Timothy R. Payne Laurie J. Wein»t*in United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
special Litigation Section
Post Office Box 66400
Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6441 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

p I P|) i ._i»ty
, Q U nrf,
9H DEC 1 Pf) 4 08
L(-J *«;,...;.;:. J3. CLERK
DY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OP MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

V,

)

)

The STATE OF MONTANA; MARC RACICOT,

)

in his official capacity as Governor of )

the State of Montana; MONTANA

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HUMAN

)

SERVICES; RICK DAY, in his official

)

capacity as Director, Montana Department)

of Corrections and Human Services; the )

ADMINISTRATOR of the Corrections

)

Division of the Montana Department of )

Corrections and Human Services, in his )

official capacity; MIKE MAHONEY, in )

his official capacity as Deputy Warden, )

Montana State Prison; and the

)

Department of Corrections and Human

)

Services,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CV 94-90-H-CCL

COMPLAINT
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, alleges that: 1. This complaint is filed by the Attorney General on
behalf of the United States of America pursuant to the Civil Rights of institutionalised Persons Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. $1997

U.S. v. Montana PC-MT-003-002

at S£Oi-» t o enjoin the named Defendants from depriving persons incarcerated at Montana State Prison, located in Deer Lodge, Montana, of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the United States Constitution.
JURISDICTION. STAWDIHG AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 813^5. 3. The United States has standing to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 51997a. 4. Venue in the District of Montana, Helena Division, is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 51391. The claims set forth in this complaint all arose in said District. 5. The Attorney General has certified that all pre-filing requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. Section 1997b have been net. The Certificate of the Attorney General is appended to this Complaint and is incorporated herein.
DEFENDANTS 6. Defendant Marc Racicot is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Montana. In his official capacity, Governor Racicot is responsible for the operation of Montana State Prison. 7. Defendant Kick Day is sued in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Corrections and Human Services. The Director of the Department of corrections and Human Services has the authority to maintain and operate the Montana State
- 2-

Prison and is responsible for the conditions of confinement and treatment of persons incarcerated there.
8. Defendant Administrator is sued in his official capacity as Administrator of the Corrections Division of the Department of Corrections and Human Services. The Administrator of the Corrections Division of the Department of Corrections and Human Services is responsible for the operation of Montana State Prison.
9. Defendant Mike Mahoney is sued in his official capacity as Deputy Harden of the Montana State Prison. The Deputy Warden directly supervises and controls daily operation of the Montana State Prison.
10. Defendant Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services is the agency charged with the authority to maintain and operate the Montana State Prison and is responsible for the conditions of confinement and treatment of persons detained or incarcerated there.
11. Defendants are legally responsible, in whole or in part, for the operation of Montana State Prison, for the conditions there and the health and safety of persons detained or incarcerated therein.
12. At all relevant times, the Defendants or their predecessors in office have acted or failed to act, as alleged herein, under color of state law.
- 3-

13. Montana State Prison is an "institution" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 51997(1)«
14. Persona confined to the Montana State Prison include convicted inmates.
15. The Defendants are failing to provide a reasonably safe environment and adequate innate protection from harm by/ later alia, failing to provide adequate security and supervision, failing to provide adequate officer training, failing to provide adequate detection and control of weapons, and maintaining a population well in excess of facility capacity. A further contributing factor to the lack of adequate protection from harm is Defendants' failure to provide adequate housing and protective measures and procedures for inmates in need of protective custody. Such deficiencies endanger the lives and safety of inmates incarcerated in the Prison.
16. The Defendants are failing to provide persons confined at the Montana State Prison adequate medical care by, inter aliaf failing to provide sufficient medical staffing, failing to provide timely access to adequate routine and emergency care, failing to provide adequate care for chronic care or special needs patients.
17. The Defendants are failing to provide persons confined at the Montana State Prison with adequate dental care.
1$, The Defendants are failing to provide persons confined at the Montana State prison with adequate mental health care.
- 4-

19. The Defendants are failing to provide a safe environment with respect to environmental health and safety conditions.
20. The Defendants are failing to protect inmates at Montana State Prison from undue risk of harm from fires by, inter alia; failing to provide necessary fire safety equipment; failing to provide necessary staff training and drilling in fire safety, use of fire.safety equipment, and emergency evacuation plans and procedures; and failing to remove fire hazards.
21. The acts, practices and omissions of Defendants alleged in each of paragraphs 15 through 20 violate rights of persons confined at the Montana state Prison that are secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States,
PRAYER FOR R E U E F 22. The Attorney General ie authorized under 42 U.S.C. $1997 e£ A S & L , to seek equitable relief. 23. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in paragraphs IS through 20 above that deprive persons confined at Montana State Prison of rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the united States and continue to cause harm to the inmates of Montana state Prison. WHEREFORE, the United states prays that this Court enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents employee*, subordinates, successors in office, and all those
- 5-

acting in concert or participation with them from continuing the acts, omissions and practices set forth in paragraphs 15 through 20 above and to require Defendants to take such actions as will ensure lawful conditions of confinement to inmates at the Montana State Prison. The united States further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable relief as it may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

^-JJL
'SHERRYfS, tfXTTEUCCI United\6tajbes Attorney District of Montana

3XNET RENO Attorney General
>f the Uivt*e4UStates
DEVAL LT-FATRICX Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

ARTHUR B. Chief Special Litigation Section

MELLIE H. NELSON Deputy Chief Special Litigation section
J
TIMOTHY R/PAYHB ' IADR1E J . WEINSTEIN Senior Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D,C. 20035-6400
- 6-

 
 U.S. Departme. jf Justice 4-\ Civil Rights Division

AEP:MHN:TRP:WGM:VBR:drb DJ 168-44-11

Special Urigarion Section P.O. Box 66400 Wishington. D.C. 20055-6400

September 12, 1996
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Tami Canaan Clerk of Court United States District Court District of Montana Room 542 3 01 S. Park Ave. Helena, Montana 59626
Re: United States of America v. State of Montana, et a l . Civil Action No. 94-90-H-CCL
Dear Ms. Canaan:
Enclosed for filing in the above referenced action are the original and two copies of the United States' and State of Montana's Joint Motion to enter their Stipulated Agreement settling the issues of medical, dental and mental health care, a Proposed Order to that effect, and a Stipulated Agreement with Certificate of Service. Please file the originals and date-stamp and return one copy to our office in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.
Sincerely,

Enclosures

William G. Maddox Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section

U.S. v. Montana PC-MT-003-003

AEP:MHN:TRP:WGM:VBR:drb DJ 168-44-11

September 12, 1996
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Tami Canaan Clerk of Court United States District Court District of Montana Room 542 3 01 S. Park Ave. Helena, Montana 59626
Re: United States of America v. State of Montana, et al. Civil Action No. 94-90-H-CCL
Dear Ms. Canaan:
Enclosed for filing in the above referenced action are the original and two copies of the United States' and State of Montana's Joint Motion to enter their Stipulated Agreement settling the issues of medical, dental and mental health care, a Proposed Order to that effect, and a Stipulated Agreement with Certificate of Service. Please file the originals and date-stamp and return one copy to our office in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.
Sincerely,

Enclosures

William G. Maddox Senior Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section

cc: Records Peabody Nelson Payne Maddox Ryan Hold

Timothy R. Payne William G. Maddox United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6441
Sherry Scheel Matteucci United States Attorney District of Montana (406) 657-6101
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.
STATE OF MONTANA; MARC RACICOT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Montana; RICK DAY, in his official capacity as Director, Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services; the Administrator of the Corrections Division of the Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services, in his official capacity; MIKE MAHONEY, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden, Montana State Prison; and the Department of Corrections and Human Services,

Civil Action No. 94-90-H-CCL

Defendants.

JOINT MOTION The United States and the State of Montana, e_t. a_l., having entered into the attached Stipulated Agreement ("Agreement"), jointly move this Court to dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a) (2) the issues of medical, dental, and

mental health care in the above styled case. The parties agree and request that the Court shall retain
jurisdiction over the issues of medical, dental, and mental health care in this civil action pending completion of the Agreement by the Defendants according to its terms. The parties request that the Clerk of the -Court be directed to remove this civil action as to the issues of medical, dental, and mental health care, from the Court's active docket.
The parties further agree that in the event that Defendants are unable to meet the terms of the Agreement within the time frames provided by the Agreement, the United States may move this Court to restore the issues of medical, dental, and mental health care in this civil action to the Court's active docket for the purposes of further litigating such issues.

Agreed to by: COUNSEL FOR UNITED STATES:
SHERRY SCHEEL MATTEUCCI United States AttorneyDistrict of Montana
ARTHUR E. PEABODY, Chief Special Litigation Section
MELLIE H. NELSON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
TIMOTHY R. PAYNE WILLIAM G. MADDOX Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

P. KEITHCKELLER, Esq. Keller, Reynolds, Drake,
Johnson & Gillespie 3 8 S. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601
DAVID OHLER, Esq. State of Montana Department of
Corrections 1539 11th Avenue Helena, MT 59620

Timothy R. Payne William G. Maddox United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6441
Sherry Scheel Matteucci United States Attorney District of Montana (406) 657-6101
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF MONTANA; MARC RACICOT,

)

in his official capacity as

)

Governor of the State of Montana;

)

RICK DAY, in his official capacity as )

Director, Montana Department of

)

Corrections and Human Services; the

)

Administrator of the Corrections

)

Division of the Montana Department of )

Corrections and Human Services, in his )

official capacity; MIKE MAHONEY, in

)

his official capacity as Deputy Warden, )

Montana State Prison; and the

)

Department of Corrections and Human

)

Services,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 94-90-H-CCL

STIPULATED AGREEMENT
For the purposes of resolving the issues of medical, dental and mental health care in the instant case, the United States
1

agrees to postpone litigating the issues at trial to permit the Defendants the opportunity to implement the terms set forth in this Stipulated Agreement ("Agreement") consistent with its terms and specified time frames.
Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for entry of an Order of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and shall attach this Agreement to such motion.
If Defendants are unable to comply with the terms of this Agreement within the time frames listed, the United States may file a motion to vacate the dismissal without prejudice and to restore the action to the Court's active docket ("Motion to Restore") for the purpose of adjudicating the issue's of medical, dental, and mental health care. I. SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS
The Defendants shall ensure provision of adequate medical and mental health care services to inmates confined at the Montana State Prison ("MSP"). To that end, Defendants shall:
1. Comply with the medical and dental care requirements as set forth in the November 29, 1994, Settlement Agreement entered in Lanaford. et al. v. Racicot. et al., CV 92-13-H-LBE (Part V, Sections 1 and 2) . See Appendix A. The terms of the settlement agreement in Lanaford as contained in Appendix A will be binding on the parties pursuant to this Stipulated Agreement even if the court dismisses the Lanaford agreement.

2. Establish and maintain an adequate medical records system that contains current information concerning an inmate's treatment and is organized in a functional manner to enable qualified medical professionals to render adequate and timely professional treatment decisions. The medical records shall contain, among other things, adequate and appropriate documentation of clinical encounters, chronologies, medication profiles, lab reports, diagnostic test results, and off-site consultation reports and treatment information. Defendants shall focus initially on the medical records for chronic care inmates, newly admitted inmates, and seriously mentally ill inmates. Defendants shall implement this paragraph as to other medical records as efficiently as possible and the organization of such other records shall not be grounds solely for a finding of noncompliance. Defendants shall hire or consult with a certified medical records technician.
3. Comply with the following mental health provisions: a. Mental Health Screening/Evaluation. Develop and
implement mental health screening, intake evaluation, and comprehensive mental health evaluation procedures to ensure proper identification of inmates with mental illness.
b. Continuity of Care. Provide inmates access to a full continuum of mental health care ranging from outpatient transition services to inpatient hospitalization or infirmarybased crisis intervention.

c. Policies and Procedures. Develop and implement a comprehensive set of written policies and procedures for the delivery of mental health care at MSP. The policies shall generally conform with NCCHC guidelines and shall address areas to include, but not be limited to, the organizational structure of mental health services staffing, intake screening and evaluation upon admission, housing, comprehensive mental health evaluations, referrals for further assessments following comprehensive evaluations, treatment and programming, medication administration, use of restraints, use of seclusion or observation cells, forced medication, suicide prevention, continuity of care, quality assurance, and transfers to hospitals. Defendants shall ensure that the policies and procedures for mental health are coordinated and consistent with the prison's policies and procedures for medical care.
d. Organizational Structure. Ensure psychiatric and psychological services are structured under a mental health services department with a single director.
e. Minimal Staffing. Provide the following minimum levels of staffing:
1 - FTE licensed Psychiatrist (allowing 1/2 day a week coverage of the women's prison) 1 - FTE Ph.D. Psychologist 4 - FTE Psychology Specialists (Master's Degree level) 2 - 1/4 time Master's level interns

1 - sex offender program consultant (L.C.P.C.) 1 - Special Duty Aide Defendants shall make a good faith effort to hire 1 FTE Activities Therapist. f. Mental Health/Special Needs Unit. Provide at MSP an intermediate care mental health unit of at least 24 beds. This unit shall serve inmates with serious mental illness who do not require acute care placement, but who require more than is offered by outpatient services. The out-of-cell time afforded inmates housed in this unit shall at least be equivalent to that afforded general population inmates (of the same classification), and shall consist of at least 4 hours a day of structured activities during the week. Defendants shall assign a clinician who shall be responsible as Director of this unit. g. Segregation Inmates. Generally not confine inmates with serious mental illness in prison segregation housing, or under maximum security conditions that are identical or similar. Any decision to place inmates with serious mental illness in such housing shall be supported by clinical justification, appropriately documented, and shall require appropriate monitoring of the mentally ill inmate by clinical staff at least weekly. Weekly rounds of the segregation and maximum security housing units shall be conducted by a mental health clinician. At least once a month, the Director of Mental Health Services, shall accompany the mental health clinician on rounds of the segregation housing unit.

h. Suicide Prevention. Establish a suicide prevention program, consistent with NCCHC guidelines, to ensure the proper identification, housing, and monitoring of suicidal inmates. This program shall include provision of an appropriate inmate observation cell in the infirmary and sufficient non-inmate staff to ensure adequate monitoring and observation of suicidal inmates.
i. Inmate Workers. In accordance with NCCHC guidelines, no inmate workers shall be involved in the care and treatment of mentally ill inmates. Inmates specifically shall not engage in: (i) filing of inmate mental health records and/or parole board related documents; (ii) scoring of inmate tests, e.g., the MMPI; and (iii) scheduling of inmate appointments for mental health related services.
j. Needs Assessment/Tracking System. Develop a basic management information system for mental health care services that shall contain, at a minimum, the following: (i) the name of all inmates receiving mental health treatment, (ii) the housing unit of the inmate, (iii) the mental health diagnosis of the inmate, (iv) the level of care required (i.e., intermediate mental health care treatment, inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment). Defendants shall make a good faith effort to computerize such management information system. II. MONITORING COMPLIANCE
1. The monitoring of compliance for medical care shall be done by a joint evaluation (involving an on-site tour of MSP)

conducted by Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Michael Puisis, and byDefendants' expert, Dr. Ronald Shansky. The monitoring for mental health care shall be done by Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, and by Defendants' expert, Dr. Mary West. The first such evaluation/tour shall take place no later than the end of November of 1996. Upon completion of the evaluation/tour, the experts shall submit a joint written report for medical care and a joint written report for mental health care regarding Defendants' status of compliance. The joint experts shall submit such reports within 30 days.
2. Following the first tour, for those provisions of Section I of this Stipulated Agreement in which Defendants have achieved substantial compliance, Defendants must sustain substantial compliance not less than four months. The experts shall conduct a follow-up tour, not less than four months following the initial tour, to determine whether Defendants have sustained substantial compliance.
3. If, upon completion of the fall 1996 evaluation/tour, Defendants have not achieved substantial compliance with regard to any provisions of Section I of this Agreement, the experts shall conduct a second evaluation/tour no later than the end of May 1997. III. DEFAULT OF AGREEMENT AND MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION
1. To meet fully the terms of this Agreement, Defendants must achieve substantial compliance and sustain such substantial compliance for not less than four months for each provision set

forth in Section I of this Agreement. 3. If Defendants have not achieved substantial and
sustained compliance with regard to any provisions of Section I of this Agreement by the end of May 1997, Defendants shall be in default of this Agreement and the United States may file a motion to vacate the dismissal without prejudice and to restore the action to the Court's active docket ("Motion to Restore") for the purpose of adjudicating the issues of medical, dental, and mental health care.
Agreed to by: COUNSEL FOR UNITED STATES:
SHERRY SCHEEL MATTEUCCI United States Attorney District of Montana
ARTHUR E. PEABODY,' Chief Special Litigation Section
MELLIE H. NELSON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
G-
TIMOTHY R. PAYNE 1 WILLIAM G. MADDOX Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035
8

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
P. /KEITH KELLER, Esq. Keller, vReynolds, Drake,
Johnson & Gillespie 3 8 S. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601
DAVID OHLER, Esq. State of Montana Department of
Corrections 153 9 11th Avenue Helena, MT 59620

APPENDIX A

attempt to arrive at an amicable resolution of the claim. If after

twenty (20) business days following such meeting, the matter has

not been resolved, Defendants' counsel shall be so informed by

Plaintiffs' counsel, in writing, and Plaintiffs may then have due

recourse to the Court.

