UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X
ADAM INGLES et al.,
Plaintiffs,
- against ELMER TOR0 et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION 01 Civ. 8279 (DC)

APPEARANCES: (see last page)
CHIN, D.J
In this prisoners' civil rights caje, twenty-two present and former inmates in the New York City correctional system allege that they were subjected to a :,attern and practice of excessive force by uniformed employees of the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC")in viola tic^:^ of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States C8,nstitution and the laws and Constitution of the State of New Ycsrk. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief on I class basis as well as damages for their individual injuries. F'.>llowinfgour years of hard-fought litigation, including extenslve discovery, motion practice, and settlement negotiations, the ~1.3rtieesntered into a settlement agreement (the "Agreement"),subj:zct to approval by the Court, resolving the class claims for equitable relief. The parties now seek approval of the Agreement, ss required by Rule 23 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civll Procedur:3.
The Court flnds that the proposed settlement is fair reasonable, and adequate. Indeed, much gooc will be

accomplished. The Agreement will result in 'far-reaching and extensive remedies and initiatives that will address, in a concrete and effective way, the very difficc..!t issue of the use of force in our prisons. To its credlt, altlough i t has steadfastly denied any liability or wrongdoing, the C ~ t yof New York has agreed to these measures, recognizing the importance of continuing its on-going efforts to manage an:jreduce the use of force by corrections officers. The Agreement is approved.
BACKGROUND

A. Summary of Facts

This is the fifth in a series of fiederal class actions

against the City alleging the use of excessive force in its

prisons and detention facilities. The City :has been litigating

m. these cases for a quarter of a century.

Sheppard v. Phoenix,

210 F. Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (Central Punitive Segregation

Unit); Jackson v. Montemaqno, No. 85 Civ. 21184 (AS) (E.D.N.Y.

Nov. 26, 1991) (order approving stipulation for entry of judgment

covering Brooklyn House of ~etention); Reync;lds v. Ward, No. 81

Civ. 101 (PNL) (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 1, 1990) (order and consent

judgment covering hospital prison wards); E,.sherv. Koehler, 718

F . Supp. 1111 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (Correctional Institute for Men).

The present case involves institutions operated by DOC

on Rikers Island and in Manhattan, Queens, iind the Bronx that

were not already subject to court orders or consent. decrees

obtained in the prior lawsuits. (Compl. I . The individual

defendants include the uniformed staff, supervisory staff,

wardens of the several DOC institutions, and other DOC officials

alleged to have been engaged in, or to have acquiesced to, a

pattern and practice of excessive force against plaintiffs and
other inmates. (Id.7 7 6-18).

Plaintiffs are present and former 130C inmates who

allege that they have suffered physical injwry while in DOC custody as a result of defendants' use of excessive force.2

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that they have suffered

unjustified beatings at the hands of DOC pe~:,sonnel,as punishment

for minor misconduct, verbal complaints, protests, or perceived

disrespect. (

1 2, 20). They allege ttmt DOC personnel

routinely falsified documents and fabricated claims of
provocation to cover up the assaults. (Id.7 24). Plaintiffs

contend that defendants have either ordered, participated in, or

acted in complicity with or acquiescence tov1.3rdsthis pattern of
excessive force. (See, e.q., id. l q 20-49).

References to "Compl." are to the Fourth Amended Complaint. The twelve facilities at issue 1.n this case are: the Adolescent Reception and Detention Center, Anna M. Kross Center, George Motchan Detention Center, George R. Vierno Center, Manhattan Detention Complex, North Infirmary Command, Otis Bantum Correctional Center, Rose M. Singer Center, 'Nest Facility, Bronx House of Detention, Queens House of Detention, Transportation Division, Emergency Services Unit, and Vernon C. Bain
Correctional Facility. (Compl. 1 19) .
For a more detailed discussion of the alleaed lncldents of excessive force against the class representatives, see Inqles v. City of New York, No. 01 Civ. 8279 (DC), 2003 WL 402565 (S.D.N.Y.Feb. 20, 2003).

