the Status of the Settlement Agreement by Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 260 of 306

10/04/2018 2425 NOTICE to Court filed by Marshaun Boykins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/05/2018 2426 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018 2427 TRIAL BRIEF Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum on Status of Settlement Agreement by John R Baldwin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: June 29, 2018 letter)(Rees, R.) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/09/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2425 Notice. The Court received a Notice from inmate Marshaun Boykins. In his Notice, Mr. Boykins complains about his mental health treatment. Mr. Boykins is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Dixon Correctional Center. Mr. Boykins requests that this Court move him to a different facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Boykins is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Mr. Boykins indicates he could engage self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Mr. Boykins' filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/9/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018 2428 Letter from Kato Ware. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018 2429 MOTION filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018 2430 MOTION filed by Willie Walls. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2428 Letter. The Court received the letter from inmate Kato Ware. Mr. Ware is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his letter, Mr. Ware informs the Court that he is allegedly being harassed by correctional officer Ryan Reed. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Ware advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/9/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2429 Motion. Movant William Buck has filed a Motion complaining that correctional officers are mistreating inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order all correctional officers to wear their names and badge numbers on their uniforms for identification purposes. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/9/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2430 Motion. Movant Willie Walls has filed a Motion complaining about alleged violations of the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motion, Movant explains the alleged violations and ask that the Court investigate all claims. Movant is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/9/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/10/2018 2431 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings − Vol. IX − held on 9/7/2018, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber N. Mersot, Telephone number 309−671−4244. Transcript purchased by:Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 261 of 306

filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/31/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/8/2019. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/10/2018)

10/11/2018 2432 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2432 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction complaining that Major Prentice allegedly denied inmate Henry Munson medical attention. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court remove Major Prentice from working with SMI inmates, to move Major Prentice to a different shift, and to place Major Prentice under official misconduct. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/11/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/2018 2433 NOTICE/Motion filed by Don Collins (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/2018 2434 NOTICE to Court re: [2390, 2391, 2410, 2411, 2420] filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2426 Motion and regarding Notice 2433 and Notice 2434 filed by Don Collins. Movant Don Collins has filed an additional Motion and two Notices in this matter. See 2426 , 2433 , and 2434 . Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. In his Motion 2426 filed on 10/5/2018, Movant complains that Class Counsel does not sufficiently communicate with the Class Members. In his Notice 2433 filed on 10/11/2018, Movant notes that Class Counsel responded via U.S. Mail with an update. Movant also notes that he filed a response 2417 to Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction 2405 filed by Attorney Rees. The Court confirms that it received Movant's response 2417 . Finally, in a Notice 2434 Movant filed on 10/11/2018, Movant complains that he is not receiving meals in his cell. The Court declines to grant any specific relief based on Movant's recent filings, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is again advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/11/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/12/2018 2435 MOTION to Substitute Attorney, Terrence Corrigan, Heidi Hildebrand and Desiree Kumar to be replaced by Laura Bautista, by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 10/26/2018 (Bautista, Laura) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2112 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Ashoor Rasho. This TEXT ONLY ORDER provides notice to the Parties that the Court anticipates it written order related to this Motion will be entered during the week of

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 262 of 306

October 22, 2018. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/12/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/15/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 2435 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Laura Bautista is substituted for Terrence Corrigan, Desiree Kumar, and Heidi Hildebrand as counsel for Defendant John Baldwin. Terrence Corrigan, Desiree Kumar, and Heidi Hildebrand are terminated and removed from the service list as counsel for Defendant John Baldwin. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/15/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018 2436 Ex−Parte MOTION filed by Cesar De La Garza. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018 2437 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018 2438 MOTION filed by Charles Howard. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018 2439 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018 2440 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2436 Motion. The Court received Cesar De La Garza's "Ex−Parte Motion for Protection from Government Retaliation and Threats." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motion, Movant informs the Court that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center have retaliated against and threatened him after he filed a previous Motion in this case. (Doc. 2364). Movant states he has tried to file grievances, but staff members are not processing them. (Doc. 2436, p. 2). Movant requests that the Court: (1) grant an order of protection to stop defendants' retaliation, threats, abuse, harassment, and physical assaults; (2) order defendants to release a Motion that Movant sent on 9/13/18 for e−filing; (3) order defendants to process his grievances; and (4) order defendants to return all legal papers Movant sent to the law library for e−filing and copying. The Court declines to grant the relief requested at this time, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that he should continue to submit any individual complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/18. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2437 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining about medical staff members. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. In his Motion, Movant alleges that he has been denied meals in his cell despite having multiple medical and mental special needs permits. The Court notes that Movant has filed previous motions on this topic. The Court recognizes Movant is frustrated, but the Court again reminds Movant that he can always pursue his complaints through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018 2441 MOTION filed by Jabbar Harmon. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018 2442 MOTION filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2438 Motion. Movant Charles Howard has filed a Motion complaining that inmates who are suicidal have allegedly been denied medical attention, have had access to metal objects, and have been mistreated by staff members. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order an investigation be conducted and that video footage be saved for the Court's review. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Movant also indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 263 of 306

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2439 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member spit in an inmate's face. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court investigate the incident. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2440 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle has filed a Motion complaining that inmates who are suicidal have allegedly been denied medical attention, have had access to metal objects, and have been mistreated by staff members. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. The Court notes that Movant's Motion is similar to inmate Charles Howard's Motion (Doc. 2438). Like Mr. Howard, Movant requests that this Court order an investigation and that video footage be saved for later review. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Movant Steven Lisle also indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2441 Motion. Movant Jabbar Harmon has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motion, Movant complains that the temperature inside the facility has been 30−40 degrees and that inmates have been sick as a result. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2442 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams has filed a Motion complaining about the cold temperature inside the facility. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court "do something about the heat." The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

10/17/2018 2443 MOTION filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/17/2018)

10/18/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2443 Motion. Movant Darrell Evans has filed a Motion complaining that a staff member spit in an inmate's face. This Motion is similar to a Motion Ralph Kings filed on 10/16/2018 2439 . Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court investigate the incident. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/18/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/19/2018 2444 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018 2445 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018 2446 MOTION/NOTICE filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 264 of 306

10/19/2018 2447 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2445 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings has filed a Motion complaining about a new policy the South House's Mental Health Unit at Pontiac Correctional Center implemented to administer inmates' medication. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests this Court to terminate the new policy immediately. The Court understands Movant is frustrated with the new policy, but the Court cannot grant Movant any specific relief at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/19/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2446 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams has filed a Motion complaining that he is suicidal but was not allowed to speak to a crisis team member. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he asked to talk with a crisis team member because he is suicidal, but all of the correctional officers denied his request. Movant's situation is urgent, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Finally, Movant indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/19/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2447 Motion. Movant Ned James has filed a Motion complaining that he is in immediate danger, that he is throwing up blood, and that he has been sexually assaulted and harassed. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that Dr. Pablo Stewart recommended that he be sent to Joliet Treatment Center, but the Warden refuses to send him. Movant's situation is urgent, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/19/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2444 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that he has not had any food or liquids for 9 days because his permits are being ignored. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. In his Motion, Movant raises a potentially serious health concern as he provides that he has "now becomes [sic] 9 days of no food intake or liquids as been protocol/permits." As such, the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide a copy of this letter to the Warden. Further, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/22/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 2448 MOTION filed by Charles Donelson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 2449 Letter from Willie Terry. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2448 Motion. Movant Charles Donelson filed a Motion complaining that Stateville Correctional Center violated the settlement agreement and failed to follow its own regulations regarding grievances, sick call, scheduling, and recreation/out−of−cell time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Stateville Correctional Center. Movant asks the Court to take action based on the alleged violations of the settlement agreement. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 265 of 306

the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/22/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 2450 MOTION filed by Marcus King. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2449 Letter. The Court received the Letter from inmate Willie Terry on 10/22/2018. Mr. Terry is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, he informs the Court that prison staff members have not been assisting him with his mental health issues and that correctional officers have been threatening to physically harm him. In addition, Mr. Terry informs the Court that correctional officers threatened to accuse him of assaulting a staff member to prevent him from reaching his "max−out" date. Also, Mr. Terry alleges that staff members shared his confidential health information with other inmates and encouraged other inmates to attack him. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Terry is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/22/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2450 Motion. Movant Marcus King filed a Motion complaining that he was denied his TV and mp3 player after he was moved out of segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that he declared a hunger and water strike until certain relief is granted. First, he asks to be put on "A−grade" so he can have his electronics. Second, he asks to be allowed to speak with someone involved in the Rasho lawsuit. Third, he requests that 1 month of GCC be restored. Fourth, he asks that any damaged electronics be replaced. Fifth, he requests a medical hold to be lifted. Sixth, he requests headphones and a watch that vibrates for medical/mental health reasons. Seventh, he asks to be sent to Sheridan Correctional Center for treatment. Finally, he asks the Court to order someone from Springfield to contact him. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/22/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/23/2018 2451 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 11/6/2018 (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/23/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2451 Motion. Movant Don Collins has filed a Motion complaining that Class Counsel, Alan Mills, has not followed up with him or remedied issues Movant has complained about. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. The Court notes this is not the first motion Movant has filed regarding Mr. Mills' alleged lack of communication with Class Members. The Court recognizes Movant is frustrated by his inability to discuss issues with Class Counsel. However, many of the issues Movant raised in Motions he has filed have been addressed in the Monitor's report. The Court declines to grant any relief based on Movant's Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/23/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/24/2018 2452 MOTION to Intervene by Martino Smith. Responses due by 11/7/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2452 Motion to Intervene. Movant Martino Smith has filed a Motion complaining that a mental health staff member, Crystal Carson, told Movant she was going to bring him a razor blade. It is unclear from Movant's Motion if Ms. Carson gave him a razor blade. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also informs the Court that a mental health staff member spit on an inmate. This is not the first complaint the Court has received about this incident. Movant requests this

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 266 of 306

Court's intervention due to mental health staff members' alleged misconduct. Movant's allegations are serious, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should continue to go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/24/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/25/2018 2453 MOTION filed by Aaron Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018 2454 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018 2455 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2453 Motion. Movant Aaron Smith filed a Motion complaining that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center, where Movant is currently housed, have failed to comply with the settlement agreement and, as a result, Movant is not receiving the proper mental health treatment. Movant requests that this Court order his immediate transfer to the Joliet Treatment Center to ensure his physical, mental, and emotional safety will not be jeopardized. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/25/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2454 Motion. Movant Gerald Jones filed a Motion complaining that (1) staff members have refused to document his injuries caused by self−harm; (2) he has been deprived of necessary mental health treatment; (3) he has been targeted for reporting staff members' alleged abuse of mentally ill inmates; and (4) his depression has been exacerbated by the fact he is not allowed to write to his family members and others. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests the Court to grant him leave to file an injunction and order that some form of treatment be provided. The Court declines to grant the relief requested but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Movant indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/25/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/25/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2455 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion detailing what has occurred between 9/26/2018 and 10/25/2018 regarding his slow eat permits and disability accommodations at Hill Correctional Center, where Movant is currently housed. Movant has a history of requiring slow eat meal permits and permits for having meals in his cell. Movant has filed multiple Motions with the Court about being denied permits and disability accommodations at Hill Correctional Center. Movant's Motion does not request the Court to grant him specific relief, but Movant requests that Attorney Samantha Reed follow−up with him next week after he has met with medical staff. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/25/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/26/2018 2456 MOTION filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018 2457 MOTION to Inform filed by Anthony Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2456 Motion. Movant Ralph Kings filed a Motion complaining that inmate Darrin Evans should be placed on medical observation in the H.C.U. because he swallowed objects in his cell, such as a pen and fan cord, after a staff member told him to "swallow your pen." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order that all staff working in Pontiac's Mental Health