..

6

V. TERMS ADDRESSING SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

7

The terms and conditions of this part of the agreement are

couched in terms of future acts. The Defendants contend that they

have implemented many of the terms contained in this part of the

10 agreement, a contention with which the Plaintiffs do not

11 necessarily agree. The use of prospective terms in this portion of

12 the agreement is without prejudice to the Defendants' claims that

.3 the programs described have already been implemented.

14

SECTION 1 - MEDICAL

15

A. Medical Director - The Defendants agree to appoint a

16 Medical Director who is responsible for making recommendations for

17 the development of medical policies and procedures which, when

18 adopted, will be largely in compliance with the National Commission

19 on Correctional Health Care Guidelines as they currently exist

20 except as otherwise provided in this agreement. These policies and

21 procedures would include, but not be limited to, such issues as 22 quality assurance, programs for chronic care, special-needs 23 inmates, admission to and administration of the infirmary, and a 24 peer review of the practitioners who are contracting with the State 25 of Montana. The Medical Director shall be responsible for imple26 menting the medical policies and procedures, as well as the duties

11. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

set forth in Exhibit A. Day-to-day supervision and management would be provided by a manager contracted by the Defendants.

B. Physicians - Defendants shall ensure that, in addition to

the Medical Director, one or more licensed physicians shall provide

medical services as described in Exhibit B. Additionally,

Defendants shall ensure two' (2) physician assistants or the

equivalent, each on a 40-hour week.

C. Nurses - Defendants shall provide adequate nursing staff

to cover sick call, the chronic care program, patient follow-up,

10 [ and to be responsive to any routine or emergent medical situation

11 which may arise on a day-to-day basis. Defendants shall ensure 24-

12 hour nursing coverage of the infirmary.

13

D. Nursing Protocols - Defendants shall establish and

14 implement standing orders or protocols for the treatment of common

15 conditions by nurses performing sick call. Such standing orders

16j shall be reviewed and approved by the prison Medical Director.

17 |

E. TB Screening - Defendants shall conduct TB screening of

18 inmates in conformance with Center for Disease Control Guidelines.

19 Most notably, this shall include a skin-test (PPD) of each inmate

20 upon entry (except any inmate providing documentation of already

21 testing positive for T B ) , to be administered and read by

22 appropriately trained personnel and recorded in the inmate's

2 3 medical record. Any inmate with positive skin-test reactions, or

24 with symptoms suggesting TB (e.g., cough, anorexia, weight loss,

25 fever), should be provided a chest x-ray within 72 hours of the

26 skin-test reading or identification of symptoms. Further, all

*

•

12. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 inmates with negative skin-tests shall be administered a repeat

2j skin-test on an annual basis.

3i

F« Intake Screening - Defendants shall conduct an intake

4 screening of each incoming inmate within 24 hours of admission,.

5| excluding weekends and holidays. The screening shall entail

6 conducting a preliminary history and physical, including the taking

7 of vital signs. Initial assessments shall be performed by nursing

8 staff, and for every inmate shall be followed with a comprehensive

9 physical examination to be completed by a physician assistant

10 and/or a physician. Such physical examination shall be completed

11 within the first 14 days of an inmate's admission into the prison.

12 At the discretion of MSP health officials, returnees within one (1)

13 year of their last separation may be exempted from the PE

14: requirements.

15!

G. Sick Call - Defendants shall conduct a daily sick call,

16; except weekends and holidays. The sick call clinics shall be

17i conducted in the satellite (out-patient) infirmaries by an on-site

18 nurse and/or physician's assistant. In conducting these clinics,

19 health care staff shall utilize triage protocols and shall ensure

20 all appropriate follow-up care is provided. Further, Defendants

21 shall ensure all inmates are seen at sick call, by a nurse and/or

22j physician's assistant, within 48 hours of their submission of a

23: request for health care services.

24

H. Sick Call/Maximum Security - Defendants shall conduct

25 daily sick call, except weekends and holidays, in the. Maximum

26 Security Unit, with assessments to be done by the nursing staff and

13. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

appropriate follow-up care to be provided on a day-to-day basis.

The Defendants shall provide an examination area within the Maximum

Security building that is properly equipped and lighted for»

physical examinations and assessments, excluding weekends and

holidays.

I- Patient Referrals - Defendants shall schedule referrals to

primary care physicians according to clinical priority, but

patients needing to see a physician shall be seen in no more than

five (5) days. Patient referrals to specialists outside the prison

10 i shall be made by physicians timely, subject to review by the

11 facility's medical review panel in appropriate cases. Medical

12 Review Panel decisions shall be made consistent with DOC's level of

13 therapeutic care policy number 528 attached as Exhibit C.

14

J. Over-the-Counter Medications - Defendants shall revise the

15 current over-the-counter medication policy and implement such

16 I revised policy so that any over-the-counter medication that is

17 authorized by a licensed health care provider shall be provided by

18 the Defendants for the period of time recommended by the health

19 care provider, and in any other instance over-the-counter

20 medications shall be available for purchase to the inmate

21 population through the canteen. The policy shall set forth under

22 i what conditions or circumstances over-the-counter medication is

23 considered medically indicated. It is the expectation of the

2 4 parties that over-the-counter medications shall be provided for

25 common ailments when medically appropriate.

26

14. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

K. Annual Physicals - Defendants shall develop and implement

a policy to ensure all inmates over the age of SO shall be offered

a physical exam annually, and all inmates over the age of 40 shall

be offered a physical exam bi-annually.

L. Medication Distribution - With respect to distribution of

medication. Defendants shall comport with state law and the

Administrative Rules of Montana - Board of Nursing Guidelines.

M. Chronic Care Patients - Defendants shall develop and

implement a program for the care of chronic care inmate/patients.

10 The chronic care provided shall entail a clinic or examination for

H i each chronic care patient at least once every four (4) months, and

12 j at greater intervals where medically indicated. Inmates who are

13 considered to be chronic care patients shall include, but not be

14' limited to, inmates who are: diabetic, asthmatic, HIV+, TB+,

15j hypertensive, and epileptics.

16 j

N. Eve Care - The Defendants shall provide eyeglasses to

17 I those inmates who need them. Should an inmate break his eyeglasses

18! through no fault of his own, the same shall be replaced at

19 Defendants' expense. If an inmate's eyeglasses are broken through

20 the inmate's fault, the Defendants shall replace the eyeglasses at

21 the inmate's expense, provided that should an inmate be indigent,

22; as defined in the indigency policy, the Defendants shall

23 nevertheless replace the inmate's eyeglasses, billing the cost to

24j his account. The Bureau Warden shall have the discretion to

25 determine whether or not to replace an indigent inmate's eyeglasses

2 6 more than one (1) time in one (1) year.

15. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1

SECTION 2 - DENTAL

2 I

The Defendants shall provide adequate dental care to its

3 inmate population.

4

A. Dentist.- Defendants shall retain or contract for dental

5 staff who shall provide adequate dental services within 60 days of

6 any routine or non-urgent request made regarding dental health care

7 within the institution. If Defendants cannot provide such

8 services within 60 days, Defendants shall add additional resources

9 so as to reduce the inmate waiting period to within 60 days.

10

B. Emergency Dental Care - The Defendants shall ensure timely

111 provision of emergency dental care to inmates.

12

C. Elimination of Backlog - Defendants shall contract with

13 health care providers to eliminate the backlog of requests for

14 dental health care. The backlog shall be eliminated within one (1)

15 year of the date of the signing of this agreement. In the process

16 of eliminating the backlog, the Defendants shall prioritize cases

17j according to clinical priority. The Defendants shall re-evaluate

18 the current level of staffing once every six (6) months to

19 determine if additional dental staff is needed. Once the backlog

20 has been eliminated, the Defendants shall initiate a program to

21 provide dental hygiene services.

22

SECTION 3 MENTAL-HEALTH

23

The Plaintiffs' mental health expej^-.-JPs^Sei^Metzner, M.D.,

24 and the Department of Correct^o^P^^ifaHuman Services psychiatrist,

25 David Schaef f er/M^S^^f^shall recommend a plan to the parties for

2 6 provisiop^^axmental health care services to the inmate population

16. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Timothy R. Payne William G. Maddox United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Post Office Box 66400 Washington, D.C. 20035-6400 (202) 514-6441
Sherry Scheel Matteucci United States Attorney District of Montana (406) 657-6101
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

STATE OF MONTANA; MARC RACICOT,

)

in his official capacity as

)

Governor of the State of Montana;

)

RICK DAY, in his official capacity as )

Director, Montana Department of

)

Corrections and Human Services; the

)

Administrator of the Corrections

)

Division of the Montana Department of )

Corrections and Human Services, in his )

official capacity; MIKE MAHONEY, in

)

his official capacity as Deputy Warden, )

Montana State Prison; and the

)

Department of Corrections and Human

)

Services,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 94-90-H-CCL

ORDER The United States and State of Montana, e_t. al.., having entered into a Stipulated Agreement ("Agreement"), the Court dismisses without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)

the issues of medical, dental, and mental health care in the

above styled case. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the

issues of medical, dental, and mental health care in this civil

action pending completion of the Agreement by the Defendants

according to its terms.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove this civil

action as to the issues of medical, dental, and mental health

care from the Court's active docket and to forward copies of this

Order to counsel of record.

In the event that Defendants are unable to meet the terms of

the Agreement within the time frames provided by the Agreement,

the United States may move this Court to restore the issues of

medical, dental, and mental health care in this civil action to

the Court's active docket for the purposes of further litigating

such issues.

It is hereby Ordered this

day of

, 1996.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that the foregoing United States'
and State of Montana's Joint Motion, Stipulated Agreement and
Proposed Order, was mailed postage prepaid, this l£^-~day of
September, 1995, to the following individuals and counsel of
record.
P. Keith Keller, Esq. Keller, Reynolds, Drake, Johnson & Gillespie 3 8 S. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601
David Ohler, Esq. State of Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services 153 9 11th Avenue Helena, MT 59S20
Sherry Matteucci, Esquire United States Attorney District of Montana 2 929 3rd Avenue North Billings, MT 59101

Timothy R. Payne

/ *"

William G. Maddox

Attorneys

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

Post Office Box 66400

Washington, D.C. 20035-6400

(202) 514-6441

(202) 514-6251

 
 SEP 20 '96 14:42 FROM USCLERKCOURTHELENfi

PfiGE.002

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

HELENA DIVISION

i

*******

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-v-

THE STATE OF MONTANA; MARC RACICOT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Montana; MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HUMAN SERVICES; RICK DAY, in his official capacity as Director, Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services; ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HUMAN SERVICES, in h i s official capacity,- and MIKE MAHONEY, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden, Montana State Prison, and the Department of Corrections and Human Services,

Defendants.

******* ORDER
*******

CV 94-90-H-CCL

Before the court is Plaintiff's "Motion Relating to the Court's August 29, 1996 Order." In this motion, Plaintiff asks that (l) the time for response to the Defendants' Motion to

U.S. v. Montana

PC-MT-003-004

SEP 2 0 ' 9 6 1 4 : 4 2

FROM USCLERKCOURTHELENfi

PflGE.003

Compel be extended to September 20, 1996; (2) the time for Plaintiff to name its witnesses be extended to October 7, 1996, and the time for the Defendants' to name their witnesses be correspondingly extended until October 15, 1996; (3) the Defendants be required to give the United States any additional material that is placed in the prison file of any inmate on Plaintiff's witness list after the close of discovery; and (4) the court clarify that the parties may conduct videotaped examinations of inmates incarcerated in Texas (for the purpose of presentation of evidence to the court) after the discovery deadline.
Defendants oppose the second and third request enumerated above.
The court is disappointed that Plaintiff has not made significant progress in preparing its witness list for the trial of this matter. The principal reason the court was compelled to delay the trial date of September 16, 1996, was because it was apparent that Plaintiff was not prepared for trial. Now, because of this proposed three-week delay in disclosing its witness list, Plaintiff forces a choice between taking three weeks of discovery away from Defendants or delaying the trial yet again. The court does not want to delay the trial, but the parties must prepare
2

SEP 2 0 ' 9 S 1 4 : 4 2 FROM USCLERKCOURTHELENfl

PflGE.004

the case to the best of their abilities. Plaintiff must provide timely discovery so chat Defendants are fairly apprised of Plaintiff's case before trial. It is unfortunate that this means the trial is to be delayed again.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion relating to the court's August 29, 1996 order is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall name its witnesses on or before October 7, 1996, and Defendants shall name their witnesses on or before October 22, 199S. At the same time Plaintiff and Defendants shall also file a new amended proposed final pretrial order, inter alia setting forth the identity of their proposed witnesses. The discovery deadline shall be November 22, 1996. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial date of December 2, 1996, and the final pretrial conference hearing on November 20, 1996, are both VACATED- The trial is RESET for Monday, January 27, 1997, at 9:30 o'clock a.m., and the final pretrial conference is RESET for Friday, December 13, 1996, at 11:00 o'clock a.m., both proceedings to be held in the courtroom. United States Courthouse, Helena, Montana. Both parties shall file pretrial briefs on or before December 6, 1996; the pretrial briefs shall include a trial
3

.,» ,4.43 FRO« USCLERKCOURTHELENfl

/•

\

PAGE.005

•<
exhibit list, with objections noted thereon, and two bound copies of the trial exhibits.
The Clerk is directed forthwith to notify the parties of entry of this order.
Done and dated this /*/ day of September, 1996.

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Ubshington. D.C. 20035

NOV 2 3 1993

The Honorable Marc Racicot Governor State of Montana State Capitol Helena, Montana 59620

Re: Notice of Findings Regarding the Montana State Prison. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997b

Dear Governor Racicot:

I am writing to you regarding our investigation of the Montana State Prison ("MSP") in Deer Lodge, Montana, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et sea. Consistent with the requirements of CRIPA, the purpose of this letter is to advise you of the conditions at MSP that deprive the inmates confined there of their constitutionally protected rights and to recommend minimum remedial measures.

In general, prison inmates may not be subjected to

conditions that are incompatible with evolving standards of

decency or that deprive them of their basic human needs while

incarcerated. See Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97 (1976). More

specifically, the most commonly applied standard is the Eighth

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

Wilson v. Seiter.

U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2321 (1991); Rhodes v.

Chapman. 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

Our investigation of MSP consisted of two two-day tours in March 1993, one in which we were accompanied by our penology consultant and the other by our medical consultant. During the course of the investigation, we also examined numerous records at MSP, focusing especially on administrative and facility policies and procedures, incident reports and inmate medical records. In addition, our consultants interviewed numerous MSP personnel and inmates. At the end of these tours, our consultants met with appropriate officials and advised them of life-threatening conditions which they had identified. At all times during the investigation, Montana State officials and prison staff extended to us and our consultants their cooperation, for which we wish to convey to you our thanks.
U.S. v. Montana

I •• H

I1HV

HH

• HV

HH

••••

PC-MT-003-001

- 2-
Our investigation of MSP revealed that conditions exist which violate the constitutional rights of the inmates. The facts and conclusions set forth below are based upon our March 1993 tours.
I. Medical care is grossly inadequate and fails to meet the serious needs of inmates.
A. There are an inadequate number of appropriately trained medical staff.
Our investigation disclosed that the State employs only one physician, Dr. Autry, for its entire correctional system, including MSP, a women's prison and a protective custody unit at the State hospital. MSP alone houses almost 1200 inmates. Quite obviously, one physician for the entire correctional system housing inmates with serious medical problem is clearly inadequate. For example, Dr. Autry spends only one day each week at the women's facility, which has no gynecologist or obstetrician on staff. In addition, the number of psychiatrists retained to address the mental health needs of inmates is inadequate. The management of any adequate medical care delivery system requires far greater physician resources.
As to other medical staff, MSP has budgeted for two physician assistants and 12 nurses (5 registered and 7 licensed practical nurses) to assist in providing health care services. At the time of our tour, one of the two physician assistant positions and a LPN position were vacant. This staffing complement is likewise clearly insufficient to provide all of the necessary medical care for MSP's inmate population.
In many cases, our consultant observed that the physician assistant responsible for the care and treatment of an inmate with a serious medical condition, such as coronary artery disease, AIDS or diabetes, did not appear to have the necessary medical expertise to treat such conditions. Moreover, in these cases there was no physician supervision which generally accepted professional standards require.
Staffing for dental care was similarly found to be insufficient. At the time of the tour, MSP had just hired a dentist, and the waiting list to see him was over 400 inmates. A waiting list of 400 inmates is simply unjustifiable. Our consultant was informed of situations where inmates, due to the overwhelming pain from their dental problems, ultimately resorted to self-treatment or asked other inmates to take care of their

- 3-
problem. In one case, one inmate pulled out the tooth of another inmate using a piece of string because he was unable to get an appointment and could not stand the pain.
Finally, since the State corrections system lacks a prison medical director, Dr. Autry also serves as the State's prison medical director in addition to being the sole physician for all inmates. The State provides no staff to assist Dr. Autry in formulating department health care policies or procedures or performing necessary administrative tasks. As a result, health care policy and procedure is virtually non-existent at MSP as well as the other two state facilities. The State's ability to monitor or identify health care service issues or problems throughout its prison system is similarly non-existent.
In sum, staffing deficiencies exist in all areas of the health care delivery system at MSP. In addition, administrative support and assistance for the medical care delivery system for all prisoners is inadequate.
B. The failure to provide prompt and appropriate medical care, especially for inmates suffering from chronic or serious medical conditions, jeopardizes the health and safety of inmates.
MSP uses infirmary aides at intake to screen inmates for health concerns, with examination by a physician or physician assistant occurring sometime during the inmate's first two weeks at the prison. A physician or physicians assistant, however, does not examine inmates with chronic diseases within 24 hours of admission. This is contrary to accepted practice and is dangerous.
Aside from intake, MSP uses a "kite" system to identify inmates who have health care problems — inmates submit a form requesting medical attention. While our consultant found that MSP's kite system to be adequate in most respects, he also concluded that it cannot be used alone to identify inmates who have medical problems. For example, under MSP's system, no medical attention is received unless a request is made by an inmate. Inmates who are disabled or unable to accurately describe their complaints or symptoms are likely to be overlooked by MSP's medical staff. This gap in the system can and has had particularly serious consequences for inmates with chronic diseases, who, according to generally accepted practice, should be reviewed or examined, as necessary, by MSP medical staff at regular intervals.