Defendants have denied the allegat.i.onsof wrongdoing. in particular, the City has argued, and provlded statistical evidence to show, that the number of reportecl use of force incidents declined substantially prior to a r ' i during the pendency
of this lawsuit. (See, e.q., Larkin Decl. 7 6 (decline of 33%
from 1,463 incidents in 2000 to 974 incident; in 2004). The City maintained throughout the lawsuit that DOC'S systems for reporting, investigating, and monitoring the use of force met
constitutional and other applicable standarci:;. (Id.7 18).
B. Prior Proceedinqs
This case was fiied on September 5 , 2001, by Adam Ingles pro se. Ingles thereafter obtained c:ounsel. On September 6 , 2002, Ingles fiied an amended complaint 21dding twenty-one additional plaintiffs and asserting class allegations. By memorandum decision filed February 20, 2003, I certified the class. Inqles, 2003 WL 402565, at * ? . Eventually, plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended Complaint.
The parties engaged in massive discovery, during which some 400,000 pages of documents were exchanged, numerous expert reports were produced, six site inspections of detention facilities were conducted, and some 140 fact and expert witnesses
were deposed. (Larkin Decl. % n 19-29; see jibady Decl. 1 9).
Several high-level DOC officials, including the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner for Investigations and ?'rials,the Inspector
General, and a former Commissioner were depcsed. (Larkin Decl. 7
23). There were numerous discovery disputes and the parties

engaged in extensive motion practice, including a bifurcation motion, Daubert motions, limine mot.ions, ,and defendants' summary judgment motion. A trial date was ::et and then adjourned several times as the parties engaged in sett:lement discussions. C. The Settlement Neqotiations
Settlement negotiations began in October 2002, but
little progress was made at first. (Abady 1)ecl. 7 13). In
November 2003, I referred the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman to supervise settlement negotiations, and she was enormously helpful as she held several full-day settlement
sessions with the parties. (Id.;Larkin Dec:l. 7 36). The
parties were unable to agree on many signif'zant issues, however, including, as discussed more fully below, whether any settlement would take the form of a consent decree or a private settlement agreement.
In mid-2005, I offered to participate in the settlement discussions in an effort to help the parties resolve their disagreements. Both sides welcomed my invo:.vement. The parties executed a stipulation agreeing that my participation in settlement discussions would not be a basis for any objection to my presiding over the rest of the case, inc:.uding the trial, and agreeing further that no party would seek my recusal based on my
involvement in the settlement process. (Abady Decl. 7 14; Larkin Decl. 7 7 40-41 & Ex. 7 ) .
Beginning in June 2005 and continuing through February 2006, the parties engaged in extensive discussions, as they
-5-

continued to litigate the case and prepare f:~r trial. I conducted no less than eighteen settlement conferences, meeting with the two sides both together and separatc,ly,sometimes for several hours at a time. Of course, the parlies met many move times on their own, for a while on a weekly basis and in the end
almost on a daily basis. (Abady Decl. q 14; Larkin Decl. 7 7 41-
43). DOC's General Counsel, Florence Hutner, attended many of the settlement conferences and played an ins.:rumental role. The Commissioner, Martin F . Horn, personally att':?ndedone of the settlement conferences with the Court. D. The Settlement
In mid-February 2006, with trial s!::heduled to start in just a few weeks, the parties finally reach~!:aigreement on all terms and language. The Agreement was signe:jon February 17,
2006. (Larkin Decl. q 44 & Ex. 1; Abady Dec:.l.71 10) .
The Agreement calls for a number c)f important measures covering DOC's use of force policy, investigations, training, and monitoring and tracking, including the following:
The City will install wall-mounted recording
cameras in numerous agreed-upon locations. (Agreement q q 14-16).
The cameras will employ a recording capability sufficient to produce smooth action footage with an image quality sufficient to permit the identification of persons capturtid in the recordings.
(Id. 10). The locations were selected with the consent of
plaintiffs' counsel, who sought the placeme:-~tof cameras in areas where they contend there have been higher n-.~.mberosf use of force
-6-

incidents. The locations are set forth in a sealed exhibit to

the Agreement, and the precise locations are being kept

confidential. DOC'S agreement to install tk.'i?secameras is

significant, as the City will be expending wlat undoubtedly will

be millions of dollars to purchase and install new cameras and

upgrade or replace existing ones. Plaintiff:;' attorneys believe,

based on the results in other facilities that were the subject of

prior litigation, that "these cameras will b s effective in
deterring staff misconduct in these locations." (Abady Decl. 7

18).

a DOC will continue to require its Emergency

Services Unit (the "ESU") to carry hand-held cameras when conducting searches and to record searches and any related uses
of force. (Agreement 7 18). This was a practice that began as a

result of a command-level order during the ~)endencyof this

lawsuit. (Abady Decl. 20). It was plaintiffs1 contention that

ESU searches often resulted in the use of force, and this

requirement will ensure that a hand-held cariera will be available

to capture incidents when the ESU is called into action. a DOC will issue a revised use of force directive.