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 267 of 306

Unit to be required to have the same qualifications as the staff working at the Joliet Treatment Center. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2457 Motion. Movant Anthony Thomas filed a Motion complaining that inmate Darren Evans swallowed objects such as screws, a cord, and a spork after a staff member told him to. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant Movant's Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Finally, the Court notes that this is the second motion it has received about inmate Darren Evans' self−inflicted harm. From these Motions, it is unclear whether Mr. Evans needs medical attention, and if he does, whether he has received it. Due to the nature of the situation, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/29/2018 2458 MOTION filed by Kato Ware. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018 2459 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2458 Motion. Movant Kato Ware filed a Motion complaining that there is not adequate mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant informs the Court that he requested mental health treatment and to be seen by a mental health professional. However, he was told the facility is not doing one−on−one meetings. Movant also complains about the lack of confidentiality during meetings with mental health professionals and lack of out−of−cell time at the facility. Movant requests this Court to issue the Defendants sanctions. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/29/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2459 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining that he has not eaten for 8 days because he has been denied a 60−minute slow eat permit for in−cell meals to accommodate his disability. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. Movant requests that Class Counsel review his Motion and follow−up. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Finally, Movant's Motion raises a potentially serious health concern. As a result, the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide a copy of this Motion to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/29/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/30/2018

2460

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/30/2018. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 2112 ) is GRANTED. The Court finds that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the Plaintiffs in medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. The Court further finds the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that a permanent injunction is appropriate and necessary. The Court specifically finds that the Plaintiffs have suffered or will suffer irreparable injury if a permanent injunction is not issued. There are significant deficiencies in the delivery of mental health services within the IDOC. The evidence establishes that there are systemic and gross deficiencies in

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 268 of 306

staffing that effectively denied the Plaintiffs access to adequate medical care. The Plaintiffs are at a significant risk of harm. The Court further finds that there are no adequate remedies available at law to compensate for these injuries. Plaintiffs are mentally ill inmates incarcerated within the IDOC, and Defendants are required to provide adequate care. The balance of hardships weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs. While appropriately staffing the IDOC with mental health providers is a significant task, it is one that can, and must, be done. The public interest also weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendants are hereby given 14 days to submit their proposed action to address the constitutional deficiencies outlined herein. (Minute Entry dated 9/28/2018). Plaintiffs have seven days thereafter to file their response to the Defendants' proposal. Id. Motion for Order on Payment of Deferred Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 2233 ) is DENIED without prejudice. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

11/05/2018 2461 Letter filed by Patrice Daniels. (Schult, Nicole) Modified on 11/6/2018 to change motion to letter(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/05/2018 2462 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jabbar Harmon. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/05/2018 2463 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2461 Letter filed by Patrice Daniels. Mr. Daniels is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. In his Letter, Mr. Daniels informs the Court that he believes the Court's orders have produced results. However, he informs the Court that the culture within the IDOC is such that mental health professionals defer to correctional officers, and as a result, in order for mental health treatment to improve, the officers need to be willing to help implement the changes. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Daniels is reminded that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/6/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2462 Motion. Movant Jabbar Harmon filed a Motion complaining that an officer has sexually harassed him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges that the officer has been sexually harassing him while conducting unsupervised strip searches, and the Movant requests that this Court help him because he fears for his safety. Movant's allegations are serious, and as such, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Due to the serious allegations in Movant's Motion, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/06/2018.(MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2463 Motion. Movant Gerald Jones filed a Motion complaining that defendants have not taken reasonable steps to stop inmates from assaulting each other and have deliberately selected certain inmates to be put in the open yard together who they believe will fight or attack each other. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that due to defendants placing certain inmates in the yard together who are likely to fight, class members who are mentally ill have refused to go outside in the open yard because they fear for their safety. Movant complains class members are being deprived of their out−of−cell time and in essence forced to stay in their cells for 24 hours a day. Movant requests that this Court allow him or class counsel to file motions to seek sanctions for violations of the settlement agreement. The Court will review and consider motions that have been filed but reminds Movant that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Finally, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 269 of 306

Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/6/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/06/2018)

11/07/2018 2464 NOTICE in Violation of Settlement Agreement filed by Luis Padin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 2465 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Johnson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 2466 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 2467 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2464 filed by Luis Padin. Mr. Padin filed a "Motion Reporting Settlement Violations by Pontiac C.C Officials" complaining about defendants' alleged violations of the settlement agreement, including, among other violations, physical assault and verbal abuse upon mentally ill inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court enter an order to enforce judgment against defendants. The Court declines to grant the relief requested but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/07/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 2468 NOTICE in Violation of Agreement filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2465 Motion. Movant Michael Johnson filed a Motion complaining that he was sexually harassed and assaulted by a correctional officer known as "C/O Harrold." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court grant his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Movant's allegations are serious, and the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/07/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2466 Motion and denying 2467 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion 2466 complaining about his recent weight loss due to the denial of his slow eat/in−cell meal permits. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. Movant informs the Court that he lost 13 lbs. between weight checks on 10/23/2018 and 11/01/2018. Movant requests a follow−up visit regarding his weight loss. In his second Motion 2467 , Movant informs the Court that he may be transferred JTC, but JTC may not be able to address his disability. Movant asks Class Counsel to route the detailed 10−30−18 letter on NP's history of disability to the warden of JTC. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/07/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/08/2018 2469 NOTICE to the Court filed by Anthony Thomas. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2469 Notice. The Court received a Notice 2469 from inmate Anthony Thomas. Within the Notice, Mr. Thomas filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and attached an Amended Complaint to his Motion. (Doc. 2469, pp. 12−16). Mr. Thomas is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Motion, Mr. Thomas states that he and other inmates have "been through a lot of situations with Major Prentice and others to make a solid class action lawsuit." The Court denies Mr. Thomas' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Mr. Thomas' Notice 2469 to the Court

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 270 of 306

Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Thomas advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/8/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/13/2018 2470 MOTION to Inform filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/13/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2470 Motion. Movant William Buck filed a Motion complaining that correctional staff members physically assaulted inmate Michael Hughes. Movant notes that the alleged abuse was not recorded because there are no cameras in the west house. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court prosecute the abuse and order that cameras be installed in the west house. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/13/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/13/2018 2471 NOTICE to Court filed by James Lewis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/13/2018 2472 NOTICE filed by James Lewis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/13/2018 2473 MEMORANDUM in Support of Proposed Injunction Order by John R Baldwin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Defendants' Proposed Injunction Order)(Rees, R.) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/14/2018 2474 NOTICE to Court filed by James Lewis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/14/2018)

11/16/2018 2475 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Travionte Williams. Responses due by 11/30/2018.(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2475 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Movant Travionte Williams filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction complaining that Major S. Prentice is sexually harassing him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order that Major S. Prentice be fired and to grant Movant protection from her conduct. Movant's allegations are serious, and although the Court declines to grant the relief requested, the Court directs Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/16/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018 2476 Letter from Celeste Edwards (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/19/2018 2477 Letter from Tony Rivers. (VH, ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2018: # 1 Envelope) (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 11/19/2018)

11/19/2018 2478 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

11/19/2018 2479 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by Don Collins. Plt is now at Joliet Treatment Center, 2848 W McDonough St., Joliet, Il (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

11/19/2018 2480 MOTION filed by Anthony Thomas, Darren Evans, Ralph Kings, Martino Smith, Ronald Paterson and Darnell Grigsby. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

11/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2480 Motion. Inmates Anthony Thomas, Darren Evans, Ralph Kings, Martino Smith, Ronald Patterson, Marlon Minter, James Obama, Darnell Grigsby, and James Lewis have filed this Motion seeking relief, including being removed from segregation. The Court will not consider the Motion in the context of this proceeding. Each individual should pursue relief through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum they deem appropriate. In this matter, the Motion is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all of the filers. Movant James Lewis is a restricted filer, and as to him, the Motion has already been returned. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/20/2018. (MNS,

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 271 of 306

ilcd) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/20/2018 2481 MEMORANDUM in Response to Defendants Proposed Injunction Order re 2473 Memorandum by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/21/2018 2482 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/26/2018 2483 MOTION to Intervene filed by Anthony Rice. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018 2484 MOTION to Intervene filed by Henry Walker. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018 2485 MOTION to Intervene filed by Maurice Watson. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018 2486 MOTION in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Christopher Knox and Ryan Kirkpatrick. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re Notices 2471 , 2472 , and 2474 filed by inmate James Lewis. Mr. Lewis is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In notice 2471 , Mr. Lewis informs the Court about human rights violations. In notice 2472 , he describes The Paradise Law and includes the blueprints for a new coalition. Finally, in notice 2474 , he asks the Court to order that he and another inmate, Darnell Grisby, be released from segregation. The Court denies Mr. Lewis' and Mr. Grisby's request to be released from segregation and declines to take any action based on the notices. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the notices to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Lewis is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

2487

MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion to Order Payment of Deferred Attorneys' Fees or for Contempt by Plaintiffs Phillip L Abraham, Otis Arrington, Kenneth Bakalik, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Lynda Smith, Laterial Stinson, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. Responses due by 12/10/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2476 Letter. The Court received a Letter from inmate Celeste Edwards. Mr. Edwards is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Danville Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Edwards asks the Court for a "copy of a full discloser on a class act" in this matter and for information related to the lawyers who took on the case. It is unclear what specific information Mr. Edwards is seeking. As such, the Court declines to take any action based on this Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2477 Letter. The Court received a Letter from inmate Tony Rivers. Mr. Rivers is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Rivers informs the Court that he is being blackmailed with regards to his release date. He also states that mentally ill inmates continue to be mistreated. He asks the Court to set up a confidential phone call to discuss these matters. The Court cannot grant Mr. Rivers a "confidential" phone call, and as a result, the Court denies this request. Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Rivers is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2478 Motion filed by Don Collins. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. In his Motion, Movant informs the Court that he had been denied necessary permits to accommodate his disability at Hill Correctional Center. Movant