- 4-
The facility's failure to timely and appropriately treat inmates was apparent in almost every case reviewed by our consultant. For example, in one case, an inmate who had hypercholesterolemia, a potentially life-threatening condition, and who probably should have been hospitalized, received no treatment for his condition. Another inmate with a painful testicle had to wait five weeks for an examination. In another case, an inmate who had symptoms of stroke was not appropriately examined for seven months. Another inmate had to wait over a year before he was examined for abdominal pain and even then no diagnostic tests were ordered. This inmate was eventually diagnosed with significant liver disease.
MSP's provision of necessary subspecialty medical services is also inadequate due to unnecessary delay and absence of follow-up or monitoring by MSP health care staff. MSP provides limited subspecialty consultation on-site at MSP; inmates are sent off campus for all other consultations. Patients may wait as long as 2-1/2 months for certain subspecialty appointments. More importantly, when patients return from the hospital or their consultation, it appears that MSP health care staff fail to conduct any review of the results of the consultation or of the follow-up requirements. In one case, for example, an inmate's grossly abnormal cardiac stress test results went unrecognized by MSP staff for 6 months. In another case, MSP medical staff repeatedly failed to examine an inmate who, after undergoing bypass surgery, had experienced chest pain. Even after two subsequent admissions to the hospital for the pain, MSP staff failed to conduct appropriate follow-up.
MSP also fails in providing minimally adequate care to patients with special medical needs. With respect to diabetic inmates, for example, MSP has no appropriate diet for these inmates, fails to regulate the time at which diabetics receive their meals, has no policy requiring routine retinal exams, and provides no dietary counseling or other health education to diabetic inmates. These are, however, fundamental and critical issues in the treatment of diabetics. For example, if a diabetic inmate receives his meal long after he has taken his insulin, serious hypoglycemia (i.e.. abnormally low blood sugar) can occur. In the case of one inmate, he had not received a retinal exam for 3 years, until he eventually requested one. By that time, he had already developed retinopathy and cataracts, which might have been prevented had regular retinal examinations been conducted. If this inmate does not receive prompt treatment (i.e.. laser treatment), he will become blind.

- 5-
MSP also fails to provide for inmates requiring skilled nursing, such as inmates who have terminal illnesses. In one case, an inmate with adrenal 1eukodystrophy was simply kept in the prison infirmary awaiting his death. This practice is unacceptable. The state should provide skilled nursing care to these individuals in an appropriate medical setting at MSP or elsewhere.
C. Supervision of inmates and practices in MSP's Infirmary are inadequate.
At MSP, any staff person, including non-medical staff, can admit an inmate to the facility's 14-bed infirmary. Nurses can admit inmates for observation for up to 24 hours. Security officers can admit inmates to the infirmary for protective custody. MSP, however, has no admission criteria for the infirmary. This is unacceptable. Such a practice results in the admission into the infirmary of individuals absent appropriate medical justification and the misuse of the infirmary. Due to the limited number of infirmary beds, such beds should be reserved for use by individuals with serious medical problems.
Our medical consultant also observed that a number of core, fundamental medical procedures and practices are not consistently followed in the infirmary. For example, nurses do not consistently make rounds and take vital signs during each shift; physicians do not conduct daily rounds and make appropriate entries in the medical record; admissions notes are not written in a timely manner; coverage by both physicians and registered nursing is inadequate; and smoking, a commonly recognized health hazard long banned in medical facilities, is permitted. In sum, the MSP infirmary substantially departs from any known medical standard.
D. Psychiatric care is grossly inadequate.
The conditions to which mentally ill inmates at MSP are subjected are contrary to accepted practice. MSP inmates suffering from moderate to severe mental illness are housed in two units (Lower A and C) in the close 1 Building. The environment in these units, however, is overly restrictive, antitherapeutic, and may tend to exacerbate mental illness. Inmates in these units are subjected to frequent lock-downs and are otherwise restricted to their cells except for a one hour period three times per week and a once a week visit to a psychologist and group session.
The situation for MSP inmates who are psychotic is worse. MSP has no unit to house psychotic inmates, who are instead frequently housed in maximum security cells. These inmates are

- 6-
typically not allowed out of their security cells. Acutely psychotic inmates are housed in the infirmary, purportedly on a short-term basis, before being sent to the state hospital. The state hospital, however, recently reduced the number of beds in its psychiatric forensic unit by more than 50%, from 60 to 22 beds, which, in turn, reduced the number of MSP psychiatric inmates the hospital will admit from 12 to 6.
MSP lacks not only appropriate housing for its mentally ill inmates, but psychiatric staff as well. While 10% of MSP's inmates are on some form of psychotropic medication, the prison has only one contract psychiatrist who works 12 hours each month. This psychiatrist sees approximately 35 patients in a 6-hour day, which affords him little time to evaluate each inmate. Indeed, these hours preclude him from regularly evaluating all inmates who are on psychotropic medications. During the week of the tour, 10 inmates had their medication regimens renewed without even being seen by the psychiatrist. This is clearly an unacceptable and dangerous practice. In addition, no mental health services are provided to inmates housed at MSP's "Expansion Unit," located in Warm Springs, where protective custody inmates are housed. During the tour, one of our consultants observed two inmates in this unit obviously in need of mental health services.
Finally, MSP lacks any policies or procedures on the use of restraints or psychotropic medications. This too is unacceptable and inconsistent with generally accepted medical standards.
E. Medication practices are inappropriate and dangerous.
Our physician consultant found that MSP also fails to observe appropriate and safe practices in its administration of medications. This finding was also made by our penology consultant.
Currently, all medications given to inmates outside the infirmary, including psychotropic medications, are administered by corrections officers who lack appropriate training (e.g.. how to administer medications or how to recognize side effects). These officers administer medications simply by handing the medication to the inmate without witnessing ingestion, or in some cases, by providing inmates with several days' doses of medications all at once, again leaving it for the inmate to take the medication on his own. This practice is fundamentally unacceptable, especially with respect to psychotropic medications. Psychotropic medications must be given dose-by-dose under supervision of a licensed nurse or trained personnel. Aside from the obvious health-related consequences of these practices, they also create opportunities for inmates to sell drugs or to be forced into giving them to other inmates.

- 7-
As well, medications are not reviewed in a manner which comports with generally accepted medical standards. Finally, as referenced above, psychotropic medications are prescribed without examination of the patient — an unacceptable medical practice.
F. Infection monitoring or control is absent.
With respect to infection control, our consultant focused primarily on MSP's approach to the detection and treatment of tuberculosis ("TB"), the incidence of which has risen dramatically in institutions throughout the country in recent years. While MSP staff informed our consultant that there had never been an active case of TB at MSP, TB test results compiled by the facility shows that 5% of MSP's current inmate population has tested positively for TB. The magnitude of this number strongly indicates that a current or recent, unrecognized outbreak of tuberculosis has occurred at the facility. Clearly, the prison is either missing cases of active TB or performing the skin test inaccurately. Our consultant believes that the former is more likely.
Related to the control of communicable diseases is the issue of routine health maintenance. MSP fails to provide any such maintenance, which should include yearly examinations, including TB testing, updating immunizations, cholesterol screening for inmates over 35 years of age, and testicular examinations for inmates under 3 0 years of age.
II. Measures recommended to ensure medical care satisfies constitutional standards.
A. Management and staffing.
1. State officials must hire and retain a competent and qualified physician to serve as medical director to organize and direct all medical services in the Department of Corrections and provide such director with appropriate administrative and other support; MSP must hire and retain sufficient numbers of physicians, physicians assistants, dentists, nurses, and other medical professionals to meet the medical needs of inmates, including, by contract or otherwise, medical specialists, e.g.. psychiatrists, a part-time obstetrician/gynecologist for the women's prison.
2. Develop and implement system-wide policies and protocols for the delivery of medical services.

- 8-
B. Basic medical care.
1. Develop and implement a system of rounds by nurses or other qualified medical professionals to identify individuals in need of medical care and to monitor or follow-up inmates with medical problems.
2. Ensure the examination by a physician of all inmates with chronic medical conditions within 24 hours of admission; conduct yearly physicals of all inmates; and schedule and conduct periodic examinations of inmates with chronic medical problems.
3. Mandate and monitor the supervision of physician's assistants by competent and qualified physicians, including review and countersigning of medical charts.
4. Require MSP physicians to follow-up all consultations by non-MSP medical professionals.
5. Develop and implement policies and protocols for the delivery of medical care and medically related services to inmates with special medical needs, e.g.. diabetes.
C. Infirmary.
Take sufficient steps to ensure that the operation of the MSP infirmary complies with generally accepted professional standards or obtain the use of alternate medical services elsewhere; if used, develop and implement policies and procedures for the administration of the infirmary, including requirements for adequate physician and nursing coverage, rounds by medical professionals, admissions based upon medical need, and other essential medical services. Ban use of the infirmary for protective custody purposes.
D. Psychiatric care.
1. Ensure that the delivery of mental health services to inmates fully satisfies generally accepted medical standards; obtain more beds at the state psychiatric hospital or build and operate an acute psychiatric unit at MSP for psychotic inmates or others in need of such services; enhance psychiatric resources, including staffing, to ensure appropriate therapies are available.
2. Evaluate the individual mental health needs of all mentally ill inmates and provide necessary mental health services; require that all lock-downs of mentally ill inmates be medically justifiable; enhance out of cell opportunities, including opportunities for exercise.

- 9 -
E. Medication practices.
1. Medications must be administered on an individualized, dose-by-dose basis; psychotropic medication shall not be renewed without examination or review of the patient.
2. Staff must be appropriately trained to administer medication, including the monitoring of inmates taking medication to determine side effects.
F. infection control.
1. Develop and implement appropriate infection monitoring and control policies, especially relating to tuberculosis and HIV. Such policies should include TB and HIV screening at appropriate times, schedules for routine health maintenance issues, and the provision of health counseling to inmates on issues such as AIDS prevention.
2. Re-screen all inmates and provide chest x-rays where indicated. In addition, because individuals with HIV may have negative TB skin tests despite being infected with TB, MSP should consider screening inmates for HIV at intake.
III. Security remains inadequate.
During the tour, our penology consultant was cognizant of the fact that MSP has recently made numerous, significant changes in response to the riot that occurred at the facility in September 1991 and the resulting assessments conducted by correctional organizations, such as the National Institute of Corrections, and other consultants to the State. Indeed, he noted many of these changes with approval. Our consultant, however, found that serious deficiencies continue to exist regarding MSP's security practices.
A. Security practices threaten the safety and well-being of the inmates.
One of the most glaring problems at MSP is the continued absence of a disturbance control policy, despite the recent riot. The absence of such a policy poses considerable risk of harm.
A second aspect of security that is deficient at MSP is its detection and control of potential weapons and other dangerous items. The absence of checks or monitoring of inmates entering and leaving MSP's industrial, vocational and maintenance shops is a serious lapse in security that creates the opportunity for weapons and other dangerous items to be distributed throughout the prison.

-10-
The failure to conduct routine, large-scale shakedowns is a serious deficiency in security practices. One manifestation of this problem is the excessive number of unused hypodermic needles confiscated by MSP staff. In addition, supervision of the exercise yard on the High Security Side is inadequate.
Finally, MSP fails to provide adequate in-service staff training with regard to security practices, including disturbance control.
IV. Measures recommended to ensure adequate security.
1. Immediately develop an adequate disturbance control policy and ensure that all staff are adequately trained in its implementation.
2. Enhance security policies and procedures regarding the detection and control of potential weapons and other dangerous items from industrial, vocational and maintenance shops at MSP, specifically, fully implement the state's security consultants recommendations; in addition, assign a correctional officer to the industrial area during the weekdays solely for the purpose of monitoring security, expand the "lock-out" system currently being used in the maintenance shops.
3. Conduct routine, large-scale shakedowns.
4. Provide adequate supervision of the exercise yard on the MSP High Security side and during mass movement.
5. Provide all correctional officer staff each year a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training in prison security practices.
V. Environmental conditions present health risks and significant fire hazards.
Our corrections consultant identified a number of hazardous and otherwise unacceptable environmental conditions. In the Rothe Dorm, he found overcrowding, lack of ventilation and significant fire, safety/security and health risks for the inmates housed there.
Numerous obvious fire safety hazards were also noted by our consultant. None of MSP's industrial and maintenance shops, nor the hobby shop in the Low Security side, are sprinklered. MSP does not provide on-going training to MSP staff in the operation of fire safety equipment and implementation of the facility's emergency fire plan, nor conduct regular fire drills. The number of Scott air-paks in the facility is insufficient.

-11-
VI. Measures recommended to ensure a safe environment.
1. Either close the Rothe Dorm or correct and eliminate the overcrowding (lack of space), lack of ventilation and fire safety deficiencies present in the area.
2. Correct and eliminate the fire safety hazards in the industrial, maintenance and hobby shops.
3. Provide staff with on-going training regarding the facility's emergency plan and operation of fire safety equipment and conduct regularly scheduled fire drills. Purchase sufficient numbers of Scott air-paks.
VII. MSP fails to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1201.
Our consultant noted numerous failures to comply with the ADA. For example, in Unit D on the Low Security side, our consultant found that there was an insufficient number of bedrooms fitted for handicap access for the number of disabled inmates. He also observed an absence of handrails in shower areas used by the disabled.
VIZI. Measures recommended to ensure compliance with the ADA.
1. MSP must provide bedrooms sufficient in number and adapted to accommodate disabled inmates.
2. MSP must provide handrails in the shower areas, and any other adaptations necessary to provide adequate access for the handicapped to prison facilities.
Other Areas of Concern
In addition to the inadequate conditions identified above, our corrections consultant observed numerous other problems at MSP. While not of a constitutional dimension, these problems warrant attention and should be corrected or eliminated.
With respect to classification and housing decisions, while noting that, in part due to the assistance of the National Institute of Corrections, a new classification system is in process, our consultant determined that MSP needs to promulgate policies regarding the selection of housing for inmates, especially given the prevalence of double cell assignments. Such policies should set forth guidelines for those making placement decisions and should provide for screening out inmates who would be inappropriate for double celling (e.g.. certain mentally ill inmates, aggressive homosexuals, and inmates likely to be victimized). He also recommends discontinuing the practice of

using inmates in the classification and intake offices where they have access to personal information regarding other inmates.
With respect to food service at MSP, our consultant's single concern is that the facility fails to conduct any quality control regarding food temperatures, an issue that has potentially serious health consequences. Given the distances that some of the food is transported, this issue should be monitored. He recommends that MSP check food temperatures at the time of service in the more remote housing units.
At MSP's Expansion Unit, our consultant found that inmates are not being allowed sufficient access to the telephone. These inmates are only permitted one 15-minute telephone call per week. In addition, our consultant stressed that to the extent that the State is considering closing this unit, the State should find appropriate and safe alternative housing and should, in no event, return these inmates to MSP.
Pursuant to CRIPA, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit to correct deficiencies at an institution 49 days after appropriate local officials are notified of them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). That period expires on January 11, 1994. Therefore, we anticipate hearing from you before that date with any response you may have to our findings and a description of the specific steps you have taken, or intend to take, to implement each of the minimum remedies set forth above. If you do not respond within the stated time period, we will consider initiating an action against your jurisdiction to remedy the unlawful conditions. During this period, you should feel free to contact federal agencies, including the National Institute of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to obtain any technical assistance that may be available to improve institutional conditions at MSP.
We look forward to working with you and other State officials to resolve this matter in a reasonable and expeditious manner. If you or any of your staff have any questions, please

-13-
feel free to call Laurie J. Weinstein, Senior Trial Attorney, Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-6408, or Timothy R. Payne, Senior Trial Attorney, at (202) 514-6441.
Sincere-ly,
James P. Turner Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: The Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek Attorney General State of Montana
Mr. Rick Day, Director Montana Department of Corrections
and Human Services State of Montana
Mr. Mickey Gamble, Warden Montana State Prison
Lorraine I. Gallinger, Esq. United States Attorney District of Montana

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

UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants.