The revised directive will more clearly stat:e that corrections

officers may not "use more force than is necessary" and that
" [ f l orce may not be used to punish an inmate:. " (Agreement 7
19(b)). The revlsed directive will more cleiarly instruct staff

to "start with the minimum amount of force reeded," advising that

staff may "escalate the amount of force use[:.only if the

situation requires escalation." (Id.1 9 ( I) . The revised
directive strives to maintain operational flexibility and explicitly recognizes that "there are occasi.:>nswhen the use of force is necessary," but it will help provide important
clarification. (Id.1 19(b)). The use of force directive must
be followed by DOC personnel and will be enforced, like all DOC
directives, through the DOC disciplinary pro'zess. (Id. 1~9;see Abady Decl. 1 24).
The City will make certain c h m g e s to its training of corrections officers in the use of force, at the initial recruit stage and during in-service training. Attendees will be required to demonstrate that they can perf0r.m proper defensive techniques. In addition, at least once a month, roll-call training will include review and reinforcement of the use of
force policy. (Agreement In 38-40).
In the area of investigations, DOC will create a new Investigation Division Manual, with the assistance of an outside consultant, that will address use of force investigations; DOC will adopt a forty-hour training program for new investigators as well as an annual fourteen-hour program; new criteria have been set for the opening of investigations of use of force incidents; and DOC has agreed to mi3intain no more than an eight-month average for the completion 0.:investigations, to reduce the delays that plaintiffs' counsel rr:aintains have marked
these investigations in the past. (Id.7 7 22-32).

Unless circumstances do not pr:rmit, DOC staff will take, from no more than four feet away, "clei~r"photographs of
inmates immediately following use of force incidents. (Id.1
35). DOC staff will also use a form that includes a diagram of the human body so that the locations of all 'njuries can be noted
and the injuries described. (Id.11 33).
DOC will create a system for tracking officer use of force. The system will track, among othe- things, the injuries sustained (by inmates and officers): the location of the incident; whether a video recording was made; and whether disciplinary charges were recommended and f i , e d and, if so, the
outcome thereof. (L41) .
DOC will provide plaintiffs' .:ounsel with certain additional documents, for the term of the Agreement, and will permit plaintiffs' counsel to tour facilities to ohserve the placement and operation of cameras until all cameras required by
the Agreement are installed. (Id.11 16, 45-46).
The Agreement will remain in effec:: until November 1 ,
2009 (id.11 52), just before the end of Maycl: Bloomberg's second
term. (Def. Mem. at 2). The Agreement p r o v ~ d e sfor a release of the City and other defendants by the class from any claims for class-wide declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief from the signing of the Agreement through it; expiration.
(Agreement (1 59-60).
The Agreement is a private settlem:?ntagreement and, under the terms of the Prison Litigation Refsrm Act of 1995 (the

" P L R A " ) , 18 U.S .C. § 3626 (c)( 2 ) , it is not a I enforceable court order or consent decree. (SeeAbady Decl. 11 42). This was an
important issue for the City, as it lists it first among the
benefits of the Agreement to the City:
The terms of the Agreement are ber'.?ficialto the City for a number of reasons. First, i t takes the form of a private settltnent agreement, not a consent decree, and for this reason the Court will not retain j.~risdiction in order to oversee compliance with its terms. Rather, the Commissioner rztains full authority and discretion to manage the agency in accordance with the City Charter.
(Larkin Decl. 7 5).
If plaintiffs believe the City has breached the
Agreement, after exhausting a dispute reso1u;ion mechanism, they
may seek judicial relief only by (1) commenc!ing an actlon for
breach of contract in state court or (2) moving to reinstate thls
action in this Court. (Agreement 7 48). I r i other words,
plaintiffs cannot return to this Court to se,skan order
compelling compliance if they belleve there is a breach; they may
return to this Court only to reinstate the action to proceed to
trial. (jeeAbady Decl. (1 42) . In fact, the Agreement
specifically provides that upon dismissal of the case, "this
Court shall not retain jurisdiction except in the event that
Class Counsel seeks and the Court grants reinstatement of the
Action. (Agreement 7 5 ) .
The Agreement provides for the City to pay to Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP ( "Sullivan & Cromwell") $700,000 as reimbursemer~t
for its costs and disbursements, and $750,08:0 to Emery Celli

Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP ("Emery Cellin) for a portion of its
fees, costs, and disbursements. (Agreement '1 51) . All other
fees and costs are waived, as the Legal Aid Society waived all of
its fees and costs and Sullivan & Cromwell ~ 3 i v e dall of its
fees. For both, the amounts were in the millions of dollars.
Emery Celli waived a substantial part of its fees and costs as
well. (Abady Decl. 11 761 . '
E. E o t i c e t o t h e Class and t h e F a i r n e s s HE:!-
A fairness hearing was set for Maruh 3 1 , 2006, and the
Court signed an order requiring the City to give notice to the
class by posting notice of (1) the terms of the proposed
settlement, (2) the procedures for commentir~gand objecting, and
(3) the date and time of the fairness heariri~g. (Larkin Decl. 7 58 & Ex. 8 ; Abady Decl. 7 51). The City conplied with the
Court's order by posting notices, in English and Spanish, in all
housing areas affected by the Agreement and :by distributing the
notice on consecutive Sundays in areas where inmates were in
segregation. (Conry Decl. 1111 3-5 & Exs. 1-41 .
These fees and costs do not include fees and costs incurred with respect to the individual damages claims, which were governed by individual retainer agreements. By a separate stipulation also signed on February 17, 2006, the parties settled the named plaintiffs' individual claims for damages. (Larkin
Decl. 7 60). The negotiations as to these claims were also
difficult and extended, and the City took t1:e position that it would not settle the class claims unless all the individual claims were settled as well. The individual settlements ranged from $15,000 to $575,000 and totaled $2,213.000,inclusive of fees and costs (which were waived for some cf the named plaintiffs). Significantly, certain corrections officer defendants agreed to pay certain sums to the? City as contribution.

The fairness hearing was held on Mti~rch 31, 2006, as scheduled. No objections were received beto]-e the hearing, and no objections were submitted or made at the Ilearing. A population of approximately 13,500 inmates r-c!ceived notice of the
proposed settlement. (Abady Decl. 71 52).
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
Under Rule 23 (e) of the Federal Ru:l~esof Civil Procedure, a settlement of a class action rei~uiresapproval of
the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e)(1)(A). Thtit court may approve a
settlement that is binding on the class only if it determines that the settlement is "fair, adequate, and :-easonable"and not a "product of collusion." Joel A. v. Giuliani, 218 F.3d 132, 138
(2d Cir. 2000) ; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e)(1){C). This evaluation
requires the court to consider both "the settlement's terms and the negotiating process leading to settlemen,:-."Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 d C r (citation omitted), cer-t. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2277 (200.;). " A 'presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness ma:,iattach to a class settlement reached in arm's-lengthnegotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningf~ldiscovery."' Id. (quoting Manual for- Complex Litiqation, Thir::l 5 30.42 (1995)).
Rule 23 (e) does not set forth the :!actors a court is to consider in deter-mining whether an agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In this circuit, courts tr-aditionally have considered the following factor-s,commonly r:?ferred to as the

Grinnell factors: (1) the complexity, expensti, and likely

duration of the litigation; 2 the reaction of the class to the

settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of

discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5)

the risks of establishing damages; 16) the r:i.sksof maintaining a

class action through trial; (7) the ability of defendants to

withstand greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of

the settlement fund in light of the best pos::;iblerecovery; (9)

the range of reasonableness of the settlement: fund in light of

the attendant risks of litigation. City of petroit v. Grirlneli

-,

495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), &r~,,qated on other

qr-ounds,Goldber-qer v. Inteqrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 4 3 (2d

Cir. 2000); see also Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F..lld at 117-19

(applying Grinnell factors to determine that settlement agreement

was fair).

In cases where the plaintiffs seek declaratory and

injunctive relief rather than money damages, there is no need to

examine the last three Grinneil factors. E.!;., Mirasol A. v.