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 272 of 306

stated that he would soon be transferred to the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant's subsequent Notice of Change of Address 2479 indicates that he was indeed transferred there. In his Notice of Change of Address, Movant indicates that he did not receive a return copy of the last three motions he filed while at Hill Correctional Center. The Court notes that the last three motions it received from inmate Don Collins were 2478 , 2466 , and 2467 . The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion 2478 to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/26/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/27/2018

NOTICE OF Motion Hearing/Argument set for 12/13/2018 at 10:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/27/2018. (MMM4, ilcd) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

11/28/2018 2488 Letter from Edward Barkes Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/28/2018 2489 NOTICE to the Court filed by Edward Abernathy/M01377. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 11/28/2018)

11/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2482 Motion. Movant Gerald Jones filed a Motion complaining that the class plaintiffs are being prevented from receiving adequate out−of−cell time because staff members have done little to stop inmates from assaulting and attacking each other in the yard. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that class members are placed in the open yard and other inmates are allowed to attack them. Movant argues numerous class members, mentally ill, and seriously mentally ill inmates now refuse to go outside because they fear they are in imminent danger of serious physical and psychological harm. As a result, these inmates are denied their out−of−cell time and stay in their cell for 24 hours a day. Mr. Jones argues that this worsens mental illness and health. Movant requests that this Court allow motions to be filed by Class Counsel or Gerald Jones (pro se) for a remedy and sanctions for violations of the settlement agreement. The Court will review and consider motions that have been filed but reminds Movant that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. The Court declines to grant sanctions for the alleged violations of the settlement agreement at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Finally, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden, as Movant's motion indicates inmates may be in imminent danger of physical harm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2483 Motion. Movant Anthony Rice filed a Motion complaining that Major Prentice, the supervisor of the west cell house, is violating the settlement agreement in this case by denying mentally ill inmates full mental health access and treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court allow him to intervene; order a court monitor to investigate these issues; order that Major Prentice be removed; and force the IDOC and Pontiac Correctional Center to comply with the terms of the settlement. The Court declines to grant the specific relief requested, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/29/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2484 Motion. Movant Henry Walker filed a Motion complaining that inmates who attend group or movies are required to strip naked to be searched. Movant alleges this is demoralizing and is taking a toll on his mental state. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges that Major Prentice orders the inmates to strip naked, but that this is unnecessary because they are completely restrained − the inmates' hands and feet are cuffed and they are chained to the bench and floor. Movant asks the Court to intervene. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 273 of 306

Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/29/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/30/2018 2490 MOTION for Status filed by Karyem Miller. Responses due by 12/14/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018 2491 MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 12/14/2018 (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018 2492 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 2491 Plaintiff Don Collins' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. The Court notes that 2492 contains the SEALED document and hereby GRANTS 2491 , Plaintiff's Motion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER: Movant Don Collins filed a sealed Motion 2492 alleging that he was brutally beaten by a fellow inmate and that staff members failed to intervene. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. Movant's grievance about the incident was attached to his Motion. His Motion and grievance describe the assault, the physical injuries, the medical care Movant received, and the pain Movant is suffering due to his injuries. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Movant's Motion indicates the inmate who attacked him remains in the facility; Movant has been denied security/protection; and staff refused to intervene in the attack. As a result, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden, as Movant's Motion indicates he may be in imminent danger of physical harm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2485 Motion. Movant Maurice Watson filed a Motion complaining that inmates are required to strip naked to be searched before attending group sessions and movies and that Major Prentice has stated she will not allow inmates to have TVs. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court intervene in this matter. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2486 Motion. Movants Christopher Knox and Ryan Kirkpatrick filed a Motion complaining that their rights are being violated by both medical and mental health professionals who have been disclosing their medical and mental health information to non−medical and mental health staff. Movants are currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movants are further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum they deem appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

11/30/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2490 Motion. Movant Karyem Miller filed a Motion for Status asking the Court to provide him with the status of the case or the name and address of the attorneys. It does not appear that Movant is incarcerated. Movant is advised that the issue of attorney's fees is ongoing. See e.g. d/e 2487 . The information Movant has requested is publicly available and accessible through PACER. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/30/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 274 of 306

12/03/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2488 Letter from inmate Edward Barkes Jr. Mr. Barkes is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Barkes requests that the Court provide him with a copy of the Order entered on May 25, 2018 2070 . The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide him with 1 copy of this Order 2070 . Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/3/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/03/2018 2493 MIDYEAR REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/04/2018 2494 MOTION to Intervene filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/04/2018 2495 NOTICE to the Court filed by Carl Furrell Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/04/2018 2496 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Proposed Injunctive Relief by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2494 Motion. Movant William Buck filed a Motion complaining that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center, where Movant is currently incarcerated, have retaliated against him for filing grievances and motions with this Court related to his mental health treatment. In his Motion, Movant states that staff members physically assaulted him and took the inhalers he uses to control his asthma. Movant requests that this Court order the IDOC employees to return his inhalers and that he be given mental health treatment consistent with the Court's order. Although the Court declines to grant any specific relief at this time, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/6/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2495 Notice. The Court received the Notice from inmate Carl Allen Furrell Jr. Mr. Furrell is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Notice, Mr. Furrell informs the Court that he is not receiving one−on−ones every 30 days and group every week as part of his mental health treatment. He also informs the Court that all of his things were taken and that he is being mistreated by staff members. The Court declines to take any action based on the Notice at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Furrell is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/6/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/10/2018 2497 Letter from Jerry Osborne. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018 2498 MOTION to Intervene filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018 2499 NOTICE of Address Change filed by Don Collins. He is now located at Joliet Treatment Center (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018 2500 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018 2501 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2487 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion to Order Payment of Deferred Attorneys' Fees or for Contempt filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/12/2018 2502 Letter from Samuel Span requesting copies. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2497 Letter. The Court received the Letter and the attached Motion for Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act from inmate Jerry Osborne. Mr. Osborne is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Osborne informs the Court that he is not receiving adequate mental health treatment. In his Motion, Mr. Osborne states that he wants to be rehabilitated to be reintroduced to the outside world. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter and Motion at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter and Motion 2497 to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 275 of 306

necessary. Mr. Osborne is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/12/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2498 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams filed a Motion complaining about the mental health treatment and staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court intervene because staff members are allowing some, but not all, mentally ill inmates to attend group sessions. In addition, Movant requests that all S.M.I. inmates be given their TV. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/12/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2500 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining about the conditions at Joliet Treatment Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. In his Motion, Movant states that he was brutally attacked by another inmate while staff members watched and failed to intervene; no orientation session was provided; he has not received replies to grievances he filed; there is no law library at the facility; he did not receive a treatment plan; and his laundry has been lost. The Court declines to grant any specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/12/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2502 Letter filed by inmate Samuel Span. Mr. Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Span requests a copy of the docket from August 2018 through today and a copy of the Court's Order dated October 30, 2018. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Mr. Span with one copy of the docket from August 1, 2018, through December 12, 2018, and one copy of the Court's Order dated October 30, 2018 2460 . Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/12/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018 2503 Letter from Joe Price. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2503 Letter. The Court received the Letter from inmate Joe Price. Mr. Price is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Price informs the Court that he is being denied mental health care; that he filed a lawsuit and has been retaliated against; and that the correctional officers are no longer wearing IDs on their uniform. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Price is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/12/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/13/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by phone, Attorneys Alan Mills/Harold Hirshman/Amanda Antholdt,/Samantha Reed/Laura Miller for the Plaintiffs, Attorneys Doug Rees, Laura Bautista, Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for Defendants, and Attorneys Andy Ramage/Andy DeVooght for Wexford for Motion Hearing held on 12/13/2018. Discussions held re: Permanent Injunction and 2487 Motion for Attorney Fees. Arguments held. Written order to enter. Court directs parties to confer on issues raised in the Monitor's Mid−Year Report and report back to the Court. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/13/2018 2504 Letter from James Elzy. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 276 of 306

12/13/2018 2505 MOTION filed by Pierre Jordan. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/13/2018 2506 MOTION to Intervene filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/13/2018 2507 Letter from Maurice Shaw. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/14/2018 2508 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018 2509 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018 2510 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2504 Letter. The Court received a Letter from inmate James Elzy. Mr. Elzy is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Danville Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Elzy informs the Court that he may be a potential class member. He asks the Court to make any and all pertinent information, including an application/claim form, available to him. The Court certified a class for purposes of litigation on August 14, 2015, to include "persons now or in the future in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) are identified or should have been identified by the IDOC's mental health professionals as in need of mental health treatment as defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association." See 252 at 7. If Mr. Elzy meets the definition of a class member, he is automatically a class member and does not need to take any affirmative steps to be included in the class. Mr. Elzy also asks the Court to provide information about any pending litigation that potentially affects IDOC prisoners. The Court declines to grant Mr. Elzy's request because he has not demonstrated a specific need for this voluminous and publicly available information. Mr. Elzy may contact class counsel for additional information regarding the status of this case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2505 Motion. Movant Pierre Jordan filed a Motion complaining that Defendants have violated the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court enforce compliance or set a trial date. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2506 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams filed a Motion complaining that he is not receiving adequate mental health treatment. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court review his mental health records and order that he be transferred to another prison for further treatment. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2507 Letter. The Court received the letter from inmate Maurice Shaw. Mr. Shaw is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Shaw informs the Court that staff members are not providing adequate treatment to mentally ill inmates. For example, Mr. Shaw alleges staff members discourage inmates with serious mental illnesses from utilizing crisis call and that the blankets provided to inmates are filthy. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Shaw is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 277 of 306

12/14/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2508 , 2509 , and 2510 filed by Movant Don Collins. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. In Motion 2508 , Movant complains that he has permanent injuries from being attacked by another inmates, is currently on medical status, and remains housed in the medical unit. Additionally, Movant complains that he is not allowed to have a hot pot, type writer, library access, commissary, or shower shoes. In Motion 2509 , Movant appears to have provided a list of evidence for class counsel related to his attack allegedly perpetrated by another inmate at Joliet Treatment Center. In Motion 2510 , Movant complains that his documented disability was not handled properly and that Joliet Treatment Center had inadequate protection and security. The Court declines to grant specific relief based on Movant's motions, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of these Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/14/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/17/2018 2511 MOTION for Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act filed by Jerry Osborne. Responses due by 12/31/2018 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/17/2018 2512 NOTICE by Vincent Anderson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/20/2018

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2511 Motion to Enforce Judgment filed by Movant Jerry Osborne. In his Motion, Mr. Osborne complains that the treatment and care provided to SMI inmates is inadequate. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court enter an order against the specific individuals listed in the motion to stop subjecting seriously mentally ill inmates to cruel and unusual punishment. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018 2513 Letter from Samuel Span requesting copies. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018 2514 MOTION to Intervene filed by Demondra Burnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018 2515 NOTICE in Violation of Agreed Order filed by Rasheed McGee. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018