) )
) )
)
) Civil Action
) No. 94-90-H-CCL )
) )

STIPULATED AGREEMENT In negotiating for and entering into the following Stipulated Agreement ("Agreement"), defendants do not admit or concede that Montana inmates' rights under the United States or Montana Constitutions or under any other law or regulation are currently being or have been in the past violated at the Montana state Prison ("MSP"). For the purpose of resolving the issues of inmate protection from harm and risk of harm and fire safety at MSP, raised by this litigation,'the United States, plaintiff, and the State of Montana et al.. defendants, enter this Agreement. The parties agree that this case will be dismissed conditioned on defendants' compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for entry of an Order conditionally dismissing this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), conditional upon defendants' achieving compliance with its terms, and shall attach this Agreement to such motion. The motion shall request that the case be placed on the Court's inactive docket,
U.S. v. Montana

though the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the case until a final dismissal with prejudice.
If defendants fail to comply with the terms of this Agreement within the time frames listed, the United states may file a motion to restore the case tc the Court's active docket for purposes of adjudicating, where necessary, issues relative to inmate protection from harm or fire safety.
I. SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS A. Predatory inmates
1. Isolation. Defendants shall modify their classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to objectively identify and appropriately house predatory inmates. The policy shall include identifying inmates with a history of predatory behavior, including both before and during confinement at MSP, taking into account written criteria such as seriousness of harm and/or frequency and recency of occurrence of predatory behavior. The policy shall require housing in a high or maximum security setting separate from the non-predatory general population for inmates whose histories or profiles meet these criteria, unless other management practices can assure the reasonable safety of other inmates. Defendants will establish nonexclusive criteria for screening inmates for assignment to a single or double cell. The policy shall include procedures to supply all relevant information about predatory behavior and separation needs to any receiving
-2-

institution in the event of an inmate transfer. Further, the classification policy will require automatic reconsideration of an inmate's custody classification for certain types of violent offenses.

2. Security practices in the maximum security unit ("max"). Defendants shall address immediately and modify MSP policy concerning scheduling and inmate use of max dayroom. Defendants

shall continue to conduct shakedowns of inmates before allowing

inmates access to yard.

B. Vulnerable inmates

1.

Identification.

Defendants shall modify their

classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to objectively identify potentially vulnerable inmates, such as, but not limited to, informants, law enforcement personnel, child molesters, very young or small inmates, and inmates whose physical

appearance is effeminate. The policy shall include procedures to supply all relevant information about vulnerability and separation needs to any receiving institution in the event of an inmate transfer.

2. Housing. Defendants shall modify their classification

policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to manage inmates identified as vulnerable or potentially vulnerable, or who prove to be vulnerable to harm or serious threats of harm from others, in order to minimize their risk of harm. Such management

-3-

shall start at reception, and continue until staff deem and document that it is no longer necessary. The following options shall be developed and implemented in MSP policies and procedures:
a. Mainstreaming. If an inmate appears vulnerable, but in the best professional judgment of MSP staff is capable of being safely housed in general population, then the inmate will be so housed, but with the following special protections, which will be standardized: cell compatibility will be considered, and the inmate's adjustment to general population will be regularly monitored and documented by staff, until staff deem and document that monitoring is no longer necessary.
b. General Population Special Management Housing. Defendants shall modify their classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to provide that where a vulnerable inmate is, in the judgment of MSP staff, not suited for general population, the inmate will be classified as "special management," and housed consistent with his special needs for protection. The policy will entail consideration for special management classification inmates who are subjected to either undue risk of harm or actual harm in the general inmate population. Units housing inmates classified as special management inmates will generally separate them from other inmates with respect to placement. Special management inmates' activities such as recreation, dining, programming, and jobs will be scheduled in such a fashion as not to compromise their need for a degree of
-4-

separation from other inmates. Defendants7 policy shall address the need to avoid inclusion of any potentially predatory inmates in any special management setting.
c. Special Management/High Security. Some few vulnerable inmates will not be safe (or will threaten the safety of other vulnerable inmates) even in the General Population Special Management Housing described in paragraph I(B)(2)(b). if necessary, MSP shall house these inmates in a high security setting. In whatever high security setting is chosen, defendants will provide vulnerable inmates who have committed no serious institutional infractions access to the following programs and privileges in a manner comparable to the general population, to the extent such access is feasible according to a feasibility study to be conducted or supervised by the parties' respective expert penologists, in consultation with the Warden:
(1) Canteen privileges; (2) Phone privileges; (3) Personal property; (4) Access to legal materials; (5) Dayroom/out of cell time; (6) Yard privileges and scheduling; (7) Rehabilitative programming; (8) Visitation. The primary objective of this process shall be to house in a nonpunitive environment inmates whose sole need for high security placement is their need for protection, while accommodating MSP's security and safety requirements. The feasibility study will also consider construction of a sight and sound barrier between special management housing and other maximum security housing. d. Alternative placements. Defendants shall modify their
-5-

classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to provide that in the event that MSP staff determine that a vulnerable inmate cannot be safely housed at MSP except in the maximum security unit, defendants will consider other settings not at MSP where he could be safely housed. Specifically, they will consider out-of-state placements (at state expense), placement at a regional prison, or other options.
3. Immediate response to reports of harm. The defendants shall modify their classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to provide inmates — whether or not previously identified as potentially vulnerable — with a method to escape risk of harm in the general population that does not result in disciplinary sanctions. In general, when an inmate expresses serious concerns for his safety, staff will deal immediately with the problem, to ensure that the inmate is protected. If the response chosen is to remove the inmate at risk of harm from his current housing, such movement will be accomplished as a classification decision. The inmate will not be immediately required to provide specific names of other inmates, in order to be moved. No inmate will be disciplined for disobeying a direct order or for self-harm solely out of concern for his own safety, so long as the inmate's behavior was reasonable and clearly related to the objective of ensuring his own safety.
In addition, such policy shall provide for staff responses to
-6-

inmate safety needs that do not exacerbate an inmate's risk. The policy will address when it is appropriate to divulge the name of

an inmate making an accusation relating to harm or threats of harm. As part of defendants' implementation of the policy developed
pursuant to section I(B)(3), defendants shall provide inservice training to all MSP corrections staff regarding the new policy. C. General Practices.

1.

Single Celling.

Defendants shall modify their

classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to establish nonexclusive written criteria for screening inmates for single celling assignment. Such identification may include certain predatory and certain vulnerable inmates. As an example,

inmates who are known or suspected of having engaged in predatory, coercive, or borderline coercive homosexual activity should be considered for single celling, and if not single celled, reasons for this decision should be documented.

2. Cell Compatibility. Defendants shall modify their classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their

classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to assess cell compatibility for housing decisions made at MSP. The criteria will include factors such as history of predatory behavior, vulnerability, and gang affiliation. Defendants will keep records of each cell assignment of each inmate.

3. Separation needs. Defendants will ask inmates on intake

at MSP if they have any need for separation from particular

-7-

prisoners (or potential future prisoners), and will continue to manage separation needs throughout each inmate's incarceration. Reasonable separation needs will be maintained in all affected inmates' files. Defendants will consider centrally recording and reviewing separation needs. Separation needs will not be eliminated from any inmate's classification without documentation of the reason for elimination of the separation need. The policy shall include procedures to supply all relevant information about separation needs- to any receiving institution in the event of an inmate transfer. In addition, defendants will conduct periodic quality checks to ensure that separation needs are being appropriately documented and followed.
4. Programming. Defendants will continue their efforts to reduce the backlog of inmates eligible for programming and to make programming reasonably available for inmates whose participation in programming may be expected to have a positive effect on release consideration. D. Reception/Expansion
1. Defendants shall attempt to limit the length of inmate stays in the Expansion unit (for Reception unit overflow) to 12 0 days, and shall attempt to limit the length of inmate stays in Reception and Expansion combined to 160 days.
2. Defendants shall undertake a feasibility study for provision of visitation at the Expansion unit; when the study is completed, defendants will consider its findings in formulating policy.
-8-

3. Defendants shall modify their classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to provide that, to the extent possible, inmates in the Expansion unit will generally be housed or grouped by their classification. Inmates will not be housed in the Expansion unit in a manner that presents a substantial risk of serious harm. E. Overflow
Defendants shall modify their classification policy or develop a separate policy based upon their classification policy and implement the modification or new policy to address the safety concerns raised when inmates new to MSP and initially classified to the low side are housed instead (e.g.. due to lack of bedspace) on the high side. F. other
1. Privacy. Defendants shall modify existing policy or develop and implement a new policy preventing inmate access to sensitive information maintained by prison officials. The policy will restrict inmate access to information which could reasonably be used for improper purposes, including (but not limited to) financial information, criminal history, evidence of cooperation with law enforcement authorities, and familial information.
2. Defendants shall uniformly address homosexual activity by inmates. The policy adopted will provide standardized criteria for disciplining inmates engaging in homosexual activities.
-9-

G. Fire Safety. 1. Defendants shall develop and implement a fire safety plan
that includes the elements listed in Wayne G. Carson's April 2, 1996 report, paragraph 3, page 3. Defendants will provide fire safety training and routine quarterly fire drills.
2. Defendants will install smoke detectors in the common areas of A, B, and C units. If, by May 1, 1997, MSP fails to receive any funds from the Montana State Legislature as requested in its proposal for its Long Range Building Program in order to institute the fire safety items listed above, and defendants prove unable to institute the fire safety items listed above, this lawsuit shall, upon plaintiff's motion, be restored to the court's active docket with respect to this issue of fire safety.
II. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Defendants' penology expert in this case is Gary DeLand.
Plaintiff's penology expert is Steve Martin. 2. Defendants will request plaintiff's expert to provide
suggested policy language to the defendants during the four weeks following execution of this Agreement.
3. Defendants will revise current policies or create new policies in accordance with Section I of this Agreement. Defendants will complete drafting of these policies within the four months following execution of this Agreement.
4. Defendants will provide plaintiff and its expert with copies of the draft policies as the policies near final form.
-10-

Plaintiff will have three weeks following receipt of a draft policy

to review the policy and provide suggested modifications.

Plaintiff shall forfeit any right to argue that a policy fails to

meet the terms of this Agreement if plaintiff does not notify

defendants of any perceived deficiencies immediately following

plaintiff's three week review period.

5. Defendants will consider plaintiff's comments and finalize

the draft policies. Defendants will provide plaintiff with copies

of each finalized policy. In the. event that plaintiff and

defendants disagree over any proposed policy after it has been

finalized by defendants, the parties and their experts shall meet

to resolve any differences.

6. To meet fully the terms of this Agreement, defendants must

achieve substantial compliance and sustain such substantial

compliance for not less than six months for each provision set

forth in this Agreement.

7. Incidents of noncompliance do not necessarily prevent a

finding of substantial compliance.

The determination of

substantial compliance shall take into account the extent to which

exceptions to substantial compliance are isolated, unintentional,

and addressed by corrective action.

8. Monitoring of compliance for fire safety will be done by

Wayne G. Carson and James Kembel. Mr. Carson and Mr. Kembel, will

visit MSP for compliance assessment only if they consider a site

visit necessary.

9. Monitoring of compliance for protection from harm will be

-11-

done by joint evaluation, including site visit(s) as deemed necessary by Steve Martin and Gary DeLand, the parties' penology experts.
10. Following MSP's adoption of the new (or revised) policies, at a date to be determined by the parties' penology experts, said experts will conduct an audit, which may include a site visit, to determine whether defendants have implemented and reached substantial compliance with this Agreement. If the experts conduct a site visit, no more than one attorney for each party may accompany them, and no attorneys for the parties will be present at tours where the only issue is whether defendants have sustained their substantial compliance with provisions of this Agreement. Whatever documents either expert requests prior to or during a visit will be provided to them, if possible.
11. Within 30 days of completion of an evaluation/tour, the experts shall submit a joint written report regarding the status of defendants' compliance.
12. Where defendants have maintained substantial compliance with any term of this Agreement for six months, the experts' monitoring function is complete as to that term. For those terms of this Agreement where the experts find substantial compliance on their first evaluation/tour, they will monitor whether the defendants remain in substantial compliance by a second evaluation/tour approximately six months after the first evaluation/tour.
13. For areas as to which the experts do not find substantial
-12-

compliance on the first evaluation/tour, their report will include assessments and recommendations, and there will be another evaluation/tour conducted within the next six months. A third evaluation/tour may be conducted six months later, and if necessary, a fourth six months after that.
14. If the experts conclude at the end of their fourth evaluation tour that there remain areas in which defendants have failed to reach substantial compliance, defendants will be in default of this agreement, and the case shall, upon plaintiff's motion, be restored to the Court's active docket as to those issues affected by defendants failure to comply. III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and in subsequent letter agreement between the parties relating to protection of plaintiff's inmate witnesses, plaintiff will not seek relief additional to this Agreement as to any claim for injunctive or declaratory relief on any issue specifically addressed and resolved by1 this Agreement. If defendants fail to substantially comply with the Agreement or any of its provisions, and plaintiff reinstates the litigation, the remedies plaintiff may seek are not limited by this Agreement.
2. This Agreement shall not be admissible in evidence in any proceeding or trial other than for the sole and limited purpose of claim preclusion and enforcement or implementation of the Agreement.
3. Because this agreement is a document which all parties
-13-

have negotiated and drafted, the general rule of construction of interpreting a document against its drafter has no application in future interpretation of the Agreement's terms. Agreed to this 27th day of January, 1997 FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Sherry S^heelJMatteucci United StatedAttorney District of Montana

Isabel!e Kat^ Pinzler Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief, Special Litigation Section
Mellie H. Nelson Deputy Chief, Special Litigation
Section

Timothy R."Payne

/

William G. Maddox

Mark Masiing

Margo Schlanger

Attorneys, Special Litigation Section

P.O. Box 66400

Washington, DC 20035-6400

(202) 514-6441

DANTS, STATE OF MONTANA

tick Day Director, ntana Department of Corrections

Counsel for Defendants:
Department of Corrections P.O. Box 201301 Gillespie, P.C. 1539 Eleventh Avenue Helena, Montana 59620

Keller, Reynolds, Drake & Johnson 38 South Last Chance Gulch Helena, Montana 59601

By"David L. Ohler

By:
Keith K
-14-

 
 U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 1 of 30

Docket as of August 20, 2003 2:44 pm

Web PACER (v2.4)

U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court of Montana (Helena)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 94-CV-90
USA v. MT ST, et al
Filed: 12/01/94 Assigned to: Judge Charles C. Lovell
Jury demand: Plaintiff Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 440 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: US Plaintiff Dkt# in other court: None Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

USA, Attorney General of the United States of America
plaintiff
v. STATE OF MONTANA
defendant

Sherry S. Matteucci [COR LD NTC] OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY PO Box 1478 2929 N Third Avenue Suite 400 Billings, MT 59103-1478 406-657-6101 FTS 657-6058
Timothy R. Payne [COR LD NTC] Laurie J. Weinstein [COR LD NTC] William G. Maddox [COR NTC] Mark S. Masling [COR NTC] Margo J. Schlanger [COR NTC] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035-6400
P. Keith Keller [COR LD NTC]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

MARC RACICOT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Montana
defendant
STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
defendant
RICK DAY, in his official capacity as Director, Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services
defendant

KELLER REYNOLDS DRAKE JOHNSON & GILLESPIE 50 S Last Chance Gulch 3rd Floor Helena, MT 59601 406-442-0230 FTS 449-2256
David L. Ohler [COR LD NTC] MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Box 201301 1539 Eleventh Avenue Helena, MT 59620-1301 406-444-5682
Kimberly A. Kradolfer [COR NTC] MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 201440 Helena, MT 59620-1440 406-444-2026 FTS 444-4303
P. Keith Keller (See above) [COR LD NTC]
David L. Ohler (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Kimberly A. Kradolfer (See above) [COR NTC]
P. Keith Keller (See above) [COR LD NTC]
David L. Ohler (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Kimberly A. Kradolfer (See above) [COR NTC]
P. Keith Keller (See above) [COR LD NTC]
David L. Ohler (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Kimberly A. Kradolfer