Giuliani, 185 F.R.D. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y.199S: ("The cour-t will

not review the last three [Grinnell] criteriii as they are

applicable only in actions tor damages, and ,uill examine the

fifth criteria in light of establishing r e m d i e s instead of

damages."). The weight given to any partlc~.larfactor will vary

based on the facts and circumstances of the :zase. Charles Alan

Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, 113 Federal Practice

and Procedure: Civil § 1797.1, at 77 (3d ed. 2005).

Public policy, of course, favors s;:ttlement. Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 116-17; accord Williams v. First.,Nat'lBank, 216 U.S. 582, 595 (1910) ("Compromises of disputed clzlims are favored by the courts." ) ; TBK Partners. Ltd. v. W. lJnlo[ Corp., 675 F.2d 456, 461 (2d Clr. 1982) (noting "the paramour t pollcy of encouraging settlements"). Consequently, whtn evaluating a settlement agreement, the court is not to sut:~stituteits judgment for that of the parties, nor is it to turn c::,nsiderationof the adequacy of the settlement "into a trial or z:. rehearsal of the trial." Grinnell Coru., 495 F.2d at 462. "il.ather,the Court's responsibility is to reach an intelligent and objective opinion of the probabilities of ultimate success shotlld the claim[sl be litigated and to form an educated estimate oj. the complexity, expense and likely duration of such litigation and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessmeIlt of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." In re Met. Life Dgrivative Litiq., 935 F. Supp. 286, 292 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (quoting ,L!;!wis v. Newman, 59 F.R.D. 525, 527-28 (S.D.N.Y.1973)) (interna.Lquotation marks and ellipses omitted).
I consider the "settlement's terms' and the "negotiating process" in the context of discilssing the first six Grinnell factors. In addition, I discuss on<:?aspect of the Agreement I find to be troubling.

1. The Grinnell Factors
a. Lenqth, Complexity, and Durat !:on of Litiqation
The claims in this case presented i:Iifficult and complex legal and factual questions. The parties hat: cornplled a massive body of evidence and plaintiffs had estimatetzl that the case would take four months to try. I told the parties I would allow two months. Plaintiffs wanted to offer evidence of the twenty-two incidents involving the named plaintiffs as .,;.elals of an additional thirty-five (or more) incidents ir~volvingother
inmates who were allegedly beaten. (Abady Dscl. 7 46).
The fourth amended complaint also r:.amedfifty-eight corrections officers and seventeen captains :is defendants, both
individually and in their official capacities. (Compl. 7 7 6 , 7).
Each of these defendants had the right to prc.:senta defense and participate in the trial. Plaintiffs' Monel;. claims would have required testimony from high-level DOC offic:..als,including the Commissioner and his predecessor. (Def. Mem. at 8). The parties had also designated a dozen expert witnesses, includirig four corrections experts (two per side) and eight medical experts.
(Abady Decl . 7 47).
Accordingly, a trial would have unt:loubtedly required a
hundred or more witnesses. (Def. Mem. at 8 ) . See Wal-Mart, 396
F.3d at 118 (likelihood of three-month trial involving complex antitrust claims favored settlement); Mariso-IA., 185 F.R.D. at

162-63 (likelihood of five-month trial involr~ingmore than one hundred fact witnesses and twelve experts favored settlement).
Complicating matters was the fact t,hat the trial would have involved both damages claims tried to a jury as well as equitable claims tried to the Court. Issues would have arisen as to what evidence would be presented to the ji~ryand what evidence would be presented only to the Court. With ..:wenty-twoplaintiffs and more than seventy-five defendants, 1ogis::ical questions would have arisen as to how many of these individu.31~would be present in rhe Courtroom and when.
A trial would have required a jury (or different juries) to render verdicts on twenty-two damges claims. On the claims for equitable relief, the Court would have been required to render extensive findings of fact and conclusions of laws.
Moreover, no matter what the outco~ne,the losing side would have undoubtedly appealed, further extending the duration of the case. With more than four years of class action litigation behind us already, the case surely would have been litigated for many more years to come if it 'had not been settled.
The complexity, expense, and likely duration of a trial and further litigation weigh heavily in favcr of approval of the Agreement.
b. Reaction of C l a s s
As anyone familiar with prisoner civil rights litigation knows, prisoners are not shy abo~:.tvoicing grievances.