2516

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/20/2018. Finally, the Court finds no reason to defer the entry of the fees as requested by the Defendants. All conditions have been met for the award of fees. The remaining half of the fees ($1,900,000) are immediately due. Defendants shall make payment within 30 days of this Order. See full written Order. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/20/2018 2517 First MOTION Set Discovery Schedule on Use of Force by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 1/3/2019 (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/26/2018 2518 MOTION to Compel filed by Brandon Arriaga. Responses due by 1/9/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

12/26/2018 2519 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 1/9/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

12/26/2018 2520 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 1/9/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

12/26/2018 2521 Letter from Vincente Anderson (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

12/27/2018 2522 MOTION filed by John Gilbert. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

12/27/2018 2523 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' Fees by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 1/10/2019 (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 278 of 306

12/28/2018

TEXT ORDER: GRANTING 2523 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Fee Petition. On December 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time seeking an additional 7 days to file their fee petition. Finding good cause shown, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion and allows them up to and including January 10, 2019, to file their fee petition. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/28/2018. (JA, ilcd) (Entered: 12/28/2018)

01/03/2019 2524 RESPONSE to Motion re 2517 First MOTION Set Discovery Schedule on Use of Force and Report on Call with Monitor filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/04/2019 2525 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019 2526 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019 2527 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2512 , Movant, Vincente Anderson's, Notice. Movant is an inmate at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. He alleges that he and an unidentified inmate have suffered numerous unsatisfactory conditions, there and at Stateville Correctional Center. He further claims prison officials are not adequately complying with the relevant settlement agreement in this case in their delivery of mental health services to mentally ill patients and that he is not getting the right medications or being looked after. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Notice. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2513 , Movant, Samuel Span's, Letter. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He requests copies of several items, some of which are on the docket in this case. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. Specifically, the Court declines to send the Movant the requested copies without copying costs. If Movant seeks a copy of a docket entry, he may contact the Clerk of the Court to determine the copying charge. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2514 , Movant, Demondra Burnett's, Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He alleges he has suffered numerous unsatisfactory conditions, abuses, and harassment at the hands of prison staff, including inadequate mental health treatment. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2515 , Movant, Rasheed McGee's, Notice. Movant is an inmate at Dixon Correctional Center. He alleges the staff there is in violation of the Agreed Order in this case. Specifically, he claims that he has been in segregation too long. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Notice. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2518 , Movant Brandon Arriaga's, Motion to Compel. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He complains that staff at the

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 279 of 306

institution are assaulting mentally ill inmates and that the mental health staff lack professionalism, do not properly operate their units, and are violating his constitutional rights. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/07/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2519 , 2520 , 2526 , and 2527 , Movant, Donald Collins', Motions. Movant is an inmate at Hill Correctional Center. The Court is unbale to discern the nature of the Movant's requests and/or accusations contained within his Motions. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motions. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motions to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motions are DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/7/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019 2528 NOTICE filed by Ned James. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2521 , Movant, Vincente Anderson's, Letter. Movant is an inmate at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. He requests the Court's help with a counselor and obtaining unidentified files to assist him in filing another lawsuit. He claims the lawsuit is required in order to ensure that he receives his medication, which he alleges he is not currently getting. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/7/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2522 , Movant, John Gilbert's, Motion. Movant is an inmate at Western Illinois Correctional Center. In his forty−page Motion, he makes numerous allegations regarding mental health treatment in the IDOC and criminal activity by prison staff and inmates. Over half of the Motion is a purported log of various actions by people on specific dates, starting in February 2017. Generally, he alleges he has suffered numerous unsatisfactory conditions, abuses, and harassment at the hands of prison staff and inmates, including inadequate mental health treatment. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/7/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2525 , Movant, Mario English's, Motion. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He alleges the mental health treatment at Pontiac is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, including that he is being denied treatment. He also makes multiple requests of his legal counsel. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Motion. However, as requested by the Movant, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/7/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2528 , Movant, Ned James', Notice. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. He alleges he is being denied numerous things, including his request to speak with "crisis mental health" personnel and adequate medical treatment. He further claims that he is "in immediate danger[.]"

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 280 of 306

The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Notice. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's Notice to the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court also DIRECTS class counsel to immediately investigate this matter. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/7/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/08/2019 2529 MOTION filed by Pierre Jordan. Responses due by 1/22/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

01/09/2019 2530 Letter from Anthony Potochney (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/09/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2517 , the Plaintiffs' First Motion to Set Discovery Schedule on Use of Force, and 2524 , the Defendant's Response. In light of these filings, the Court hereby provides the parties with NOTICE OF a Status Conference set for 1/22/2019 at 4:00 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Senior Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/9/2019. (RT, ilcd) Modified on 1/11/2019 to change date text order was entered (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 01/09/2019)

01/10/2019 2531 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/10/2019 2532 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 1/24/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/11/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2529 , Movant, Pierre Jordan's, Motion. He is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, complaining of repeated violations of the settlement agreement in this case, which includes allegations of sexual abuse, the general ineffectiveness of the institution's internal grievance procedures, and unconstitutional searches. The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/11/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/11/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2530 , Movant, Anthony Potochney's, Letter. Movant is an inmate at East Moline Correctional Center. He complains about his medications, primarily those he was taking at the time of his underlying offense, but also presently. He requests to speak with a counselor. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/11/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/11/2019

TEXT ORDER: DENYING 2531 , Movant, Donald Collins', Motion. Movant is an inmate at Hill Correctional Center and appears to have been transferred to the Joliet Treatment Center for treatment. He claims he was forced to take medications on two occasions and does not require inpatient treatment. The Court is unbale to discern the nature of the Movant's request. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/11/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/14/2019 2533 MOTION to Compel Menard Correctional Center filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/14/2019 2534 MOTION to Compel/Intervene filed by Kiar Brown. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/14/2019 2535 MOTION to Intervene filed by Prentice Hayes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 281 of 306

01/14/2019 2536 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2533 Motion to Compel filed by Movant Steven Lisle Jr. Movant is an inmate at Menard Correctional Center. He claims the facility refuses to provide recreation, out of cell time, and showers for all inmates on crisis watch. Additionally, he claims that the facility refuses to process segregation reduction and review all SMI inmates within a reasonably timeframe. He complains that the Court Monitor has not interviewed him or investigated officers' conduct and alleged assaults against Movant. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2534 Motion to Compel/Intervene filed by Movant Kiar Brown. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states he is considered SMI and is on medication to treat his mental illness. He is currently in segregation. Movant claims the facility has been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for mental health treatment in segregation and his requests for crisis watch/crisis team. He also claims the facility has denied him and other inmates out of cell time, activities, treatment plans, proper living conditions, etc. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2535 Motion to Intervene filed by Prentice Hayes. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states the facility continues to deny mental health inmates access to mental health treatment and out of cell time. He further alleges the facility has been implementing its own rules to deter class members from attending and participating in mental health activities. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2536 Motion filed by Movant Steven Lisle Jr. Movant is an inmate at Menard Correctional Center. Movant states that a nurse altered his medication and that he was assaulted by officers who threatened Movant not to speak about the nurse's alleged attempt to poison him. He requests that the Court order the Warden to preserve the camera footage of the assault and that pictures be taken of his injuries. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019 2537 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019 2538 MOTION to Compel/Inform/Intervene... filed by Michael Hughes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019 2539 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2537 Motion to Intervene filed by Movant Gerald Jones. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that the inmates in the east house are being denied mental health treatment plans, one on one

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 282 of 306

and group sessions, and out of cell time. He also alleges that he has not been receiving any treatment pursuant to the treatment plan he signed in October 2018. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2538 Motion filed by Movant Michael Hughes. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant suffers from mental illness and has tried to commit suicide numerous times. In his Motion, Movant states that he is being denied medical and mental health treatment. Specifically, he alleges that medical staff have discontinued the catheters he needs to urinate and have discontinued his medications for nerve damage. Movant states that he has placed plastic items himself in order to urinate, and as a result, has been placed on suicide watch. He alleges that he was assaulted by officers who were not wearing name badges and needs medical treatment for his injuries. Movant requests to be placed in a Residential Treatment Unit. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Movant indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/19. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2539 Motion filed by Movant Ned James. Movant is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant alleges fellow inmates, Marlin Billups and Martino Smith, are being harassed for complaining about mistreatment and are being denied food, mail, and medical treatment. Movant also alleges that he received an invalid disciplinary report and was assaulted by another offender. Movant requests an immediate investigation regarding his complaints. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of his Motion. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. The Movant's Motion is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

01/17/2019 2540 MOTION for Reconsideration re 2460 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,, 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 1/31/2019 (Rees, R.) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/18/2019 2541 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2532 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Unopposed) by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 2/1/2019 (Rees, R.) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019 2542 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO TEXT ORDER ENTERED ON 1/22/2019−NOTICE of Appeal re 2460 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,, 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, (Rees, R.) Modified on 1/22/2019 (VH, ilcd). (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019 2543 MOTION to Stay re 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, and order on 2014 Staffing Plan by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 2/1/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jared Brunk)(Rees, R.) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/22/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: Defendants' Notice of Appeal 2542 is hereby STRICKEN. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/22/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 2544 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2460 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,, 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, by John R Baldwin. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0753−3018047.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 283 of 306

(Rees, R.) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 2545 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2544 Notice of Appeal. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 2546 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Hughes. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 2547 NOTICE of Violation of Court Order/Harassment filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 2541 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to 2532 Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Defendants state Plaintiffs have no objection. The Court finds good cause has been shown. Defendants' request for an extension up to and including February 7, 2019, to respond to Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is GRANTED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/22/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: A Motion Hearing on Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 2532 is set for Tuesday, 2/19/2019 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/22/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019 2548 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Alan Mills, Amanda Antholt, Harold Hirshman and Samantha Reed for the Plaintiffs, Attorneys Doug Rees and Laura Bautista for the Defendants, Attorneys Andy Ramage and Andy DeVooght for Wexford, Attorneys Camille Lindsay and Melissa Jennings for IDOC and Monitor Dr. Pablo Stewart for Status Conference held on 1/22/2019. Discussion held regarding 2517 First MOTION Set Discovery Schedule on Use of Force by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Argument heard. Motion DENIED for reasons stated on the record. The Court encourages Defendants to turn over results of investigation. Plaintiffs to respond to 2540 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Injunction Orders and 2543 Defendants' Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal on or before Thursday, 2/7/2019. Motion Hearing on 2532 Plaintiffs Petition for Attorneys Fees and Costs, 2540 Defendants Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Injunction Orders, and 2543 Defendants Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal is scheduled for Tuesday, 2/19/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom B in Peoria for Judge Michael M. Mihm. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

01/23/2019 2549 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 2544 Notice of Appeal, filed by John R Baldwin. USCA Case Number 19−1145. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/24/2019 2550 MOTION and Letter filed by Demondra Burnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

01/24/2019 2551 MOTION filed by Ned James. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