Page 2 of 30

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

ADMIN, DEPT, Administrator of the Corrections Division of the MT Dept of Corrections and Human Services, in his official capacity
defendant
MIKE MAHONEY, in his official capacity as Deputy Warden, Montana State Prison, and the Dept of Corrections and Human Services
defendant

(See above) [COR NTC]
P. Keith Keller (See above) [COR LD NTC]
David L. Ohler (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Kimberly A. Kradolfer (See above) [COR NTC]
P. Keith Keller (See above) [COR LD NTC]
David L. Ohler (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Kimberly A. Kradolfer (See above) [COR NTC]

Page 3 of 30

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

DATE #

DOCKET ENTRY

12/1/94 1 12/12/94 2 12/22/94 3 12/29/94 4

COMPLAINT - Original (Summons(es) issued) (dmz) [Entry date 12/06/94]
RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED upon defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept on 12/7/94 (dmz) [Entry date 12/19/94]
ANSWER by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept to [1-1] (dmz) [Entry date 12/30/94]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; PPTC set for 10:00

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 4 of 30

1/6/95 5
1/12/95 -1/25/95 6 1/25/95 7 1/25/95 8 2/2/95 9 2/9/95 10

2/9/95, Hlna - cnsl for parties to file PPT stmt by 1/25/95, to include brief factual outline of case & address issues set forth in Local Rules, cnsl to file prediscovery disclosure stmt by 2/1/95, failure to comply will result in imposition of sanctions (cc: Keller, Matteucci, Ohler, Payne, Weinstein, CCL, TC, Tina, USM, AUSA-Hlna) (dmz) [Entry date 12/30/94]
AMENDED ANSWER [3-1] by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept (dmz) [Entry date 01/13/95]
LODGED, OBJECTIONS TO MAG PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER (in excess of 20 pgs) (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96]
PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL STATEMENT of facts by defendant (dmz) [Entry date 01/26/95]
PREDISCOVERY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT of facts by defendant (dmz) [Entry date 01/26/95]
PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL STATEMENT of facts by plaintiff (dmz) [Entry date 01/26/95]
PREDISCOVERY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT of facts by plaintiff USA (dmz) [Entry date 02/06/95]
MINUTES: for preliminary pretrial conference before Judge Charles C. Lovell; C/R: Tina Brilz. Sherry Matteucci, Timothy R. Payne, Laurie Weinstein & Scott Wurster pr for Plf. Keith Keller, Dave Ohler, Bill Gianoulias pr for Dft. Crt asks re settlmt discussns. Ms. Matteucci says not fruitful and asks for expedited trial. Dft Keller asks for further discov. Plf argues agnst further discov. Much discussion had by both sides re protective custody issue and whether there is need for immediate action on this. Plf feels there may be the need for this and motn for prelim inj may be filed. Discussn had re if protective custody issue is severed, when cnsl could be ready for trial. Plf ready now, dft asks 6 mos. Options for dealing with this and the related case are discussed. Crt suggests a 30-day period for preliminary discovery by dft. on the issues only of jurisdiction and affirmative defenses. This to close on 3/10/95. Motns re dft dfns on 3/11/95. Then govt motn to strike affirm dfns and dft motn for S.J. Dft to have 10 days to respond & 5 days for govt rply brf. All discov to be complete by 7/3/95. Motn ddline 7/17/95; status rpt to crt 5/8/95; atty conf to be held wk of 10/16/95. FPTO to be lodged 10/30/95. Sttlmt date is 10/23/95. Trial could be either 12/4/95 or 1/8/96, depending on length of trial. Cnsl agree 1/8 trial date is better. Since discov closure is 7/3/95 and trial not til 1/8, approx 6 mos goes by and govt asks for supplement discovery on some issues closer to trial date. Dft agrees but wants cutoff date of perhaps October. Crt asks cnsl to file briefs re expert witns and perhaps refining dates if they might agree on dates. Govt asks that general discov not begin til motns are decided on

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 5 of 30

2/9/95 11 2/10/95 12
2/14/95 13

jurisdictional issue - say 30 days. Crt says dates will be adjusted and will issue an order. Adj. (baf)
STENO NOTES of proceedings before Judge Charles C. Lovell ( Court Reporter: Tina Brilz) Hearing date: 2/9/95 status report minutes [10-2] PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONF. (baf)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell, Cnsl shall adhere to following sched: first wave of discovery limited to subjects of crt's jurisdiction and Dfts' affirmative defenses, which shal be concluded by 3/10/95. No other disc in other subject matter areas shall be had without crt's permission until crt rules on mots. Gov't shall file its mot to strike affirmative defenses with brief on or before 3/17/95, dfts shall have 10 days to file ans brf, pltf reply w/in 5 days. Dfts shall file their mot for summary judgment as to crt's jurisdiction with opening brf on or before 3/17/95. Brfg shall follow Rule 220-1. Parties shall comly with requirements for summary judgment brfg imposed by Rule 220-4. After these preliminary mot have been ruled upon, a second wave of unlimited disc may commence unless precluded by crt's order. If prior to opining of unlimited disc, a party has a particular need for disc relating to request for preliminary injunction, that party shall apply to crt for leave to proceed with necessary disc. ; Parties shall jointly submit a proposed order setting ached for disclosure of exparts and exchange rpts on or before 2/24/95 ; All discovery shall be completed by 7/3/95. All mots shall be filed on or before 7/17/95. Brfg shall be accordance with Rule 220.1. All ans to written disc shall be made by 7/3/95. cnsl for each party shall file written status rpt on or before 5/8/95. Cnsl for pltf shall convene atttys' conf during wk of 10/16/95 for purpose of completing final Pretrial Order. Final Pretrial Order shall be lodged on or bef 10/30/95. Settlement Date is 10/23/95. Final Pretrial Conf shall be held on 11/30/95 at 1:30 pm at Helena. Trial brf be submitted by 11/16/95. Non-Jury trial set for 9:30 1/8/96 at Helena as case No. 1. Trial setting is subject to court's criminal calendar, which must be set in accordance with Speedy Trial Act. Cont of any deadline does not automatically extend any unspecified deadlines. cc: CCL, Clk, USM, Crt Rpr, Payne, Keller (gar) [Entry date 02/13/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell - 1st wave of disc limited to subjects of crt's juris & defts' affirmative defenses to be concluded by 3/10/95, no other disc in other subject matter areas w/out crt's permission, until the crt rules on the mtns discussed in next 2 paras: govt to file mtn to strike affirmative defenses, tog w/brief by 3/17/95, defts to file mtn for sj by 3/17/95 - then 2nd wave of disc may commence - cnsl for each party to file status rpt by 6/15/95, all disc completed by 8/15/95, all ans to written disc by 8/15/95, pltf expert witness list by 8/15/95, all mtns except mtns in limine by 9/1/95, deft to disclose expert witness list by 9/15/95, cnsl for pltf to convene atty conf during week of 10/30/95; pretrial order ddl set for 11/10/95, sett date is 11/6/95, parties to complete

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 6 of 30

2/17/95 14 3/2/95 15 3/2/95 -3/2/95 16 3/2/95 17 3/3/95 18
3/7/95 19 3/7/95 20
3/17/95 21 3/17/95 22 3/17/95 --

all suppl expert tours and disc by 11/27/95, FPTC set for 11/30/95, 1:30 pm, each party to submit trial brief by 11/17/95, exhibits no later than 11/17/95, mtns in limine w/opening brief to be filed by 12/8/95, set for trial w/out jury for 1/8/96, 9:30 am (cc: all counsel) (dmz) [Entry date 02/15/95]
PROOF/NOTICE OF SERVICE by defendant of 1st requests for admissions & interrogs (dmz) [Entry date 02/27/95]
MOTION by plaintiff USA for preliminary injunction, and for permanent injunction w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/06/95]
REMARK Bound exhibits to Motion #15 in expand. folder with exhibit "F" sealed purs to to Crt Order also in folder. (gar) [Entry date 03/06/95]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff USA in support of motion for preliminary injunction [15-1], of motion for permanent injunction [15-2] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/06/95]
MOTION by plaintiff USA to Hold Exhibit "F" of Motion for Prel & Perm Inj Under Seal w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/06/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion to Hold Exhibit "F" of Motion for Prel & Perm Inj Under Seal [17-1] Exhibit F accompanying US Mot for Prel and Perm Inj and which indentifies spacific inmates who may be at risk of harm from other inmattes, shall remain under seal. cc: Payne, Keller, Ohler, Matteucci (gar) [Entry date 03/06/95]
PROOF/NOTICE OF SERVICE by defendant of resp to 1st req for admissions (dmz) [Entry date 03/09/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell - Plff's request for lv to conduct lmtd discovery to suppt Plf's motn for prelim inj. is GRANTED. Further Ord such discov to be limited to 1) upon rsnbl notc to dfts, a 2-3 day on-site tour of MT State Prison during the wk of 3/13/95, utilizing an expert in corrections and including access to MSP facilities and grounds, relevant MSP documts including inmate records, and interviews of MSP officials and staff; 2) private inmate interviews of MSP inmates by Plf's attys and/or expert; and 3) submission of interrogatories and requests for admissions to Dfts on matters related to issue of protective custody. cc: called and cpy to Payne, Weinstein, Reynolds, CCL; faxed cpy to Payne (baf) [Entry date 03/09/95]
MOTION by plaintiff USA to strike Affirmative Defenses, and for partial summary judgment w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [21-1], of motion for partial summary judgment [21-2] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
PROPOSED order submitted by plaintiff USA, re Mot to Strike and for Partial Sum Jdgmt (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 7 of 30

3/17/95 24 3/17/95 26 3/17/95 24 3/20/95 23 3/20/95 25 3/22/95 27
3/23/95 -3/27/95 28
3/31/95 29 3/31/95 29 4/7/95 30 4/11/95 31
4/26/95 32
5/1/95 33
5/4/95 34

MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by defendants in support of motion for summary judgment [23-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
MOTION by defendants for leave to file documents w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
RESPONSE by defendants to motion for preliminary injunction [15-1], to motion for permanent injunction [15-2] (kjh) [Entry date 04/10/95]
MOTION by defendant for summary judgment w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
STATEMENT of uncontroverted facts by defendants w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell referring to Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson the motion for preliminary injunction [15-1], and the motion for permanent injunction [15-2] Case referred to Mag Leif B. Erickson for proposed findings and recs for disp of motions. cc: CCL, LBE, Ohler, Keller, Payne (gar) [Entry date 03/23/95]
FILE DELIVERED to Clerk, Missoula for Judge Erickson (gar)
RESPONSE by defendants to motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [21-1], to motion for partial summary judgment [21-2] (kjh) [Entry date 03/31/95]
RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for summary judgment [23-1] (kjh) [Entry date 04/10/95]
REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to motion for preliminary injunction [15-1] file delivered to: LBE (kjh) [Entry date 04/10/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion for leave to file documents [26-1] (cc: all counsel) (kjh) [Entry date 04/13/95]
REPLY by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept to response to motion for summary judgment [23-1] (kjh) [Entry date 04/14/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell referring to Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson the motion for summary judgment [23-1], motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [21-1], motion for partial summary judgment [21-2] for prop F&R (cc: Keller, Ohler, Weinstein, Payne) (dmz) [Entry date 04/27/95]
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson setting hearing on motion for summary judgment [23-1] 9:30 5/23/95 setting hearing on motion response [24-1] 9:30 5/24/95 in Missoula. (cc: all counsel) (baw)
MOTION by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot,

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 8 of 30

5/5/95 -5/5/95 -5/9/95 36 5/10/95 35
5/10/95 -5/10/95 37
5/11/95 38
5/15/95 39 5/15/95 40
5/15/95 41 5/15/95 42
5/15/95 --

defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept to continue portion of hearing set for 5/24/95 (baw) [Entry date 05/05/95]
PROPOSED order modifying hearing sched. submitted by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept (baw)
REMARK-Copy of motion and order delivered to LBE. (baw)
RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to Defendants' Motion to Continue Portion of Hearing (kjh) [Entry date 05/11/95]
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson granting motion to continue portion of hearing set for 5/24/95 [34-1] ; in-court hearing set for 9:30 5/24/95 in Missoula to be continued until 6/8/95 at the conclusion of the proceedings. (cc: all counsel) (baw) [Edit date 05/15/95]
FILE DELIVERED to Law Clerk for LBE for motions (baw)
REPLY by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept to response to motion to continue portion of hearing; file delivered to: LBE/Law Clerk (baw) [Entry date 05/11/95]
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson concerning motion for summary judgment [23-1], motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [21-1], motion for partial summary judgment [21-2] - regarding standing & validity of A.G.'s statutory certification only. Objections to F/R due date: May 26, 1995. (cc: all counsel) (mgs) [Entry date 05/12/95]
MOTION by plaintiff USA to renew March 7, 1995 Discovery Order (mgs)
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson granting motion to renew March 7, 1995 Discovery Order [39-1] until onset of the hrg 5/24/95; that USA permitted to conduct further discovery in prep for 5/24/95 proceedings, consistent w/order of 3/7/95. (cc: all counsel - cpy FAX'd to atty Payne) (mgs)
MOTION/petition by plaintiff USA for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to USM & MSP to produce certain named inmates for hearing 5/24/95. (mgs)
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson granting motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum [41-1], and setting May 24, l995 hearing for 9:00 a.m. @ Powell County Courthouse in Deer Lodge, MT. (cc: all counsel, Clk-Powell Cty, USM, RPR) (mgs)
WRIT of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued to USM & Warden Mike Mahoney to produce inmates William Arnot,

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 9 of 30

5/16/95 43
5/17/95 44
5/19/95 -5/22/95 45
5/22/95 46 5/22/95 47 5/22/95 -5/23/95 -5/23/95 48 5/23/95 49 5/23/95 --
5/23/95 50

William Bigby, Fred Blake, Kelly Davey, Jerry Gillum, Keith Krause, Reno McLaughlin, Glen Nelson, Tim Owens, Vance Pope, James Staedt & Floyd Wing, Jr. at hrg in Deer Lodge May 24, l995 @ 9:00 a.m. Orig w/3 cpys & cert+3 cpys of Order snt to USM, Bllgs w/Form USM-285 for svc. (mgs)
MOTION by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept to change place of hearing, and to deny petition for writ of habeas corpus testificadum (baw) [Entry date 05/19/95]
RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion to change place of hearing [43-1], to motion to deny petition for writ of habeas corpus testificadum [43-2] (baw) [Entry date 05/19/95]
BLUE FILES DELIVERED to LBE for motion for SJ/mo to strike for Tuesday's hearing. (baw)
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson granting motion to change place of hearing [43-1], denying motion to deny petition for writ of habeas corpus testificadum [43-2] (cc: all counsel) (kjh)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ad testificandum (kjh) [Entry date 05/23/95]
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES by plaintiff USA in response to [21-2] (kjh) [Entry date 05/23/95]
SUBPOENA issued at request of plaintiff, as to Kenneth Kirby. Original handed to atty for pltf for svc, by clerk, Butte (kjh) [Entry date 05/23/95]
PROPOSED Order for Writ of HC submitted by plaintiff USA (kjh)
RETURN OF SERVICE (USM 285) of Writs of HC ad testificandum issued 5/15/95 (kjh)
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson granting habeas corpus petition [46-1] (cc: all counsel) (kjh)
Issued WRIT of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum for Joseph Snider, William Henderson, Patrick Gibson and Charles Gravely. Copy handed to pltf cnsl and FAX'd to USMS, Blgs w/USM 285. Original writ w/3 copies, 1 cert & 3 copies of Order and USM 285 mailed to USMS, Blgs. (kjh)
MINUTES before Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson : Attys Timothy Payne and Laurie Weinstein present for plaintiff and David Ohler and P. Keith Keller present for defendants. Atty Payne raises issue re hearing on Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction set for 5/24/95 regarding testimony of protective custody inmates and moves that the hearing be closed to the media, that the transcript be sealed, and that the correctional officers present in court be ordered not to discuss testimiony given by the inmates. Atty Keller