Here, not a single objection to the Agreement has been received. This factor also strongly weighs in favor of approval.
c. Stase of Proceedinss and Amou:~~.otf Discovery
The case had reached a point where discovery had been
completed, Daubert, limine, and summary judgment mot ions had
been filed, and a trial date had been set. ]:loth the Court and the parties had a substantial evidentiary ba:;is for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiffs' claims and deEendants' defenses.
The extensive discovery included tie exchange of some 400,000 pages of documents and the taking of some 140 depositions. The litigation was hard-fought and the settlement negotiations, as discussed above, were exter'jed and involved the
Court. See Wal-Mart, 396 F.3d at 117 not in:^ that district court
held that "there could not be any better evi3ence of procedural integrity than the aggressive litigation spz~nningnearly a decade and the impassioned settlement negotiations ,:hat produced an agreement on the brink of trial").
There was no collusion. To the contrary, the litigation was passionately contested, and the Agreement was the result of extensive arm's-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.
The lawyers for both sides are to be highly commended. The plaintiff class was represented by a porierful combination of a public interest organization, a small plaintiffs' civil rights firm, and a large corporate New York City lcw firm. The
- 17 -

Prisoners' Rights Project of the Legal Aid S ~ ~ c i e t yl,ed by Jonathan S . Chasan and Mary Lynne Werlwas, d::-ewon its extensive experience in excessive force class actions c~gainstthe City. Emery Celli, and in particular Jonathan S. A!:>ady,Andrew G. Celli, Jr., and Ilann M. Maazel, specialists in civil rights litigation, provided spirited and highly eff.?ctive representation. And in the best pro bono p~.:>lictoradition of the New York City law firms, Sullivan & Crom,#ell,and in particular Penny Shane and Caroline M. Flintsft, provided extraordinary lawyering and support.
The City was equally well-represented by the Office of Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of tbe City of New York. In particular, Heidi Grossman and Arthur G. Larkin provided the City with a fiery and fearsome defense, whiLe always proceeding with the best interests of the public in mind. In addition, as noted above, Florence Hutner, the General Ccunsel of DOC, played a critical role in the settlement discussions.
With these dedicated advocates in.,-olved,I have no doubt that both sides were represented zeal(:'usly and effectively and I have no hesitation as to the procedur,:l integrity of the settlement process. This factor strorlgly f.~vorsapproval.
d. Risks of Establishinq Liabili,e
While plaintiffs had amassed a su::stantial body of evidence to prove their claims, establishin(11liability was by no means certain. Indeed, my own experience is, that prisoners have
not fared well at trial. See, e.q., morris..^. Eversley, No. 00
- 18 -

Civ. 8166 (DC), 2004 WL 171337 (S.D.N.Y.Jan. 29, 2004) (jury awarded female prisoner who was victim of sexual assault by corrections officer only $500 in compensator:! damages and $7,500 in punitive damages) ; Ruffin v . Fuller, 125 1.7. Supp. 2d 105 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (ordering new trial sua sponte in case where prisoner was subjected to excessive force by corrections officers, including belng kicked in mouth, where jury's finding of no liability was against weight of eviden1:e). In addition, the City would have offered a vigorous defense, which would have included statistical evidence to show that the number of use of force incidents has declined substantially ill recent years. (See Def. Mem. at 12-13), Every trial comes with risks, but as discussed above, here many particularly complex, difficult factual and legal issues were presented. Filially, the City's
Daubert, A limine, and summary judgment mot.i.ons still had not
been decided on the merits when the Agreemenl::was reached, and rulings on these motions surely could have had a significant impact on plaintiffs' ability to prove liabi,ity.
This factor also supports approval of the Agreement. e. Risks of Obtaininq Relief
Even assuming plaintiffs were to e::tablish liability at trial, substantial risks would have existed ,:isto the scope of any relief. Even assuming plaintiffs could ::how the use of excessive force in a number of individual in(::idents,they would still have had the challenge of proving that substantial, classwide relief was warranted. Moreover, with the PLRA, Congress has
- 19 -