01/24/2019 2552 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

01/25/2019 2553 NOTICE to Court filed by Otis Arrington. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2019)

01/25/2019 2554 MOTION filed by Jimmie Miller. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2019)

01/25/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2551 Motion. Movant Ned James filed a Motion complaining that he and others are being retaliated against due to a wellness check and that staff members took clothing and other items and destroyed his mail. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order the Bureau of Prisons to transfer him to a different facility. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/25/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/25/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 284 of 306

01/28/2019 2555 MOTION to Intervene filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019 2556 Letter from Salvardo Alvarado. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019 2557 Letter from Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2546 Motion. Movant Michael Hughes filed a Motion complaining that staff members have been harassing him and retaliating against him for writing grievances related to his medical care. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests this Court to intervene. Movant indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. (See Doc. 2546 at p. 4). As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2547 Notice of Violation of Court Order/Harassment filed by Markus Mannie. Mr. Mannie is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. He complains that staff members are retaliating against him and other SMI inmates. Specifically, Movant states that on 1/18/19, he was chained and cuffed in his cell for more than 3 hours and a nurse refused to give him his medication. He also states that a staff member brutally assaulted him. Movant requests that this Court investigate the situation.The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mannie is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2548 Motion filed by Don Collins. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. Movant complains that he filed four motions between 12/11/18 and 01/07/19 and has not received any text order replies in response to his motions. Between 12/11/18 and 1/7/19, the Court has received numerous motions from Movant and responded to each one in a text order. Movant also complains that he, as an elderly inmate, has been subjected to ongoing physical assaults. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2550 Motion. Movant Demondra Burnett filed a Motion complaining that long−term segregation has jeopardized his mental health. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant asks to be transferred immediately. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2552 Notice in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. Mr. Mannie is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In the Notice, Mr. Mannie states that staff members are retaliating against him and threatening that they will continue to retaliate against him unless he stops writing grievances. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2553 Notice filed by Otis Arrington. Mr. Arrington is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Big Muddy River Correctional Center. In his Notice, he complains that his safety is in jeopardy and that he has requested to be placed in protective custody, but his requests

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 285 of 306

have been ignored. He requests to be transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center and placed in protective custody. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Arrington is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2554 Motion. Movant Jimmie Miller filed a Motion complaining that his safety and medical/mental health are in danger. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court intervene and order that he be transferred to the Joliet Treatment Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2555 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams filed a Motion complaining that he has not have a one−on−one with mental health staff in over eight months and has not had a treatment plan in about a year. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court ask Dr. Stewart to talk to him and to inform Dr. Renzi of his complaints before he goes on a hunger strike. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2556 Letter. The Court received the letter from inmate Salvardo Alvarado. Mr. Alvarado is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Western Illinois Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Alvarado informs the Court that he is in his cell all day and is being denied mental health treatment. He has requested a transfer, but his requests have been denied. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Alvarado is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2557 Letter. The Court received the letter from inmate Markus Mannie. Mr. Mannie is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Mannie informs the Court that he believes Pontiac is not handling its mail properly. He inquires about two motions he filed on 1/18/2019 and 1/20/2019. The Court received 2547 on 1/22/2019 and 2552 on 1/24/2019. The Court responded to both filings in text orders on 1/28/2019.(MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/29/2019 2558 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2019)

01/29/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2558 Notice. Movant Markus Mannie filed a Notice complaining that staff members are using unjust excessive force on inmates and denying them mental health care. Mr. Mannie is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. He also complains about four primary issues: (1) He was unjustifiably forced to wear a spit mask to a hearing and then was cuffed and chained for asking why he was being required to wear the mask; (2) staff members are not e−filing his submissions to the Court; (3) he is not receiving adequate medical care; and (4) he is not receiving adequate mental health care and a mental health practitioner (Dr. P) has been making sexual advances toward him. He requests that this Court investigate these matters. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 286 of 306

this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Mannie is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/29/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2019)

01/30/2019 2559 MOTION to Intervene filed by Travionte Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2019)

01/31/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2559 Motion. Movant Travionte Williams filed a Motion complaining that inmates are being given less out of cell time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that officers have informed inmates they will not get movie periods, and as a result, their out of cell time has been decreased by 3 hours. Movant requests that this Court intervene to remedy the situation. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

01/31/2019 2560 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Eduardo Navejar. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

01/31/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2560 Motion. Movant Eduardo Navejar filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that SMI inmates are being denied group therapy sessions and TVs. Movant states he filed a separate lawsuit regarding these issues. Movant's request to amend the Complaint is DENIED. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/31/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2019)

02/04/2019 2561 Letter from Joshua Farner. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019 2562 MOTION Informing the Court filed by Sedrick Griffin. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2562 Motion. Movant Sedrick Griffin filed a Motion complaining that staff members at Pontiac Correctional Center are mistreating mentally ill inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Specifically, Movant complains that employees are not providing mental health treatment to all patients in the RTU. He also complains that employees are retaliating against and beating certain inmates. Movant requests this Court to come talk to inmates Griffin and Mannie. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019 2563 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order... filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2563 Notice. The Court received the Notice from inmate Markus Mannie, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Mr. Mannie filed a previous notice complaining of the same issues 2558 . The Court addressed these complaints in a text order on 1/29/2019. The Court declines to take any action based on this Notice at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Mannie is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 287 of 306

02/06/2019 2564 MOTION filed by Marlon Billops. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

02/06/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2564 Motion. Movant Marlon Billops filed a Motion complaining that he is not receiving adequate mental health care. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also complains that he has been in segregation since 2015 and that such treatment is harsh and inhumane. Additionally, he alleges since he has been in the RTU, security staff physically assaulted him to the point where he had to be hospitalized. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/6/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

02/07/2019

2565

RESPONSE to Motion re 2541 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2532 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Unopposed) filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1, # 2 Exhibit #2, # 3 Exhibit #3, # 4 Exhibit #4, # 5 Exhibit #5, # 6 Exhibit $6)(Bautista, Laura) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/07/2019 2566 RESPONSE to Motion re 2543 MOTION to Stay re 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, and order on 2014 Staffing Plan filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Reed, Samantha) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/07/2019 2567 RESPONSE to Motion re 2540 MOTION for Reconsideration re 2460 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,, 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/11/2019 2568 NOTICE: Violation of Court Order/Harassment by Staff Claim filed by Marcus Mannie. (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/11/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2568 Notice: The Court received a Notice of Violation of Court Order/Harassment from Marcus Mannie. Mr. Mannie is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In the Notice, Mr. Mannie informs the Court that staff members are retaliating against him and that he declared a hunger strike to protest the alleged harassment. He also complains that he is not being given adequate out−of−cell time and claims staff members are falsifying documents to make it appear that inmates are receiving the proper treatment. The Court declines to take any action based on Mr. Mannie's Notice at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Mannie is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/11/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/11/2019 2569 MOTION to Inform the Court filed by William Buck. Responses due by 2/25/2019 (JRK, ilcd) Modified on 2/11/2019 to add name of filer(JRK, ilcd). (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/11/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2569 Motion. Movant William Buck filed a Motion to Inform the Court. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that Nurse Practitioner Amy Adams changed his medications without his knowledge and let other medications expire. Movant states that he attempted suicide and was placed on suicide watch. Movant states he has not received assistance regarding his medications or seen medical personnel. Movant requests that this Court order that he be given his correct medications. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/11/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/13/2019 2570 MOTION to Object filed by Edward Abernathy. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 288 of 306

02/13/2019 2571 MOTION for Status filed by Robbie J Moore. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/14/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2570 Motion. Movant Edward Abernathy filed a Motion to Object and complains that he is not receiving adequate medical care at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pinckneyville. Movant states that he suffers from painful headaches and must pay $5.00 each time he sees a medical professional. Movant attached documents to his motion, which the Court has reviewed. The Court declines to grant specific request, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/14/2018. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/14/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2571 Motion. Movant Robbie Moore filed a Motion for Status. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Hill Correctional Center. Movant requests an update about further litigation in this case. Also, he asks Plaintiffs' counsel "look into" complaints he filed in the U.S. District Courts for negligence and medical malpractice. Regarding his request for a status update, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the Court entered an Order finding that Defendants "have been deliberately indifferent to the mental health needs of mentally ill inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections in violation of the Eighth Amendment." See 2460 and 2516 . Currently pending before this Court are Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 2540 , Defendants' Motion to Stay 2543 , and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees 2532 . Movant is directed to contact Plaintiffs' counsel if he needs more detailed information about the status of the case. The Court declines to grant any further relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/14/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/14/2019 2572 MOTION filed by Michael Raggs. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2572 Motion. Movant Michael Riggs filed a Motion requesting immediate transfer to Joliet Treatment Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he is not receiving adequate mental health treatment; staff members are beating inmates while in cuffs and shackles; he is not receiving proper medical treatment; he receives very little out of cell time and is sometimes in his cell for 24 hours; and his mind and body are deteriorating. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019 2573 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 2532 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 3/1/2019 (Mills, Alan) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/19/2019 2574 MOTION filed by Demondra Burnett. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholt/Samantha Reed for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees/Laura Bautista/Camile Lindsay/Melissa Jennings for Defendants for Motion Hearing Held on 2/19/2019. Discussion held re: Motions 2540 Dfts' Motion for Reconsideration, 2543 Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal, 2532 Plts' Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs and 2573 Amend/Correct Motion for Attorney Fees. Arguments held. 2543 is DENIED. 2540 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' requested modifications of paragraphs 2(e), 2(f), and 2(h) are GRANTED, in all other respects, 2540 is DENIED. 2532 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In reference to the Objections to 2532 Petition for Attorney Fees: Exhibit 1 of Defendants' Response [2565−1]: Dates prior to August 1, 2017 attorney fees reduced 20%. After August 1, 2017, attorney fees will not be reduced; Exhibit 2 [2565−2]: Attorney fees reduced 30%; Exhibit 3 [2565−3]: Attorney fees reduced 2%; Exhibit 4 [2565−4]: Attorney fees reduced 15%; Exhibits

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 289 of 306

5 [2565−5] and 6 [2565−6], parties by agreement they can be disposed. So ordered. Parties to submit their calculations to the court by end of business on 2/20/2019. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct Motion for Attorney Fees 2573 is GRANTED insofar as the pleading has been considered in the Court's ruling on attorneys fees. Written order on the Motions to follow. (Court Reporter JJ.) (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/25/2019 2575 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019 2576 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019 2577 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2574 Motion. Movant Demondra Burnett filed a Motion complaining about his long−term placement in segregation/solitary confinement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant states that he suffers from numerous health problems, which have been made worse by solitary confinement. Movant cites to many informational sources describing the effects of solitary confinement. He requests (1) to be immediately released from segregation; (2) to receive medical and mental health treatment for the physiological effects he is suffering due to long−term segregation; and (3) to be placed in a residential treatment unit. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/25/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019 2578 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2575 , 2576 , and 2577 . The Court received three Motions filed by Movant Don Collins. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. In his first Motion 2575 , Movant complains that known violent offenders often mingle in the day room, yard, etc. without security personnel present. Movant states he was attacked by a violent SMI offender three days after arriving at JTC. In his second Motion 2576 , Movant states that inmates at JTC should have equal treatment and the same privileges as inmates in similar facilities. In his third Motion 2577 , Movant states that Plaintiffs' counsel have "neglected several other vital issues concerning the serious mentally ill (SMI) offenders." The Court declines to grant any specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/25/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2578 Letter. The Court received the letter from inmate Samuel Span. Mr. Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Span informs the Court that an unconstitutional system has been created that provides better treatment and care to certain mentally ill inmates. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Span is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/25/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/26/2019