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 10 of 30

5/24/95 51 5/25/95 52

does not oppose closing hearing to media and sealing transcript, but feels that correctional officers should be allowed by relate testimony to prison authorities . Crt considers said motions to be motions in limine and grants same, closing the hearing to the media, sealing the transcript, and prohibiting correctional officers from discussing testimony of inmates. Counsel may relate said testimony to prison authorities if necessary; Argument heard on defendants' motion for summary judgment [23-1] and plaintiff's motion to strike [21-1] and for partial summary judgment [21-2] and the motions were taken under advisement. C/R: Julie Lake (kjh)
MINUTES: Evidentiary hearing on plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction began 5/24/95 at Powell County Courthouse, before Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson, Cnsl Timothy Payne, Christopher Cheng and Laurie Weinstein present for plaintiff and cnsl David Ohler and P. Keith Kelle, and Bureau Warden Michael Mahoney present for defendants. Govt oral motion for admission of atty Cheng PHV, granted. Govt motion to exclude witnesses and public from courtroom granted, and govt motion that transcript of this proceeding be filed under seal and that inmate witnesses be identified in transcript by numbers rathern than by name granted. E. Eugene Miller s/e for govt. Gove exhibit 1 adm w/o objections and exhibits 2 and 3 refused. Dft mtn/strike portion of testimony of Mr. Miller denied. Exhibits 4-6 adm w/o obj. Inmates No.1, 2 and 3 s/e for govt. Exhibits 7 thru 14 adm w/o obj. Govt mtn that court order that inmate No. 3 continue to be held in protective custody pending resolution of this matter and not be transferred to low side denied. Govt mtn that said witness be allowed access to phone contact with US Atty office granted. Further hearing continued to 5/25/95 at 12:00 noon, Powell County Courthouse. C/R: Greg Frank (kjh) [Entry date 06/08/95]
MINUTES: Evidentiary Hearing on plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction continued, before Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson, cnsl Payne, Cheng and Weinstein present for plaintiff and cnsl Ohler and Keller and Bureau Warden Michael Mahoney present for defendant. Prior to continuation of testimony, crt expressed concern regarding possible pattern of conduct by prison officials which may have intimidating affect on inmates, i.e., transportation officer allegedly dropping penknife on floor during preparation for transport to court on 5/24, and inmate witness being informed prior to coming to court of his being reclassified from protective custody to the low side.
Atty Keller advises that he personally investigated these matters and informs the court that the article dropped by the transportation officer was fingernail clippers rather than a penknife and that the inmate reclassification issue was routine 30 day reclassification evaluation. Prison officials agree to leave said inmate in protective custody at least until the next 30 day evaluation. Govt oral motion for time to prepare and file supplemental documents regarding SJ mtns argued on 5/23 opposed. Crt orders

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 11 of 30

5/26/95 53
5/26/95 54
5/26/95 55 6/1/95 56 6/7/95 57 6/7/95 58

written motion and brf be filed and matter will be dealt with when briefing is completed. Proposed Protective Order presented regarding restrictions on use of transcript and dissemination of information about inmate witnesses and content of testimony, etc. discussed. Atty Keller to redraft. Inmate witnesses No. 4 thru 10 s/e for govt. Exhibits 15 & 18 adm over obj and 16 and 17 adm w/o obj. Further Hearing continued to 5/26/95 at 9:30 a.m., Powell County Courthouse. C/R: Greg Frank (kjh) [Entry date 06/08/95]
MINUTES: before Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson. Evidentiary Hearing on plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction continued, cnsl Payne, Cheng, and Weinstein present for plaintiff and cnsl Ohler and Keller and Bureau Warden Mike Mahoney present for defendant. Atty Payne requesta that govt be provided with list of cases in which State's expert has testified in last 4 yrs, list of publications authored by said expert and list of docs reviewed and persons interviewed in preparing his rpt and the dates expert toured the prison. Atty Keller advises state can provide list of cases, publications and dates of tour and will attempt to supply list of documents reviewed and persons interviewed. Govt exhibits 19-1 thru 19-3 adm over obj; 19-4 thru 19-6 and 20 thru 22 and 23-1 thru 23-5 adm w/o obj; exhibit 24 reserved; Govt rests. Michael J. Micu, Kenneth Neubauer, Walter Cuchine, Leslie Lyle Frank, Jr. and Michael Mahoney s/e for dft. Further hearing continued to 6/8/95 @ 9:00 a.m., Missoula. C/R: Tammy Stuckey (kjh) [Entry date 06/13/95]
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson: that court proceedings of 5/24,25 and 26 be closed to public and media; that transcripts of said hearing be sealed and available only to counsel for the parties, the parties, their managers and experts, and that the transcripts not contain the names of inmate witnesses, only a number corresponding to a number assigned to that witness reflecting his order of appearance; and that all MSP officers present at proceedings are enjoined from discussing the appearance of inmate witnesses and the content and nature of their testimony with anyone. (cc: all counsel) (kjh) [Entry date 06/13/95]
OBJECTIONS by defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept to [38-1] (kjh) [Entry date 06/13/95]
RETURN OF SERVICE by plaintiff USA of Writ of Habeas Corpus issued 5/23/95 (kjh) [Entry date 06/13/95]
MOTION by plaintiff USA to limit testimony of dfts' expert (kjh) [Entry date 06/14/95] [Edit date 06/15/95]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff USA in support of motion to limit testimony of dfts' expert [57-1] (kjh) [Entry date 06/14/95]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 12 of 30

6/7/95 -6/8/95 59
6/14/95 -6/15/95 60 6/15/95 61
6/15/95 62 6/15/95 63 6/15/95 -6/15/95 65 6/15/95 66 6/15/95 -6/20/95 64 6/20/95 -6/21/95 67 6/21/95 68

PROPOSED Order granting Motion to Limit Testimony of dfts' expert, submitted by plaintiff USA (kjh) [Entry date 06/14/95]
MINUTES: Hearing on pltf's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction continued, before Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson; cnsl Tim Payne present for pltf and David Ohler and Keith Keller present for dfts. Bureau Warden Mike Mahoney also present. Pltf's motion to limit testimony of dfts' expert argued and denied [57-1]. Gary W. DeLand s/e for dft and dft rests. Cnsl to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by 6/22/95. Matter will then be deemed submitted. C/R: Daina Hodges Hodges (kjh) [Entry date 06/14/95]
FILE DELIVERED to Helena from Missoula at request of MB (kjh)
STATUS REPORT by defendant - no probs in discovery process & no sett negs to date (dmz)
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff - the only disc prob involves defts' potential obj based on privacy rights or other bases to the US access to inmate & personnel records, presently US believes this may be resolved partially w/defts, US will attempt to resolve all disc disputes w/defts as they arise, no sett negs (dmz)
MOTION by plaintiff for order to lift stay on discovery (dmz)
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion for order to lift stay on discovery [62-1] (dmz)
PROPOSED order submitted by plaintiff (dmz)
MOTION by plaintiff for order denying defts' mtn for sj (dmz) [Entry date 06/20/95]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion for order denying defts' mtn for sj [65-1] (dmz) [Entry date 06/20/95]
PROPOSED order submitted by plaintiff (dmz) [Entry date 06/20/95]
TRANSCRIPT filed of Proceedings May 23-26 and June 8, 1994; Court Reporter-Tammy Stuckey. (baw)
REMARK LBE keeping doc 64(trans of May 23-26 and June 8, 1994, hearing held in Msla and Deer Lodge (gar) [Entry date 06/26/95]
MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion to extend time to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [67-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 13 of 30

6/21/95 69
6/21/95 70 6/21/95 71 6/27/95 72
7/5/95 73 7/6/95 -7/6/95 74 7/11/95 -9/5/95 75
9/5/95 -9/21/95 76 9/28/95 77

ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson granting motion to extend time to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [67-1] ; Deadline for submission of proposed findings is 7/5/95 (cc: all counsel) gar for mgs (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]
RESPONSE by defendant to motion for order denying defts' mtn for sj [65-1], to motion for order to lift stay on discovery [62-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]
RESPONSE by defendant to motion for order to lift stay on discovery [62-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell, Subsection of Dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding standing and validity of AG's statutory certification if denied. Subsection of Pltf's Motion to Strike regarding Dfts' Fourth and Affirmative Defense and for Partial Summary Judgment regarding standing and validity of AG's statutory certification is granted. cc: CCL, LBE, Keller, Ohler, Payne (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by defendant w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 07/06/95]
FILE DELIVERED to Clerk, Missoula for Judge Erickson consisting of 3 vols (gar)
PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by plaintiff USA in support of motion for preliminary and permanent injunction. (baw) [Entry date 07/11/95]
FILE DELIVERED to LBE (baw)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion for order to lift stay on discovery [62-1] ; parties shall submit joint proposed amended sched order for crts appvl on or bef 9/22/95 and referring to Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson the motion for order denying defts' mtn for sj [65-1] (cc: CCL, LBE, Payne, Keller, Ohler (gar)
FILE DELIVERED to Clerk, Missoula for Judge Erickson consisting of 3 volumes (gar)
PROPOSED SCHED ORDER submitted by Dfts purs to Court's Order w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 09/29/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell, All disc be completed by 3/31/96; ; all motions except mots in limine be filed on or before 4/15/96 ; all ans to written disc be made by 3/31/96; written status reports be filed on or before 1/15/96; Pltfs shall provide expert witness disclosures on 1/15/96; Dfts shall provide expert witness disclosures on 2/15/96; Pltfs will provide any rebutal expert disclosures by 3/15/96. Notwithstanding the discovery completion deadline, expert tours may be conducted after disc deadline and within a reasonable amt of time before trial so that experts can testify to then current conditions at time of trial. All parties will supplement expert discl following

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 14 of 30

9/29/95 78
10/2/95 79
10/18/95 80 10/18/95 81 10/18/95 82 10/19/95 83 10/20/95 -10/20/95 84 10/24/95 --

any expert tours between time of disclosure and trial. It is anticipated that prties will conduct expert tours in March and supplement tours in May or June and disclosures will be cmpleted by 6/30/96. Parties will exchange exhibits by 6/30/96. Final pretrial conf will be held 7/16/96 and mots in limine filed that date. The trial will be set by Court after 7/22/96. Trial brfs be submitted by 6/30/96; exhibits be submitted no later than 6/30/96. cc: Ohler, Keller, Payne (gar) [Entry date 09/29/95]
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson recommending that the remaining portions of defendants' motion for summary judgment [23-1] be denied, except for that part of said motion which addresses inmates in need of protection (said issue is reserved and will be the subject of separte findings and recommendation); recommending that the remaining portions of plaintiff's motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [21-1] and motion for partial summary judgment [21-2] be granted. Objections to F/R due date: 10/19/95 (cc: all counsel) (kjh) [Entry date 09/30/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell pltf's atty to convene atty conf during week of 7/15/96; FPTO ddl set for 7/30/96, final pretrial conference set for 10:30 8/16/96, Hlna; trial set for 9:30 9/16/96, Hlna; settlement ddl set for 7/22/96 pties to attend status conf set for 1/12/96, 10:30 am, Hlna, 2nd status conf set for 4/12/96, 10:30 am, Hlna, prop voir dire & jury inst due 8/5/96, (cc: Ohler, Payne, Keller, AUSA-Hlna,Blgs, Tina, USM, PRO, CCL) (dmz)
OBJECTIONS by defendant to Findings and Recommendation (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
MOTION by plaintiff for temporary restraining order to restrain defts from transferring MSP inmate Henderson (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion for temporary restraining order to restrain defts from transferring MSP inmate Henderson [81-1] (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
RESPONSE by defendant to motion for temporary restraining order to restrain defts from transferring MSP inmate Henderson [81-1] (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
FILES 1 & 2 DELIVERED to Helena Div. Ofc (mgs) [Entry date 10/24/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell setting hearing on motion for temporary restraining order to restrain defts from transferring MSP inmate Henderson [81-1] 1:30 11/9/95 (cc: Weinstein, Keller, Ohler, Payne, USM, Tina, AUSA, CCL, TC) - note from MKB that she had called both parties' cnsl (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
FILE #3 DELIVERED to Helena Div. Ofc (mgs)

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 15 of 30

11/7/95 85 11/7/95 86 11/7/95 86 11/7/95 87 11/7/95 88 11/7/95 89
11/7/95 90
11/15/95 97 11/27/95 91 11/29/95 92 12/7/95 93 12/7/95 94 12/7/95 95

REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion for temporary restraining order to restrain defts from transferring MSP inmate Henderson [81-1] (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
MOTION by plaintiff to produce various inmate records requiring pltf to maintain confidentiality of inmate records or other docs produced which identify MSP inmates by name (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
MOTION by plaintiff for protective order re: production of documents (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
MOTION by plaintiff to extend 11/9/95 hrg date (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Ken Neubauer, Candace Neubauer, Jerry Isaacson, Mike Mahoney on 11/9/95 at Deer Lodge, MT (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion to extend 11/9/95 hrg date [87-1] crt will shortly issue another order setting this matter for hrg (cc: Keller (called Brenda), Ohler (left message), Payne (left message), USM, AUSA, Tina, CCL, TC) (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion for protective order re: production of documents [86-1], granting motion to produce various inmate records requiring pltf to maintain confidentiality of inmate records or other docs produced which identify MSP inmates by name [86-1] (cc: called & FAXed to Keller, Ohler, Gallinger, copies to all parties including Payne) (dmz) [Entry date 11/14/95]
TRANSCRIPT filed of proceedings taken 5/23/95 at Msla, sealed by order dated 5/24/95, docket item #54 - kept in expando folder (dmz) [Entry date 12/15/95] [Edit date 12/15/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; preliminary injunction hearing set for 11:00 12/15/95, Hlna (cc: Ohler, Keller, Payne, USM, AUSA, CCL, Tina, TC) (dmz) [Entry date 11/28/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; in-court hearing set for 1:30 12/15/95, Hlna, instead of 11:00 am (cc: Payne, Wellenstein, Keller, Ohler, CCL, TC) (dmz)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by William G. Maddox (dmz) [Entry date 12/14/95]
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ad testificandum (dmz) [Entry date 12/14/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting habeas corpus petition [94-1] - to produce William Henderson and Scott Muir on 12/15/95, 1:30 pm, Hlna - writ issued and delivered to USM - see copy attached (cc: AUSA, Maddox, Ohler, Keller) (dmz) [Entry date 12/14/95]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 16 of 30

12/13/95 96 12/14/95 97
12/14/95 98 12/15/95 99
12/18/95 100 12/22/95 101 12/22/95 102 1/9/96 103 1/12/96 104

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson concerning Dft St of MT motion for summary judgment [23-1], and USA's motion for permanent injunction [15-2] (cc: all counsel) (baf) [Entry date 12/14/95] [Edit date 12/15/95]
MINUTES: before Judge Charles C. Lovell C/R: Tina Brilz TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL (Cnsl calling from prison) On line were David Ohler, Timothy Payne, Keith Keller, Bill Maddox. Calling in re the hearing set tomorrow. Cnsl expect the testim to take a full day. Cnsl ask continuance & suggest 1/8/96. Crt can't do this that date. After discussion, crt vacates 12/15/95 hrg and resets same 1/16/95 9:00 a.m. Hlna. Plf has some deposition testimony it could provide to crt in advance. Depos. should be submitted according to the rules.
Keller indicates there are 6 or 7 live witns and think they could get them in in then. Cnsl Payne has 3 witns, but may be able to cut this back to 1 or 2. Both sides to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions based on anticipated testimony. To be filed simultaneously on 1/12/96. Adj. (baf) [Entry date 12/15/95] [Edit date 12/15/95]
STENO NOTES of proceedings before Judge Charles C. Lovell ( Court Reporter: Tina Brilz) Hearing date: 12/14/95 status report minutes [98-1] (baf) [Entry date 12/15/95] [Edit date 12/15/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell Hrg on prelim inj set for 12/15/95 is vacated and is now reset for 9:00 1/16/96 at Helena, Mt,for Admin, Dept, for Mike Mahoney, for Rick Day, for MT ST Dept Corr, for Marc Racicot, for MT ST. Status hearing previously set for 1/12/96 is vacated and reset for 1/16/95 for Admin, Dept, for Mike Mahoney, for Rick Day, MT ST Dept Corr, for Marc Racicot, for MT ST (cc: Keller, Ohler, Weinstein,Payne, CCL,CLK,USM,RPR) (baf) [Edit date 12/15/95]
USM 285 RETURN OF SERVICE of Writ of Habeas Corpus, ad test. EXECUTED on 12/11/95 to William Henderson and Scott Muir (baf) [Entry date 12/20/95]
MOTION by defendants to extend time to object to Findings and Recs of US Mag filed 12/13/95 w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 12/27/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion to extend time to object to Findings and Recs of US Mag filed 12/13/95 [101-1] ; Dfts have to and until 1/12/96 to file objections to findings and recs (cc: Payne, Keller, Ohler) (gar) [Entry date 12/27/95]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; status hearing set for 10:00 1/16/96 changed to telephone conf (cc: all counsel, AUSA, Tina, USM, CCL, TC) (dmz) [Entry date 01/10/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
STATUS REPORT by defendant re discovery, expert witnesses, anticipated problems, etc. w/c/s (baf)