imposed significant limitations on the abili-:y of courts to
fashlon injunctive relief in prison cases. Indeed, the PLFS
provides :
Prospective relief in any civil aczion with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct rhe violation of the Federal right of ,: particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve a--1y prospective relief unless the cour; flnds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to corrert the violation of the Federal right, antrl is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
1 8 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1).
The City submits that the steps it will undertake
"voluntarily" as a result of the Agreement ":$remore
comprehensive than any relief the Court wou1::l award after trial."
(Def. Mem. at 17). This may very well be troe. The City has
agreed to specific, concrete, and meaningful measures that will
require, inter &, the expenditure of mil1:ons of dollars, the
changing of the use of force directive, and the creation of a new
investigations manual, training programs, ant1 tracking
procedures. It is difficult to imagine that the Court would have
imposed, following trial, significantly more extensive and
detailed relief
Finally, it is important that the implementationof
these measures will begin immediately. Even if plaintiffs were
to prevail on liability at trial, the proces:: of litigating the

scope of relief and the details thereof surely would have taken months.
Accordingly, this factor also favoi-sapproval of the
Agreement .
f. Risks of De-Certification
Finally, thel-e was certainly some I-iskthat the case would not have been maintained as a class act.ion through trial. The City had sought de-certification on the :{rounds that none of the class representatives had standing to seek injunctive relief. (Def. Mem. at 18). The motion was argued but. not decided on the merits when the Court denied it in light of the settlement discussions, without prejudice to reinstaten~i:nt if the case did not settle. Defendants surely would have re..nstated the motion if the case did not settle. This is a factcl: in support of approval as well.
2. The PLRA
I am troubled by one aspect of the PI-oposed settlement - - the requirement that any claim of a breacn of the Agreement may be addressed only by bringing a new lawz.lit for breach of contract in state court or by reinstating tl-,isaction. In other words, plaintiffs may not return to this Court to seek compliance with the Agreement; they may return only to reinstate the action and to try the case.
This provision of the Agreement has its roots in the PLRA. As noted above, § 3626 (a)(1) provides: that the court may not grant or approve "any prospective relief" unless it finds
- 21 -

that such relief is "narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Fellera1 riqht, and is the least intrusive means necessary to corrf,?tthe violation of
the Federal riqht." 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1) (emphasis added) .
The underscored language seems to require a 'inding or an admission of a violation of a federal right.
In S 3626(c), the PLRA provides fc~rtwo kinds of settlements: "consent decrees" and "private settlement agreements." The PLRA prohibits a court F r c ) ~ nentering or approving a "consent decree" unless it complies with "the limitations on relief" set. forth in § 3626 (a). 18 U.S.C. 9 3626 (c)(1). On the other hand, "private settlement agreements" need not comply with those limitations, as 1~3ngas they "are not subject to court enforcement other than the reinstatement of the
civil proceeding that the agreement s e t t l e d ~ " Id. § 3626 (c)(2)(A); see also id. § 3626 (g)(6) (Iqt:heterm 'private
settlement agreement' means an agreement entered into among the parties that is not subject to judicial enfcrcement other than the reinstatement of the civil proceeding that the agreement settled"). Plaintiffs may seek relief for ]:#reachof a private settlement agreement by suing "in State Cou:'t" for "any remedy
available under State law." Id.§ 3626 (c)(:;) (B). Finally, the
PLRA defines the word "relief" to mean "all relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the cour:, and includes consent decrees but does not include privatci settlement
agreements." :d. 5 3626 (g)( 9 ).

These provisions leave parties in prisoners' class actions who are seeking to settle in a predicament. On the one hand, the PLRA seems to provide that a court cannot approve a consent decree unless there is a finding of tg violation of a federal clvil right. Few defendants, particl..larly governmental defendants, will be willing to admit to any wrongdoing as part of
a negotiated settlement. Cf. Inrnates of Suf[olk Co. Jall v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 655 s t Cir. ,997) (holding that Congress
intended the PLRA as "a last rite" for many ::onsent decrees). Of course, defendants enter into settlements in part to avoid a finding of wrongdoing. Accordingly, most defendants under the PLRA will insist that any settlement take the! form of a "private settlement agreement," which does not. requirc: a finding of a violation.
On the other hand, plaintiffs (and experienced class counsel) wlll be reluctant to enter into a "l~rivatesettlement agreement" because the PLRA limits the means by which they may enforce such an agreement to seeking relief ..n state court under state law. Plaintiffs may return to federal court only to seek reinstatement of the action - in essence, t n rescind the agreement and to proceed to trial.
Here, plaintiffs (and their highly experienced counsel) agreed to the "private settlement agreement'' format. This decision was certainly reasonable and unders.=andable,in vlew of the risks and burdens of proceeding to trial. and the significant and wide-ranging relief obtained as a result of the Agreement.