2579

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/26/2019. For reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or Modification of Injunction Orders (ECF No. 2540) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. With the exception of the limited modifications of Sections 2(e), 2(f), and 2(h) of this Court's Order dated December 10, 2018, noted above, the Motion is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Partial Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (ECF No. 2543) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 2532) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART insofar as Plaintiffs are awarded $841,137.98 in fees and

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 290 of 306

$31,864.77 in expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/26/2019)

02/27/2019 2580 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2019)

02/27/2019 2581 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2019)

02/28/2019 2582 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

02/28/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2581 Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement filed by Mario English Jr. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that mental health staff members are not complying with the settlement agreement and are putting "on a false show for the Court Monitor that was recently at Pontiac." Movant also complains Pontiac is not providing the proper care for inmates in segregation and suicidal inmates. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/28/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

03/01/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2580 and 2582 . The Court has received two letters from inmate Samuel Span, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his first letter 2580 , Mr. Span asks for the Court to deny Defendants' motions. In his second letter 2582 , he asks for testimony from Dr. Melvin Hinton, Dr. Pablo Stewart, and A. Andrilla and the Mid−Year Report. Mr. Span has failed to present a compelling reason for needing copies of these documents. Moreover, Mr. Span is represented by counsel who has access to this information. If Mr. Span has a compelling need for these documents, he may ask counsel for them. The Court declines to grant the relief requested in Mr. Span's letters, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of his letters to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Span is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum he deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/1/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 2583 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2460 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,, 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 2579 Order,,, by John R Baldwin. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0753−3048718. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 2584 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 2585 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2583 Notice of Appeal. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2584 Letter. The Court received the letter from inmate Samuel Span, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Span informs the Court that inmates on suicide watch are not receiving proper mental health treatment and are harming themselves. The Court declines to grant specific relief. However, the issues in Mr. Span's letter are serious, and as such, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Span is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/1/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 2586 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 2583 Notice of Appeal, filed by John R Baldwin. USCA Case Number 19−1375. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/04/2019 2587 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 2588 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 291 of 306

03/04/2019 2589 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 2590 Letter from Lisa Kearney regarding Big Muddy River CC. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court received two letters 2587 and 2588 from inmate Samuel Span. Mr. Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In letter 2587 , Mr. Span informs the Court that mentally ill inmates at Pontiac are not receiving proper mental health treatment. Mr. Span informs the Court that mentally ill inmates will not stop harming themselves until Dr. Renzi is replaced and until adequate mental health treatment is provided. In letter 2588 , Mr. Span complains about the length of group sessions and the lack of a quick response to his request for a crisis appointment. The Court declines to take any action based on the letters at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the letters to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Span is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2589 Motion: Movant Gerald Jones filed a Motion complaining that he and other mentally inmates are not receiving adequate medical care and mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains that he has been placed in the easthouse and that mental health staff and Dr. Renzi have ignored his requests for crisis appointments. Additionally, he complains that he has been denied medical care for bodily pain and back pain. Regarding his mental health treatment, Movant complains he does not have a therapist and his treatment plan is not being enforced. The Court declines to grant any relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/06/2019 2591 MOTION to Stay re 2579 Order,,, by Defendant John R Baldwin. Responses due by 3/20/2019 (Rees, R.) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/07/2019 2592 MOTION for Court Orders to Conform Injunctive Relief Order to Rule 65 by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 3/21/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/08/2019 2593 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings held on 8/27/15, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber N. Mersot, Telephone number 309−671−4244. Transcript purchased by:Harold Hirshman.

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/29/2019.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 292 of 306

Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/8/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2019. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/08/2019 2594 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for proceedings held on 12/18/2017; 12/19/2017; 2/27/2018; 2/28/2018; 3/1/2018; 3/2/2018; 8/27/2018; 8/28/2018; 8/29/2018; 8/30/2018; 9/5/2018; 9/6/2018; 9/7/2018; 2/19/2019 before Judge Michael M. Mihm. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019 2595 MOTION to Enforce Stipulation filed by Jabbar Harmon. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019 2596 RESPONSE to Motion re 2592 MOTION for Court Orders to Conform Injunctive Relief Order to Rule 65 filed by Defendant John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/13/2019 2597 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/13/2019 2598 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/13/2019 2599 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/13/2019 2600 NOTICE in Violation of Court Order filed by Markus Mannie. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/14/2019 2601 Letter from Samuel Span. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 2602 MOTION to Seal filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) Modified on 3/19/2019 to Unseal document(VH, ilcd). (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 2603 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 2604 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 2605 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 2606 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2595 Motion. Movant Jabbar Harmon filed a Motion complaining that he is not permitted to have a television, even though his treatment plan states that he shall receive a television as a coping mechanism and stress reliever. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order Warden Kennedy to follow his treatment plan. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/14/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court received four letters 2597 , 2598 , 2599 , 2601 from inmate Samuel Span. Mr. Span is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Letter 2597 was addressed Warden Teri Kennedy, letter 2598 was addressed to Chief of Operations Sandra Funk, and letter 2601 was addressed to Dr. Melvin Hinton. Letter 2599 was addressed to Judge Michael Mihm. In his letters, Mr. Span states that he is not receiving the full amount of out−of−cell time or a proper treatment plan. He states that "without proper treatment and this continued isolation will force me to react in a manner that may be harmful to myself and others." The Court declines to take any action based on Mr. Span's letters at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Span is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Finally, Mr. Span's offensive language and what might be deemed as threats to IDOC staff will not be tolerated by this Court. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: Movant Marcus Mannie filed a Notice 2600 complaining that he has been at Dixon Correctional Center for more than 30 days and does not have a mental health treatment plan. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 293 of 306

Department of Corrections and housed at Dixon Correctional Center. Movant also complains Dixon does not have adequate mental health staff and that he believes staff members are falsifying documents. Movant requests that this Court order someone to speak to him immediately because he believes people are trying to kill him. Although the Court declines to grant the relief requested, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019 2607 Letter from Ramon Romero. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2602 Sealed Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a letter and requested that it be sealed "due to the avoidance and conflict with admin. staff." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. The Court deems Movant's letter as a Motion to Seal. Under Local Rule 5.10(A)(2), "[t]he Court does not approve of the filing of documents under seal as a general matter." If a party files a motion for leave to file under seal "[t]he motion must include an explanation of how the document meets the legal standards for filing sealed documents." Under Rule 5.11(A), the Court may grant a motion to file under seal if the document contains information that might bring harm to anyone or should not be made public for law enforcement or security reasons. Movant fails to demonstrate that 2602 meets those standards. Therefore, the Motion to Seal is DENIED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to unseal 2602 . Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2603 , 2604 , 2605 , and 2606 filed by Movant Don Collins. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. In Motion 2603 , Movant complains that the JTC is allegedly intercepting his motions to the Court to cover up violent assaults. In Motion 2604 , Movant lists a number of complaints. For instance, he complains the law library at JTC is inadequate, a five−dollar co−pay is still being deducted from trust accounts for medical visits, the medical and mental unit does not have weekly wellness checks, and grievances are ignored or are returned 1−5 days before the deadline to appeal. In Motion 2505 , Movant complains about his transfer to JTC in 2018. In Motion 2606 , Movant complains that SMI class members at treatment centers are treated differently than inmates at IDOC medium facilities. For instance, Movant complains that he is being denied a hot pot, typewriters, and two milks a day. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2607 Letter from inmate Ramon Romero. Mr. Romero is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Dixon Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Romero informs the Court that the mental health treatment at Dixon is inadequate. For instance, he complains that there are no group therapy sessions, inmates are in their cells for 20 hours a day, and the designated time for yard and gym is often cancelled. Mr. Romero also complains that MP3 players are not available for purchase from commissary. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Romero is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/18/2019 2608 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing Proceedings held on 2/19/19, before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309−573−0378. Transcript purchased by:Dougles Rees and Amanda Antholt.

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 294 of 306

IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e−filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2019. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/19/2019

2609

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/19/2019. The purpose of this Order is to inform the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that a motion that raises a substantial issue in this case has been filed by the Plaintiffs, and this Court is inclined to grant the motion. The Court respectfully requests that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remand the case for purposes of modifying the preliminary injunction order(s) to conform to the requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/19/2019)

03/20/2019 2610 RESPONSE to Motion re 2591 MOTION to Stay re 2579 Order,,, filed by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. (Antholt, Amanda) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

03/22/2019 2611 Letter from Wesley Hawkins (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019 2612 Letter from Omarrian Jones (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2612 , Movant, Omarrian Jones', Letter. Movant is an inmate at Dixon Correctional Center. He alleges he is being denied numerous things, including proper treatment for his specific mental health conditions. He further claims that he is presently "suicidal" but he will not tell the prison staff about that because they will not help him. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. Nonetheless, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order and Movant's Letter to the Warden of Dixon Correctional Center. The Court also DIRECTS class counsel to immediately investigate this matter. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/22/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 2611 , Movant, Wesley Hawkins', Letter. Movant is an inmate at Dixon Correctional Center. He alleges the staff there is in violation of the Agreed Order in this case. Specifically, he claims that inmates are not getting proper amount of time out of their cells or time in groups, the crisis team does not always respond when summoned, and the person in charge is not doing their job. The Court declines to grant any specific relief as it relates to the substance of the Letter. However, the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/22/2019. (RT, ilcd) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/25/2019 2613 MOTION to Inform/Report to the Court filed by William Buck. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/28/2019 2614 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2019)

03/28/2019 2615 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 295 of 306

03/28/2019

2616

ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/28/2019. The Defendants' remaining arguments are mitigated by Plaintiffs' commitment to hold the funds in trust until the resolution of the appeal. Defendants have not made any offer to post the bond which would allow this matter to be stayed pending determination on appeal. Moreover, there is some merit to Plaintiffs' argument that the State has delayed payments in various matters. Having fully considered this matter, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. Defendants' Motion for Stay of § 1988 Award Pending Appeal pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 2591) is DENIED. See full written Order. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 03/28/2019)

03/29/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2613 Motion. Movant William Buck filed a Motion complaining that Nurse Practitioner Amy Adams changed his medications, which has caused him to harm himself and be on suicide watch. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