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 17 of 30

1/12/96 105 1/12/96 106 1/12/96 107 1/12/96 108 1/12/96 109 1/16/96 110
1/16/96 111 1/17/96 -1/19/96 114

[Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
AFFIDAVIT of Mike Mahoney (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
AFFIDAVIT of Ted Clack (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
MOTION by defendants for hearing and consideration of add'l evidence. w/c/s (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
AFFIDAVIT of Bill Pohjola (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
MOTION by defendant for leave to file brief in excess of 20 pgs. w/c/s (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
MINUTES: before Judge Charles C. Lovell C/R: Tina Brilz. Conference Call. Tim Payne with Bill Maddox on line for USA. Keith Keller on line for dft. Crt indicates it doesn't have plf's memo required to be filed by 1/15/96. Plfs have been on furlough and is 1st day back - didn't know. Payne says expert tours have been done re discovery in various areas. Wants to submit expert witns disclosures on all areas except medical care. He asks extension for 30 days re medical care disclosure. Dft agrees but wants 30 days to respond. Plf says trial date as is is OK. May need extension for depositions. Crt indicates discov ddline is 3/31/96 and Motns now due 4/15/96. Could be changed if nec. Payne asks 30 days extension on areas outside medical care. Asks 60-90 days extensn on medical care. Dft agrees to this. Dft asks 30 days thereafter and plf agrees. Crt indicates this is rsnble and can be done. Crt asks cnsl to stay with trial date as set. Payne says Jan 27 could bring on another furlough and travel budget problems if no federal budget is approved by then. Payne refers to protective custody findings. The state filed some motions 1/12/96 and USA will file responses. Payne discusses settlmt discussions. USA may have a prospective offer. Payne is hoping pties can meet to narrow the issues or make some agreements for settlmt. Crt could later consider settlmt conf. Written order to follow with dates for extensions. Cnsl to keep crt informed if changes occur. Adj. (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
STENO NOTES of proceedings before Judge Charles C. Lovell ( Court Reporter: Tina Brilz) Hearing date: 1/16/96 minutes of confns call. [109-1] (baf) [Entry date 01/18/96] [Edit date 01/23/96]
REMARK - vol # 4 begins with docket item #112 (dmz) [Entry date 01/24/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell - Purs to rqst plf submitted at 1/16/96 status conf w/o obj frm dfts, ORDERED crt's scheduling order filed 9/28/95 is amended as follows:
Plf to provide non-medical expert witness disclosures by

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 18 of 30

1/23/96 112 1/23/96 113 1/23/96 -1/23/96 116 1/25/96 115 1/31/96 118 2/1/96 120
2/1/96 119
2/2/96 121 2/2/96 122
2/2/96 123 2/8/96 124

2/15/96. Dfts to provide non-medical expert witns disclosures by 3/15/96. Plf to provide rebuttal expert witns disclosures by 4/15/96. All pties to supplement expert disclosures following any expert tours between the time of the disclosure and trial. Plf to provide expert witns disclosures regarding medical care by 3/15/96. Dfts to provide expert witns disclosures re med. care by 4/15/96. Plf to provide rebuttal expt witns disclosures re med. care by 4/29/96. All discovery to be completed by 5/1/96. All motns except motns in limine to be filed by 5/6/96. (cc: Maddox, etc. Keller, Ohler, CCL) (baf) [Entry date 01/26/96]
MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file status report (dmz) [Entry date 01/24/96] [Edit date 01/24/96]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion to extend time to file status report [112-1] (dmz) [Entry date 01/24/96] [Edit date 01/24/96]
PROPOSED order & status rpt submitted by plaintiff (dmz) [Entry date 01/24/96]
AFFIDAVIT of Mike Mahoney (dmz) [Entry date 02/06/96]
AFFIDAVIT of Bill Pohjola (dmz) [Entry date 02/06/96]
RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for hearing [107-1] (dmz) [Entry date 02/06/96]
STATUS REPORT by plaintiff - disc deadlines may have to be extended, pltf intends to submit a proposal to resolve as many issues as possible outside area of protective custody hrg (dmz) [Entry date 02/06/96] [Edit date 02/06/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting pltf's motion to extend time to file status report [112-1] deadline extended to 1/23/96 (cc: Payne, Ohler, Keller) (dmz) [Entry date 02/06/96]
MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time to file rsponse to dfts' obj to findings, and to submit brief in excess of 20 pages w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 02/09/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion to extend time to file rsponse to dfts' obj to findings [121-1], granting motion to submit brief in excess of 20 pages [121-2]. Deadline for filing Response is extended from 1/31/96 to 2/2/96 and US is permitted to file said response in excess of 20 pages. cc: Payne, Keller, Weinstein (gar) [Entry date 02/09/96]
RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to dfts' objections to Findings and Recommendation [96-1] (gar) [Entry date 02/09/96]
NOTICE by plaintiff of withdrawal of document [81-1] (dmz) [Edit date 02/09/96]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 19 of 30

2/12/96 125 3/13/96 126 3/14/96 127
3/14/96 128 3/15/96 129 3/20/96 130
4/15/96 131 4/15/96 132 4/15/96 133 4/24/96 134 4/29/96 135 4/30/96 136 5/2/96 137 5/3/96 138

RESPONSE by defendant to [96-1] (dmz) [Entry date 02/15/96]
THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (MOTION by plaintiff USA to produce) and REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 03/15/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell. Appearing that status conference at this time would be premature in view of pending mots, status conf set for 4/12/96 is vacated. cc: CCL, Clk, USM, Crt Rpr, Ohler, Payne, Keller (gar) [Entry date 03/15/96]
MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file medical care expert reports and conduct general discovery (dmz) [Entry date 03/21/96]
WITNESS list submitted by defendant (dmz) [Entry date 03/21/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting pltf's motion to extend time to file medical care expert reports and conduct general discovery [128-1] - USA to have until 4/22/96, defts to have until 5/22/96, USA has until 7/1/96 to submit discovery (cc: Keller, Ohler, Payne) (dmz) [Entry date 03/21/96]
MOTION by plaintiff for expedited ruling on mtn to compel deft to produce certain documents (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
MOTION by plaintiff to compel deft to produce documents (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion to compel deft to produce documents [132-1] (dmz)
[Entry date 05/07/96]
RESPONSE by defendant to motion to compel deft to produce documents [132-1], to motion for expedited ruling on mtn to compel deft to produce certain documents [131-1] (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant MT ST, defendant Marc Racicot, defendant MT ST Dept Corr, defendant Rick Day, defendant Mike Mahoney, defendant Admin, Dept by Kimberly A. Kradolfer (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to compel deft to produce documents [132-1], motion for expedited ruling on mtn to compel deft to produce certain documents [131-1] (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
AFFIDAVIT of Dan Evans (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting pltf's motion to compel deft to produce documents [132-1], granting motion for expedited ruling on mtn to compel deft to produce certain documents [131-1] (cc: all counsel) (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 20 of 30

5/3/96 139 5/8/96 -6/25/96 140 7/9/96 -7/16/96 141 7/17/96 142 7/19/96 143 7/19/96 144 7/24/96 145
7/24/96 -7/26/96 -8/1/96 -8/5/96 146

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell re: production of documents (see order for particulars) (cc: all counsel) (dmz) [Entry date 05/07/96]
REMARK - Folder containing sealed exhibits of hearing 3/24/95, 3/25/95 and 3/26/95 and Transcript of Proceedings of 3/23/95 thru 3/26/95 and 6/8/95 (also sealed) mailed to Clerk, Helena, Attention: Margaret Bentwood (kjh)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell pptc set for 8/16/96 is reset to ; final pretrial conference set for 11:00 9/5/96 (cc: all counsel, all crt staff) (dmz) [Entry date 06/26/96]
Rec'd stipulation and order re extending discovery ddline (baf) [Entry date 07/24/96]
NOTICE by USA of depositions of Steve Redfern, Rick Basega, Dave Beatty, Dave Lanning, Paul Cherico, Bill Pohjala, Candace Neubauer, Dan Chladek, William Perry, Mike Mahoney, Rick Day (baf) [Entry date 07/24/96]
NOTICE of submission of and certificate of service of expert's report by defendant (baf) [Entry date 07/24/96]
MOTION by USA to compel discovery related to interstate inmate transfers. w/c/s (baf) [Entry date 07/24/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell referring to Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson the motion to compel discovery related to interstate inmate transfers. w/c/s [143-1] (cc: Payne, Keller, Ohler, Kradolfer, CCL) (baf) [Entry date 07/24/96]
MINUTES: regarding [143-1] before Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson; Tim Payne present for plaintiff, Keith Keller and David Ohler present for defendants; argument heard regarding plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery relating to interstate transfer of inmates; crt will reserve ruling pending submission by Mr. Payne of Supplemental Brief in support of Motion, to be submitted as soon as possible; dfts to then respond within 11 days and reply brief to be filed within 5 days thereafter; dfts agree to provide copy of contract entered into with Texas facility; to C/R: Tina Brilz (kjh)
REMARK - file hand carried to Missoula from Helena by Clerk (kjh)
REMARK - file returned to Helena from Missoula by certified mail (kjh) [Entry date 08/09/96]
MINUTES: terminating case referral to Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson - case referral was not terminated when file was returned to Hlna (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell : ; parties shall have to and until 8/16/96 to respond to Dfts' request to identify names of MSP inmate and employee

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 21 of 30

8/8/96 148 8/8/96 149 8/9/96 147 8/13/96 150 8/13/96 151
8/15/96 152
8/20/96 153 8/22/96 154 8/22/96 155 8/22/96 156 8/22/96 157 8/22/96 158 8/22/96 -8/22/96 -8/26/96 159 8/26/96 --

witnesses expected to be called at trialf; and that deadline for settlement of any issues is extended until 8/16/96. (cc: Payne, Kradolfer, Keller, Ohler) (gar) [Entry date 08/06/96]
NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Schaefer, Schoenig, Kembel on 8/14/96 and 8/15/96 at MSP and Hlna (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; pretrial order ddl set for 8/26/96, ddl for filing of pretrial briefs extended to 8/30/96 (cc: all counsel) (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
NOTICE by plaintiff of taking deposition of Gary DeLand on 8/20/96, 10:00 am at SLC, UT (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
MOTION by defendant to quash subpoena issued to Gary DeLand (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by defendant in support of motion to quash subpoena issued to Gary DeLand [150-1] (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell rejecting findings and recomendations motion FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [96-1], denying pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction [15-1], denying defts' motion for summary judgment [23-1], denying as moot defts' motion for hearing [107-1] ; trial set for 9:30 9/16/96 (cc: all counsel) (dmz) [Entry date 08/16/96]
NOTICE by defendants of withdrawal Motion to Quash Subpoena [150-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 08/26/96]
MOTION by defendants to continue trial date and memo in support. w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 08/26/96]
MOTION by defendants for leave to file discovery w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 08/26/96]
MOTION by defendants to compel w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 08/26/96]
BRIEF by defendant in support of motion to compel [156-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 08/26/96]
FIRST MOTION by defendants in limine w/c/s and exh (gar) [Entry date 08/26/96]
LODGED DEFT's THIRD DISCOVERY REQUESTS (baf) [Entry date 08/28/96]
LODGED pLF'S rESPONSE TO dFTS fOURTH dISCOVERY rEQUESTS (baf) [Entry date 08/28/96]
RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion to continue trial date [154-1] w/c/s (gar)
PROPOSED Final Pretrial Order submitted by plaintiff USA (gar) [Entry date 09/09/96]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 22 of 30

8/26/96 166 8/28/96 160 8/28/96 161 8/28/96 162 8/28/96 163
8/28/96 164 8/29/96 167

MINUTES: ; Pretrial order ddl satisfied 8/26/96 (gar) [Entry date 09/09/96]
MOTION by defendant for site visit w/c/s (baf)
MOTION by defendant for hearing at the prison. w/c/s (baf)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; status hearing set for 2:30 8/28/96, at which time crt will hear, consider and ddecide plf's rqst for access to potential witnesses and files, and will further consider Dft's rqst for continuance. (cc: faxed to Maddox, Ohler, Keller, called Kradolfer, CCL) (baf)
MINUTES: before Judge Charles C. Lovell C/R: Tina Brilz. Present in chambers, William G. Maddox, P. Keith Keller, David Ohler. STATUS CONF. RE Plf's claim of being denied access to certan files, witnesses and to the premises for inspection by an expert. Keller hrd stating plf allowed to interview witnesseslisted on final pretrial order. Now want to interview more witnesses, see files and have a new expert. Dfts don't want to reopen discov if trial is to proceed Sept 16. Cnsl both hrd on these issues. Crt indicates both sides should pare witnesses down to the minimum, clearly identify those to the other side and there should be ample opportunity f or discovery re what those witns will testify to before trial. Exhibits also should be identified. While Maddox is here, he will be allowed access to what he needs at prison. This applies to the expert as well. No obj by state. Protective custody issue is discussed. Crt indicates if there is an urgent need regarding this, cnsl to bring to the court's attention. Crt to do scheduling order reopening discovery and resetting trial date. Cnsl Keller has conflict on Oct 15 as a trial date. Court hopes to try this soon, November at the latest. (baf)
STENO NOTES of proceedings before Judge Charles C. Lovell ( Court Reporter: Tina Brilz) Hearing date: 8/28/96 status report minutes [163-1] (baf)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting Pltf's motion to produce [126-1] Pltf's request for access to inmates, inmate files and prison tour by expert dueing wk of Sept 2-6, 1996 is granted. Dfts' motion for continuance of trial is granted, [154-1] ; trial is not set for 9:30 12/2/96 at Helena ; final pretrial conference set for 11:00 11/20/96 at Helena. FURTHER ORDERED, within 15 days the pltf shall determine its final witness list in order to conclude this final phase of discovery now being conducted at the prison, and to determing the minimum number of inmate witnesses needed to fairly present Pltf's case with non-cumulative testimony. At same time Pltf shall also file a proposed supplement to proposed final pretrial order, setting forth identity of proposed witnesses. Dfts shall have 15 days to reqpond with their witness list and proposed supplement to proposed final pretrial order. The discovery deadline is

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 23 of 30

8/30/96 165 9/9/96 168 9/9/96 169 9/10/96 170 9/11/96 171
9/11/96 172 9/11/96 173 9/12/96 174 9/13/96 177 9/17/96 175

10/30/96. Both parties shall file pretrial brfs on or bef 11/15/96. cc: CCL, Clk, USM, Payne, Keller, Kradolfer, Ohler, Crt Rpr. (gar) [Entry date 09/09/96]
ORDER by Mag Judge Leif B. Erickson denying motion to compel discovery related to interstate inmate transfers. w/c/s [143-1]. Case referral terminated (cc: all counsel) (kjh) [Entry date 09/03/96]
RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for site visit [160-1] (dmz) [Entry date 09/11/96]
RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for hearing at the prison. [161-1] (dmz) [Entry date 09/11/96]
OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM by USA to dfts' first motion in limine [158-1] w/c/s (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]
MOTION by USA to 1. extend time for respns to Dft's motn to compel til 9/20/96; 2) to extend time for US to name its witnesses til 10/7/96; and the time for dfts to name their witnesses be correspondingly extended til 10/15/96, 3) Even after discov cutoff, dfts be required to give USA any add'l material placed in the prison file of any inmate the US has included in its witns list, and crt clarify that videotaped examinatns (which are not for purp of discov but for presentatn of evid to crt) are not subj to discov ddline. Govt also states that along w/fire safety, pties have not settled issue of protectn frm harm. (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by USA in support of motion relating to crt's 8/29/96 order, (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]
Certificate of service of Motion and Order #171 & 172 by USA (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]
Defendant's Memorandum opposing U.S's motion for extension of time w/c/s (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]
JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to dismiss issues of medical, dental and mental health care with attached stipulation and order (dmz) [Entry date 10/04/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting Plf's motion relating to the crt's 8/29/96 order in its entirety. Plf to name its witnesses on or before October 7, 1996, and Dfts to name their witnesses on or bef 10/22/96. At same time plf and dfts to also file new amended proposed final pretrial order inter alia setting forth the identity of their proposed witnesses. The discov ddline to be 11/22/96. The trial date of 12/2/96 and final pretr conf on 11/20/96 are both vacated and jury trial is reset for 9:30 1/27/97 ; final pretrial conference is reset for 11:00 12/13/96, both proceedings in Helena, MT crtrm. Both pties to file pretrial brfs by 12/6/96, to include a trial exhibit list, with obj noted thereon and two bound cpies of the trial exhibits. (cc: Payne etc., Keller, Ohler, Kradolfer, CCL) (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 24 of 30

9/18/96 176 9/18/96 178 9/23/96 179 9/23/96 180 9/30/96 181 10/8/96 182 10/11/96 183 10/17/96 184
10/22/96 -10/23/96 185 10/23/96 186 10/24/96 187 10/24/96 188 11/15/96 -11/21/96 189