03/29/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2614 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining that the Court should not have filed his confidential letter 2602 to Judge Mihm as a motion. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant requests that this Court strike 2602 from the docket and return it to him. Movant is admonished that he cannot send ex parte communications to Judge Mihm. Documents filed with this Court will be filed on the docket and made available to both parties, unless a document meets the requirements to be sealed under Local Rule 5.10(A)(2). Document 2602 did not meet those requirements. See Text Order 03/15/2019. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

03/29/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motion 2615 filed by Movant Don Collins. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. He complains that he is not allowed to have certain property, such as a hot pot or typewriter, unless he meets "level 3 status in therapeutic program." Movant argues that the restrictions violate his equal protection rights. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/29/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

04/01/2019 2617 Letter from Donald Haywood. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/01/2019 2618 Letter from Robin Hickman. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/01/2019 2619 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/02/2019 2620 MOTION filed by Marlon Billops. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

04/03/2019 2621 Letter from John Bryant. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

04/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2617 Letter: The Court received the letter from inmate Donald Haywood. Mr. Haywood is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, Mr. Haywood informs the Court that he has not received adequate mental health treatment and services to help him cope with his serious mental illnesses. Mr. Haywood also states that even though he was classified as seriously mentally ill (SMI), he does not have a current individualized mental health treatment plan, is not receiving one−on−one psychotherapy, and his medications do not relieve his most severe symptoms. The

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 296 of 306

Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Haywood is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

04/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2619 Motion. Movant Gerald Jones is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant complains Dr. Renzi lied to the Court Monitor during a visit in March 2019 by telling him that inmates in the east house receive counseling, one−on−one sessions, and treatment. Movant states that although Dr. Renzi told the Court Monitor that Movant would receive a treatment plan, Movant still has not talked to a mental health staff member to finalize and carry out his treatment plan. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

04/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2620 Motion. Movant Marlon Billops filed a Motion complaining that staff members should not have subjected inmate Blackburn, who attempted to kill himself, to TAC movement because it was not designed for RTU inmates who suffer from mental illness. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

04/08/2019 2622 MOTION to Request Immediate Transfer by Dennis Shareef Rush. Responses due by 4/22/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/08/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2622 Motion. Movant Dennis Shareef Rush filed a Motion complaining that he has deteriorated mentally in segregation. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order his immediate transfer to the Joliet Treatment Center. The Court declines to grant the relief requested, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Movant indicates he could engage in self−injurious behavior. See 2622 , p. 8. As such, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to forward Movant's filing to the Warden. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/8/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/11/2019 2623 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/15/2019 2624 MOTION by Don Collins. Responses due by 4/29/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019 2625 MOTION by Don Collins. Responses due by 4/29/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019 2626 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Mario S. English Jr.. Responses due by 4/29/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019 2627 MOTION by Jason Ralston. Responses due by 4/29/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019

Movant Don Collins filed two Motions 2623 and 2624 . In the Motion 2623 filed on 4/11/2019, Movant complains about class counsel. In the Motion 2624 filed on 4/15/2019, Movant complains about the Court's responses to certain motions he filed. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 297 of 306

directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2625 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion 2625 complaining about the high assault rate at Joliet Treatment Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. Movant states that the facility allows assaults, threats, and intimidations to occur and describes an incident that occurred on 4/9/2019. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2626 Motion. Movant Mario S. English Jr. filed a Motion complaining about the mental health treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states that when he was released from suicide watch on 4/9/2019 that he did not have the required follow−up with mental health staff. He also states that SMI inmates are not given toothbrushes and that their teeth are decaying. Movant requests that this Court direct the lawyers to help address and correct the ongoing settlement violations and hold Pontiac in contempt of Court. The Court declines to grant specific relief based on Movant's Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2627 Motion. Movant Jason Ralston filed a Motion complaining that there have been "several high level severe attacks" at Joliet Treatment Center because the facility does not separate known risk offenders. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Joliet Treatment Center. Movant also complains that class counsel has not responded to or filed an emergency motion. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/15/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019

2628

ORDER of USCA as to 2583 Notice of Appeal, 2544 Notice of Appeal, filed by John R Baldwin. IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is REMANDED to the district court for thelimited purpose of permitting the district court to modify the preliminary−injunctionorder to conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. See Fed. R.App. P. 12.1. This court will retain jurisdiction over the matter. The parties shall file astatus report with this court by May 1, 2019, or within seven days of any order by thedistrict court that affects this appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/16/2019 2629 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2019)

04/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2629 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. filed a Motion complaining about the treatment of SMI inmates. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant complains that SMI inmates are being denied out of cell time and recreation time in the yard, mental health group programs, and adequate showers. He also complains that the inmates are living in inhumane conditions and are being denied medical care after being sexually assaulted. He also states that while on crisis watch, officers placed a green bed in front of his cell window to block it from observation and encouraged Movant to kill himself. Movant requests that this Court impose sanctions against Menard Correctional Center for failure to provide the injunctive relief required by the settlement in this case. The Court declines to grant specific

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 298 of 306

relief at this time, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/16/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/16/2019)

04/18/2019 2630 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/18/2019 2631 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/18/2019 2632 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/22/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2630 , 2631 , and 2632 . Movant Don Collins filed three Motions. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. In Motions 2630 and 2632 , he complains that inmates threaten, harass, and attack other inmates at the JTC and that staff members fail to intervene. In Motion 2631 , Movant states that on 4/11/2019, a "high risk known violent inmate" threatened that he would pay a "low functioning offender" to attack Movant worse than he was attacked previously in November 2018. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/22/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

04/22/2019 2633 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/22/2019. See full written Order. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

04/23/2019 2634 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

04/23/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2634 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. filed a Motion complaining that he submitted grievances about egregious physical and sexual assaults that the institution refused to process. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court send the Warden a copy of his Motion. Although Movant's allegations are serious, the Court declines to grant the requested relief. The grievances must be processed by the institution, and the Court will not circumvent that process by sending the grievances to the Warden. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/23/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

04/24/2019 2635 MOTION filed by Marlon Billops. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019 2636 MOTION filed by Mario English Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2635 Motion. Movant Marlon Billops filed a Motion complaining that mail is not being passed out; security staff denied Movant showers; law library staff refused to allow him to e−file/notarize documents and wrote bogus tickets; and that the nurse practitioner took him off necessary medication and did not meet with him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/24/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2636 Motion. Movant Mario English Jr. filed a Motion complaining that SMI inmates on crisis watch are not getting adequate mental health treatment; certain things got worse after the settlement due to retaliation; and defendants are violating the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also states that disciplinary rules changed. For example, certain inmates are

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 299 of 306

not allowed to use the phone to call family, go to the gym, and are subject to strip searches before they can attend a movie. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/24/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019 2637 STATUS REPORT Quarterly Report re compliance with Settlement Agreement by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019 2638 STATUS REPORT Quarterly Report re compliance with injunction order by John R Baldwin. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/25/2019 2639 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019 2640 +++ SEALED STAFFING RECOMMENDATIONS.. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: A Status Conference is set for Monday, 5/20/2019 at 2:00 PM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Judge Michael M. Mihm to discuss the Status Reports 2637 and 2638 and the Staffing Recommendations for the IDOC 2640 . Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/25/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/29/2019 2641 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2019)

04/29/2019 2642 MOTION filed by Jason Ralston. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 04/29/2019)

05/01/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2639 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining about various issues at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant complains that RTU housing was mislabeled and that a lack of adequate screening and placement has created a dangerous situation for some offenders. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/1/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

05/01/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2641 Motion. Movant Steven Lisle Jr. filed a Motion complaining that staff members used excessive chemical agents to extract a mentally ill inmate from his cell, placed him in a holding cell, and beat him unconscious. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant requests that this Court order an immediate investigation to be conducted, that the video footage be saved, that inmates in the west cell house be interviewed by the Court Monitor and Judge Mihm, and that the warden be ordered to check on the inmate. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/1/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

05/01/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2642 Motion. Movant Jason Ralston filed a Motion complaining that another SMI inmate punched him in the dayroom and that he could have been seriously injured or killed because staff are slow to intervene. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant states that non−violent offenders should not be placed in the same living units with violent offenders from maximum security facilities at the JTC. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/1/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 300 of 306

05/02/2019 2643 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/02/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2643 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining that he was relocated to an area that is not meant for a medium classified, low security risk, elder offenders and that meal delivery/eat in cell is "hit and miss." Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant states that screening, placement, and housing have not been addressed at the JTC. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/2/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/10/2019 2644 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/13/2019 2645 MOTION filed by Dennis Rush. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/13/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2644 Motion. Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining that the Joliet Treatment Center is not accommodating his medical and ADA permits, which allow him to have meals delivered to his cell. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant states that certain correctional officers have refused to provide meals in Movant's cell because they claim there are no slow−eat permits at the front CO desk for Movant's in−cell meals. Movant requests that this Court and class counsel review the violations at the facility and relay Movant's concerns to the Warden. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/13/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/13/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2645 Motion. Movant Dennis Rush filed a Motion on behalf of Ralph King and complains that Mr. King has been in segregation and has not been transferred to an RTU facility. Movant and Mr. King are currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant states Mr. King declared a hunger strike on 5/10/2019 and that Pontiac officials allegedly refused to document it. Movant also states that Mr. King testified against the IDOC in August 2018, was placed in segregation, and that his mental state has continued to deteriorate due to inadequate mental health treatment. Movant requests that this Court (1) notify IDOC officials outside of Pontiac that Mr. King is on a hunger strike that will continue until he receives adequate mental health care and (2) to review available camera footage. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/13/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/15/2019 2646 MOTION (filed as Motion to Reopen Rasho vs. Baldwin Settlement Agreement) filed by Terrence Kirksey. Responses due by 5/29/2019 (FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/15/2019)

05/15/2019 2647 STATUS REPORT (Plaintiffs' Status Report) by Otis Arrington, Donald Collins, Patrice Daniels, Gerrodo Forrest, Joseph Herman, Henry Hersman, Desiree Hollis, Fredricka Lyles, Rasheed McGee, Clara Plair, Ashoor Rasho, Crystal Stoneburner, Frederick Walker, Keith Walker. (Hirshman, Harold) (Entered: 05/15/2019)

05/16/2019 2648 MOTION filed by George Fernandez. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2019)

05/16/2019 2649 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/16/2019)

05/17/2019 2650 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2646 Motion: Movant Terrance Kirksey filed a Motion complaining that Defendants are not in compliance with the settlement agreement. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Stateville Correctional Center. Movant complains that