TRANSCRIPT filed by RPR Tina Brilz of Status Conference Proceedings 8/28/96. (baf) [Entry date 09/19/96]
RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to compel [156-1] (dmz) [Entry date 10/04/96]
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Mark S. Masling, Margo J. Schlanger (dmz) [Entry date 10/04/96]
REPLY by defendant to response to motion in limine [158-1] (dmz) [Entry date 10/04/96]
REPLY by defendant to response to motion to compel [156-1] (dmz) [Entry date 10/04/96]
NOTICE by defendant of taking deposition of William Gray on 10/15/96, 2:30 at Deer Lodge, MT (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
MOTION by defendant for leave to file supplemental brief re mtn to compel (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell ; final pretrial conference set for 12/12/96 is reset to 11:00 1/10/96 (cc: Payne, Keller, Ohler, Tina, USM, Security, CCL, TC, Kradolfer) (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
PROPOSED fpto submitted by plaintiff, defendant (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion for leave to file supplemental brief re mtn to compel [183-1] clerk to file proffered brief (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by defendant re motion reply [181-1] (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file response to suppl brief of deft (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96]
MOTION by plaintiff for protective order covering BOP depositions and memo in support (dmz) [Entry date 10/25/96] [Edit date 11/21/96]
PROPOSED corrections to fpto submitted by plaintiff LODGED 10/22/96 (dmz) [Entry date 11/21/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting motion for protective order covering BOP depositions [188-1]. 1) Dfts to limit their examination of US federal BOP deponents to questions about BOP policies and practices, and will refrain frm asking questns about particular BOP facilities. 2) Dfts will limit their exam of BOP deponents to questns appropriate fror fact witnesses, and will not seek opinions, speculations or judgments about Montana State Prison. (cc: Payne, Weinstein, Maddox; Masling, Schlanger, Keller, Ohler, kradolfer, CCL) (baf) [Entry date 11/22/96]

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 25 of 30

11/25/96 190
11/25/96 191 11/27/96 192 12/2/96 193 12/2/96 194
12/6/96 195 12/6/96 196 12/17/96 197
12/20/96 198 1/8/97 199 1/8/97 200
1/8/97 201 1/8/97 202 1/8/97 203
1/8/97 -1/8/97 204

ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell US' granting motion for leave to file response to suppl brief of deft [187-1]. Clerk shall file "United States, Response to Dft's Supplemental Brief Re: Motion to Compel". cc: CCL, Kradolfer, Ohler, Keller, Masling, Payne (gar)
RESPONSE by plaintiff to Dft's Supplemental Brief Re: motion to compel [156-1] w/c/s and attachments (gar)
JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to amend 9/17/96 order requiring parties to include obj to exhibits in pretrial briefs (dmz) [Entry date 12/02/96]
STIPULATION BY ALL amending fpto re: Section K (dmz)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell granting joint motion to amend 9/17/96 order requiring parties to include obj to exhibits in pretrial briefs [192-1] - parties to file obj to trial exhibits by 1/8/97 (cc: Ohler, Keller, Masling, Payne) (dmz)
TRIAL briefs submitted by plaintiff USA with 8 cartons of exhibits - placed in vault (dmz) [Entry date 12/12/96]
TRIAL brief submitted by defendant MT ST - exhibits in vault (dmz) [Entry date 12/12/96]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell - final pretrial conference scheduled for 11:00 on 1/10/97 is rescheduled for 9:30 on 1/10/97. (cc: Payne & USA cnsl, Keller, Ohler, Kradolfer) (baf) [Entry date 12/18/96]
SUPPLEMENT by defendant to pretrial order and notice of use of discovery materials (dmz) [Entry date 12/30/96]
MOTION by plaintiff USA in limine to exclude particular witnesses and exhibits, and to limit certain testimony and corss-exam at trial (gar)
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff USA in support of motion in limine to exclude particular witnesses and exhibits [199-1], of motion to limit certain testimony and cross-exam at trial [199-2] (gar)
PLTF'S SUPPLEMENT TO PRETRIAL ORDER AND NOTICE OF USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIAL (gar)
PROOF/NOTICE OF SERVICE by plaintiff USA of mots in limine, brief in support, sup to PTO and Notice (gar)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell denying Dfts' motion for hearing at the prison. [161-1] (cc: CCL, Payne, Kradolfer, Ohler, Keller) (gar)
REMARK Rec'd Pltf's Exhibits 152-164, sealed. (gar)
EXHIBIT list by plaintiff USA (per Exhibits submitted

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 26 of 30

1/8/97 205 1/8/97 206
1/10/97 207

under seal) (gar)
OBJECTIONS by defendants to Plaintiff's exhibits w/c/s (baf) [Entry date 01/10/97]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell denying motion to compel discovery [156-1]; and denying motion in limine [158-1] (cc: Ohler, Keller, Payne, Matteucci, AUSA Hlna, CCL) bf for dmz (baf) [Entry date 01/10/97]
MINUTES: for before Judge Charles C. Lovell C/R: Tina Brilz. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Pr for Plf: Sherry Matteucci, Timothy R. Payne, William G. Maddox, Mark S. Masling, Margo Schlanger. Pr for Dft. P. Keith Keller, Joe Seifert, David L. Ohler. Crt asks for rpt on settlmt negotiations. Sherry Matteucci rports for USA. 2 issues left to be resolved. Fire safety and inmate safety. Hope to engage further in settlmt discussions. Discussion had re inmate safety and possibility of add'l facility for vulnerable inmates. Pties willing to discuss solutions to resolve these issues. Crt discusses safety of witnesses and access of public to this trial. Crt feels trial shouls be public, and wants no danger to any witness. Crt asks cnsl how best to accomplish this, asks cnsl to rpt before trial on this. Re motion for site visit. Crt suggests we begin with opening stmts (approx 30 min each side) and then have the site visit at Prison. Dft Keller says may take 5-6 hrs. Plf Tim Payne not sure site visit will be that helpful with the issues at hand and prefers not to interrupt trial. Suggests the site visit the Friday before trial. Crt unable to do visit then, but will do site visit after opening stmts. Crt asks cnsl to try to agree on fire protection issues. This leaves protective custody issue. Crt asks pties if want settlmt judge. Plf Matteucci asks 10 days to try on their own for settlmt; and if unable, then they could ask crt for ptcipatn of settlmt judge. Re the motion in limine re excluding iwtns, wxhibits, excluding evid and cross-exam - discussion had re testim of Mssrs Bud, Mihelish, Redfern and Geech. Keller states any one of these could be called as rebuttal witns on some issue coming up at trial. If certain items don't become issues at trial, they wouldn't be called at trial. In regard to testifmony of Ferris, Beasom, Neubauer, discussion had by cnsl and crt; crt will best deal with these issues at time of trial. Regarding cross-exam. Ms. Schlanger hrd. Crt spks to prior inconsistent stmts of witnesses and witns credibility. Crt indicates shouldn't have unusual restrictions on testimony. USA wants transcription of certain tape recordings earlier than just before testim of witns. State objects. Crt would likely give an opportunity to examine transcript before examining witns. Masling asks time to brief on this. Crt could also examine these in camera and make ruling on work product privilege. Crt gives 5 days for simultaneous briefs. Crt brings up what can be done to protect identity and content of witns testim and still have public trial. Tim Payne says they plan to file protective order before trial asking that inmates be identified by number and that they refer to other inmates by number during testimony, asking that no

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 27 of 30

1/10/97 208 1/13/97 209

drawn charicatures be allowed in crtrm and that the transcript be sealed. Crt indicates that public's right to know is involved and we'll follow where inmates are identified by number and refer to other inmates by number during testimony. In regard to agreement relating to other
issues and asking crt to approve those determinations, does crt need to make findings. Both cnsl argue against crt needing to make findings. Tim Payne (USA) brings up deft's motn regarding place of trial. Is told there was a ruling and trial will take place here in Helena. Tim Payne brings prisoner concerns regarding losing their housing assignment because of coming to testify. Ohler reports he understands this won't happen. Crt says there should be no prejudice to them becuase of their testimony here. Crt brings up plf's burden on aggregious and flagrant violation to constitutional rts. Crt indicates perhaps there sould be further briefing on this. Cnsl have no quarrel with crt's interpretation of the statute as stated. Regarding exhibits, crt will rule on all exhibits by written order prior to trial. Crt asks when to expect summaries. USA (Masling) says 1 wk frm today. After rcpt of summaries, crt will resolve exhibit issue. Govt asks dft basis for their objectns. Keller (dft) says Friday can provide basis for their objectns. Crt takes exhibits under adv and will rule on all exh at one time. On aggregious and glagrant issue dfts ask til Friday fro add'l briefing. USA obj. Crt says brief may be filed. Keller says need advance notc to move inmates. Crt understands State transports inmates and is working with U.S. Marshals on this. Crt suggests pties try to agree on schedule of when an inmate might testify. USA will try to schedule this and pties to try to agree. Nothing more from either side. (baf)
STENO NOTES of proceedings before Judge Charles C. Lovell ( Court Reporter: Tina Brilz) Hearing date: 1/10/97 status report minutes [207-2] (baf)
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell - order governs disclosure and use by the defts and defts' cnsl & retained expert of the notes of pltf's expert, Steve Martin, portions of which are being produced to defts as part of disc in this litigation, US agrees to disclose notes taken by Martin during his most recent tour of the MT ST Prison re interviews or file reviews that may be the subj of Martin's expert testimony, other notes are being disclosed, defts' cnsl will not give the notes to any of the defts or defts' employees and the notes will not be brought onto the grounds of MSP except personally by defts' cnsl who will keep them in his possession at all times, cnsl may, however, show the notes & discuss the notes and the info in them w/defts or defts' employees for the limited purpose of preparing for this litigation, cnsl may provide a copy of the notes to defts' expert, Gary DeLand, who likewise shall not provide the notes to defts or defts' employees, but who may show the notes & discuss the notes & info in them w/defts and defts' employees for the purpose of preparing for litigation, neither the notes, or info in them will be disclosed to any inmate, either by defts' cnsl or any other

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 28 of 30

1/16/97 210 1/16/97 211 1/16/97 212 1/17/97 213 1/17/97 214 1/21/97 215 1/21/97 216
1/21/97 217 1/21/97 -1/22/97 218
1/23/97 219
1/24/97 220 1/27/97 221

person, parties agree to the above provisions and will jointly submit this stip order to the crt seeking that it be made a crt order, enforceable by litigation and contempt sanctions, whether or not this agmt is accepted by the crt and made a crt order, it shall be binding upon the parties, their employees, their experts, and their cnsl, this order does not constitute a concession by the US that the protected material is discoverable or admissible (cc: Keller, Payne, Matteucci, Ohler, Kradolfer, CCL, TC) (dmz) [Entry date 01/15/97]
OBJECTIONS by defendant to pltfs' supplemental exhibits [204-1] (dmz)
PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS (dmz)
MEMO by plaintiff relating to production of taped or transcribed stmts of its inmate witnesses (dmz)
OBJECTIONS by defendant to pltf's exhibits (dmz) [Entry date 01/21/97]
SUMMARIES OF SELECTED EXHIBITS by plaintiff (filed under seal) in expando (dmz) [Entry date 01/21/97] [Edit date 01/21/97]
MOTION by defendant to extend time to address issues re Mark Phares testimony (dmz)
MOTION by plaintiff for protective order re confidentiality of MSP inmate witnesses (dmz) [Entry date 01/22/97]
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF by plaintiff in support of motion for protective order re confidentiality of MSP inmate witnesses [216-1] (dmz) [Entry date 01/22/97]
PROPOSED protective order submitted by plaintiff (dmz) [Entry date 01/22/97]
MOTION by plaintiff, defendant for order adopting confidentiality agreement to govern disclosure and use by the defts of information contained in the federal bureau of prisons SIS manual, Chapters 10 and 11 (dmz)
RESPONSE by defendant to motion in limine to exclude particular witnesses and exhibits [199-1], to motion to limit certain testimony and corss-exam at trial [199-2] w/c/s (baf)
MEMORANDUM by defendant opposing protective order w/c/s (baf)
MINUTES: before Judge Charles C. Lovell C/R: Tina Brilz. HEARING. Pties Timothy R. Payne, William Maddox, Mark Masling & Margo Schlanger pr for plf. Keith Keller and David Ohler pr for dfts. Tim Payne informs crt negotiations have been ongoing, & Friday a tentative agmt was reached. The Dept of Justice approved it, but dfts

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 29 of 30

1/27/97 222 1/29/97 223 1/29/97 224 1/31/97 225
1/31/97 226 1/31/97 -2/5/97 227

made some changes. There are 1 or 2 issues to work out. Cnsl asks crt for time to perfect the agrmt. Crt asks about the agmt and asks if plf is prepared to dismiss case if agmt is reached. Tim Payne says once the agmt terms are met, case would be dismissed w/prej. K. Keller reports crt need not monitor if state is in compliance. If not, plf could reopen case. Crt informs cncl if case can't go to trial today, crt schedule wouldn't allow another trial date til probably 1998. At 9:42 crt adj to give cnsl time to meet and they are to report back to crt at 10:00. 10:02 Reconvene w/all present as before. T. Payne reports there is a finalized agmt which would be filed in a few days once signatures are obtained. Payne and Keller both hrd re substance of the agmt. They speak of special management inmates and their security and services needed. Crt allows til Wednesday to file the agmt w/crt. Pties jointly move for no trial at this time, with the knowledge that if the agmt fails, there'll be no new trial til 1998. Crt vacates trial. The prison visit scheduled for today is also cancelled. Crt thanks cnsl for settlemt efforts. (baf)
STENO NOTES of proceedings before Judge Charles C. Lovell ( Court Reporter: Tina BArilz) Hearing date: 1/27/97 status report minutes [221-1] (baf)
RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to Dfts' summary of objections to Pltf's Exhibits [213-1] w/c/s (gar) [Entry date 01/30/97]
JOINT MOTION with Stipulated Agreement attched for order conditionally dismissing action conditional upon Dfts' achieving compliance with terms of Stip Agreement. (gar) [Entry date 01/30/97]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell - having read and considered the Joint Mtn of the parties and the stipulated agreement entered by them, the crt hereby conditionally dismisses this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), conditional upon defts' achieving compliance with the terms of the stipulated agreement, this case is placed on the crt's inactive docket, but the crt retains jurisdiction over the case until a final dismissal with prejudice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of crt shall place this case on inactive status for a period of one year, after which the Clerk shall close the case administratively, clerk directed to notify parties of entry of this order (cc: Payne, Weinstein, Maddox, Masling, Schlanger, Matteucci, Kradolfer, Keller, Ohler, CCL, TC) (dmz)
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell denying as moot all mtns currently pending (cc: all govt cnsl, Keller, Payne, Ohler, Kradolfer, AUSA) (dmz) [Entry date 02/03/97]
REMARK Rec'd from Robert H. Powell AO #20484 of MSP, Mot for Emergency Injunction and Motion for Hearing (gar) [Entry date 02/05/97]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell, Powell's motion for emergency injunction and motion for hearing (lodged

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.4) Docket Report

Page 30 of 30

3/14/97 228 7/30/98 229 7/30/98 230 8/11/98 231 5/20/02 -5/20/02 232 6/6/02 233
6/18/02 --

1/31/97) are denied as moot. cc: CCL, Powell-cert mail, Payne, Keller, Kradolfer, Ohler, Matteucci (gar)
TRANSCRIPT filed of pretrial conf proceedings taken on 1/10/97, Hlna (dmz) [Entry date 03/19/97]
MINUTES: administratively closed pursuant to order of Judge Charles C. Lovell of Jan 31, 1997 (seal)
NOTICE by defendants of receipt of Vols 1 and 2, original and copy, picked up by Keller Law Firm (dmz) [Entry date 12/22/98]
NOTICE by plaintiff relating to exhibits in this case signed by Timothy Payne - stating to destroy the exhibits exhibits were destroyed by dmz (dmz) [Entry date 12/22/98]
RECEIVED untitled motion Robert G. Hornback requesting removal frm Kansas facility. (baf) [Entry date 06/06/02] [Edit date 06/07/02]
MOTION from pro se deft Hornbackto intervene (baf) [Entry date 06/07/02]
ORDER by Judge Charles C. Lovell denying motion to intervene [232-1] (cc: Kradolfer, Ohler, Keller, Schlanger/Masling, Maddox, Weinstein/Payne;; Matteucci, CCL,PED,Hornby ) (baf) [Entry date 06/07/02]
RECEIVED - letter from Sabastian Canon regarding prison conditions (copy given to law clk) (baf)

Case Flags: TERMED

END OF DOCKET: 6:94cv90

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

10/11/2005 15:59:12

hs0328

Client Code:

docket report Search Criteria:

36

Cost:

6:94cv00090 2.88

http://pacer.mtd.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/11/2005