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 301 of 306

mental health staff, among other things, are taking 14−20 days to forward mental health records to another prison, discontinuing medications without consulting with the inmate, and placing SMI inmates who fight in cells together. Movant requests the Court to reopen this case. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/17/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2648 Motion: Movant George Fernandez is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Dixon Correctional Center. Movant states that he was unjustly transferred out of the Joliet Treatment Center's segregation unit to Dixon Correctional Center's segregation unit. He wishes to remain at the JTC and asks for a Court order transferring him back to the JTC. Movant also states that Dr. Daidra Marand at the JTC is in a sexual relationship with her patient Donte Patterson, an inmate at the JTC, and that this endangers the class members. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/17/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2649 and 2650 : Movant Don Collins, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center, filed two Motions 2649 and 2650 . In Motion 2649 , Movant complains that CO Taylor has instituted a new policy involving Movant's slow eat permits. Movant states that he would like plastic wrap covering his food or trays with lids, but his request was denied. Movant included a summary log with his motion documenting the issues. In Motion 2650 , Movant complains that his request for a plastic wrap tray has not been resolved. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/17/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019 2651 Response by John R Baldwin re 2647 Status Report, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Backlog Analysis, # 2 Exhibit Staffing Report)(Rees, R.) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019 2654 Exhibit to 2522 Motion by John Gilbert. (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019 2652 MOTION filed by Don Collins. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019 2653 Letter from Meredith Smith. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm: Parties present via telephone by Attorneys Harold Hirshman/Alan Mills/Amanda Antholt/Samantha Reed/Elizabeth Mazur/Nicole Schult for Plaintiffs and Attorneys Doug Rees/Camile Lindsay/Melissa Jennings for Defendants and Monitor Dr. Pablo Stewart for Status Conference held on 5/20/2019. Court has reviewed 2640 Staffing Recommendations, 2637 Status Report, 2638 Status Report, 2647 Status Report, 2651 Response to 2647 Status Report. Parties agree that no action needs to be taken by the Court at this time. Court is informed that the Monitor's Yearly Report will be filed within the next week. (Court Reporter JJ.) (JS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2652 Motion: Movant Don Collins filed a Motion complaining about meals and being denied access to the commissary. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant states that his breakfast tray was not covered and that his lunch tray did not include a dessert cake or a suitable substitute. He also claims that staff members are retaliating against him; he was denied access to the commissary and a crisis team did not respond in a timely manner. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 302 of 306

the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/20/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2653 Letter: The Court received the letter from inmate Meredith Smith, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. In his Letter, he informs the Court that he is in segregation and is not receiving mental health treatment. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Smith is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/20/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/21/2019 2655 MOTION filed by Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/21/2019

2656

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2460 Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines:,,,,,,, 2516 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 2579 Order,,, 2633 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by John R Baldwin. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0753−3109786. (Rees, R.) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/22/2019 2657 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2656 Notice of Appeal, (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/23/2019 2658 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 2656 Notice of Appeal, filed by John R Baldwin. USCA Case Number 19−1978 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2655 Motion: Movant Steven Lisle Jr. filed a Motion complaining that correctional officers are using excessive force. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. Movant states that certain inmates are required to wear black and white jump suits and labeled as troublemakers and that staff members allegedly assault those inmates. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/23/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court received an exhibit/letter 2654 related to a motion 2522 that was previously filed by inmate John Gilbert, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Western Illinois Correctional Center. Mr. Gilbert informs the Court that he was raped a second time. He requests treatment and for action to be taken to protect him from further harm. The Court declines to grant specific relief, but the Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Gilbert is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/23/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/24/2019 2659 MOTION to Intervene filed by Gerald Jones. Responses due by 6/7/2019 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019 2660 MOTION by Plaintiff Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/7/2019 (JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/28/2019 2661 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF MONITOR PABLO STEWART, MD., filed on 5/28/2019. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/29/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2659 Motion to Intervene. Movant Gerald Jones, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed a Motion complaining that class members are being denied mental health treatment except for medication and that staff members refuse to provide him with a treatment plan. Movant also states that he was bleeding from self−harm cuts and requested medical care, but Warden Kennedy and other staff

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 303 of 306

members allegedly denied him medical treatment. Movant states that he filed a separate lawsuit regarding these issues (Case No. 18−1295).The Court declines to grant specific relief based on Movant's Motion, but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/29/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/29/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2660 Motion. Movant Donald Collins filed a Motion complaining that he was sent to crisis watch unnecessarily. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. He states that he never had a crisis situation, but that staff members wanted to teach him a lesson by placing him on crisis watch to deter him from calling crisis for non−crisis issues. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/29/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/30/2019 2662 MOTION filed by Lee Price. Responses due by 6/13/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2662 Motion. Movant Lee Price filed a Motion complaining that his cell mate, John Herd, sexually assaulted him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Lawrence Correctional Center. Movant states that he is depressed and fears for his safety as a result of the sexual assault. Movant requests that this Court transfer him to a minimal security prison. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/30/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/31/2019 2663 MOTION to Intervene filed by Deshanta Young. Responses due by 6/14/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits Part 1, # 2 Exhibits Part 2)(JRK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2663 Motion to Intervene. Movant Deshanta Young filed a Motion complaining that he was abruptly changed to non−SMI status even though he was previously designated as SMI. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also complains that a psychiatrist threatened to discontinue his medication and strap him down in retaliation for filing grievances. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/31/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019 2664 MOTION to Speak with the Court Monitor filed by Ned James. Responses due by 6/14/2019 (TK, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019 2665 MOTION filed by Donald Collins. Responses due by 6/14/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/03/2019 2666 MOTION to Intervene and Inform by Martino Smith. Responses due by 6/17/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019 2667 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 6/17/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019 2668 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 6/17/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 304 of 306

06/03/2019 2669 MOTION filed by Don Collins. Responses due by 6/17/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019 2670 MOTION to Inform filed by William Buck. Responses due by 6/17/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019 2671 MOTION (titled Abuse of Mentally Ill Report) filed by William Buck. Responses due by 6/17/2019 (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2664 Motion. Movant Ned James filed a Motion complaining that mental health administrative staff at the Joliet Treatment Center are retaliating against him. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. Movant requests to speak with the Court Monitor and Plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

06/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2665 , 2667 , 2668 , and 2669 filed by Don Collins, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at the Joliet Treatment Center. In Motion 2665 , Movant complains that in−house meals and ADA in−house meals have not included milk at breakfast or dessert at lunch. In Motion 2667 , Movant complains the Clerk refused to file motions sent by U.S. Mail and has not returned the original filed stamped documents. Movant is assured that motions mailed to the Court have been filed on the docket in this case. In Motion 2668 , Movant complains certain correctional officers refused to deliver meals to his cell pursuant to his eat−in−cell permits. In Motion 2669 , Movant requests to be allowed to have plastic covered food trays in his cell. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

06/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2666 Motion. Movant Martino Smith filed a Motion complaining that the administration and mental health staff told inmates at Pontiac Correctional Center that if they go on suicide watch while in segregation that their segregation time stops until they come off of suicide watch and that their time on suicide watch does not count as segregation time. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

06/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Motions 2670 and 2671 filed by Movant William Buck, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In Motion 2670 , Movant complains that when a fellow inmate called for a crisis, the correctional officers threatened him and told him to kill himself, pepper sprayed him, and beat him. In Motion 2671 , Movant complains that when he complained of chest pain and asked for medical attention that correctional officers handcuffed him and shackled his feet, took him to his cell, slammed his head against the wall, and manipulated the cuffs and shackles, which caused him pain. Afterward, Movant states that he sat in his cell for hours in pain. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 305 of 306

06/04/2019 2672 Letter from Sylvester Lewis. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

06/04/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2672 Letter filed by inmate Sylvester Shaheed Lewis, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Letter, he informs the Court that he is depressed and that he has been in segregation since April 2019. He requests mental health treatment and to be taken out of his cell. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Lewis is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/4/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

06/05/2019 2673 MOTION to Intervene filed by Ralph Kings. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/06/2019 2674 Letter from Chadwick Wallace. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2019)

06/06/2019 2675 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Mario English Jr.. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2019)

06/06/2019 2676 MOTION to Intervene filed by Dwayne Croom. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/06/2019)

06/07/2019 2677 NOTICE to Court filed by Calvin Williams. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2673 Motion: Movant Ralph Kings, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed a Motion on behalf of another inmate, Jerry Osborn. Movant states that Mr. Osborn is a SMI prisoner who has been in solitary confinement for many years. According to Movant, Mr. Osborn assaulted mental health staff members and attempted suicide. As a result of the assault, Movant believes staff members are not treating or speaking to Mr. Osborn and his mental health is deteriorating. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2674 Letter: The Court received the Letter from inmate Chadwick Wallace, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Western Illinois Correctional Center. In his Letter, he informs the Court that the facility has insufficient mental health staff and that he is not receiving adequate mental health care. He states that the MHP staff members who were hired quit, and that presently, no MHPs are on staff. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Wallace is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2675 Motion: Movant Mario English Jr. filed a Motion complaining that he has not received proper treatment for depression. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also states that inmates Samuel Duff and Jerry Osborne need mental health treatment. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2676 Motion: Movant Dwayne Croom, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed a Motion complaining that staff members are violating the settlement agreement. Movant alleges SMI inmates are being denied full access to mental health care and staff members are deliberately indifferent to his medical needs regarding medication management, mental health treatment in

Case: 1:07-cv-1298 As of: 06/11/2019 10:29 AM CDT 306 of 306

segregation, treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and treatment plans. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2677 Notice filed by inmate Calvin Williams, who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. In his Notice, he alleges he sustained an injury to his right hand because an officer put handcuffs on too tight and yanked them. Mr. Williams alleges that he requested a sick call but did not receive medical attention. The Court declines to take any action based on the Notice at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Notice to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Williams is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/10/2019 2678 Letter from Steven Lisle Jr. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2019)

06/10/2019 2679 MOTION to Intervene & Inform filed by Darren Evans. (VH, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2019)

06/10/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER re 2678 Letter: The Court received the Letter from inmate Steven Lisle Jr., who is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Menard Correctional Center. In his Letter, he informs the Court that staff members at Menard Correctional Center have destroyed the Court's text responses, have not provided the text responses to him, or have forged motions to make it seem like they were filed. He also informs the Court that staff members have allegedly threatened to kill him and that an officer sexually assaulted him. The Court declines to take any action based on the Letter at this time. The Court directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of the Letter to the Court Monitor to determine, at his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Mr. Lisle is advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum the inmate deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/10/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2019)

06/10/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 2679 Motion. Movant Darren Evans filed a Motion complaining that a correctional officer gave inmate Martino Smith a piece of metal to harm himself with. Movant is currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at Pontiac Correctional Center. Movant also states that a staff member retaliated against Mr. Smith by using excessive force and a chemical agent. Movant requests that this Court punish the officer for his conduct. The Court declines to grant specific relief but directs Class Counsel to provide a copy of this Motion to the Court Monitor to determine, in his discretion, if any further action on his part is necessary. Movant is further advised that any individual complaint should go through the IDOC's grievance process or other forum Movant deems appropriate. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/10/2019. (MNS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/10/2019)