But it makes little sense that, if a perceiv:.:dproblem with compliance should arise, short of seeking rernstatement of this action, plaintiffs can seek relief only in state court under state law. In view of the time and effort I have spent on this case, Including countless hours discussing not only the substantive terms of the Agreement but also :'ts language, it would be a tremendous waste of resources for the parties to have to go to state court to seek relief from a state court judge wholly unfamiliar with the case.
Nonetheless, in view of all the other considerations discussed above, I conclude that the Agreemeilt is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
CONCLUSION

The Agreement is hereby approved. The Court will issue

today the final Order of Dismissal with Prej.~dice.

SO ORDERED.

Dated :

New York, New York April 3, 2006

,,.<-..-,:,

. .

*.

/'

..L- ; .,_ ,_,., , I '

I-
.:,

(~ ,,.~ . '

.; ~.. ~~

' D E ~ NCYH Y I ~ . . . . -

- . . ~

:-

United States District Judge

APPEARANCES
Class Counsel for Plaintiffs:
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Prisoners' Rights Project
By: Jonathan S. Chasan, Esq. Mary Lynne Werlwas, Esq. Betsy Ginsberg, Esq. John Boston, Esq.
199 Water Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 11201
EMERY CELL1 BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LJLP By: Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. Andrew G. Celli, Jr., E s : ~ . Ilann M. Maazel, Esq. Sarah Netbuan, Esq. Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq.
545 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10022
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP By: Penny Shane, Esq. Caroline M. Flintoft, Esq. Claire E. Coleman, Esq. Sara L. Manaugh, Esq.
125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004
Counsel for City Defendants:
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO, ESQ. Corporation Counsel of
the City of New York By: Heidi Grossman, Esq. Arthur G. Larkin, Esq
103 Church Street New York. NY 10007

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------x ADAM INGLES, SHAWN DAVIS, ED SYKES, MIGUEL ROMAN, AL SMITH, CHARLES PAIGE, JAMAL BUTLER, ANDRE PRATT, ROBERT ALLAWAY, PATRICK WASHINGTON, RANDOLPH JOHNSON, ROGELIO FIGUEROA, PAUL PERSON, CALVIN DANIELS, BOBBY JONES, PHILLIP CAMPBELL, JOHNATHAN LUKES, LAMONT BRADLEY, GARY SMITH, DAROLD FREEMAN, ERIC RICHARDS, and KIMADA DIXON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ELMER TORO, ROBERT DASH, ROBERT DAVOREN, WILLIAM FRASER, STEVEN CONRY, BERNARD KERIK; OFFICERS CALDERO, LANAUSSE, GRAY, GIVENS, MCCONNON, RIVERA, MCKELLER, ROBERTS, NATALE, ELLIOTT, KRAMER, COX, GUARNERI, WILLIAMSON, GRAHAM, SMALLS, POWELL, TORRES, ECHIVERIA, CLARK, HERSHAWAY, DICE, LEWIS, YATES, SWETOKAS, MASTROAINNI, STRAUGHN, WELLS, LOPEZ, VASQUEZ, FERNANDEZ, CASE, WRIGHT, FISHER, GATTO, BRADFORD, LAMONT, VALENTINE, CHAPMAN, KEITH JACKSON, R. JACKSON, RIVERA, KINDER, DEDICKE, ANDERSON, OROZCO, TOLENTINO, ORTIZ, ARNOLD, CASTRO, HANDE, BERKELEY, GRAYSON, RUSSO, DOUGHERTY, BOYLES, MITCHELL, SANACORE, AND JOHN DOES 5-8, 12-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64, 66-68, AND 71-73; CAPTAINS ALCIA, SULLIVAN, CARDO, SMALL, WRIGHT, VELEZ, HAYNES, MULVANEY, SPENCER, HERNANDEZ, GALLAGHER, CROOMS, RAMOS, PEREZ, DANIELS, DEISO, BARBOUR, AND JOHN DOES 16, 46-48, 54-55, 63 AND 65; ASSISTANT DEPUTY WARDENS PENNES AND OWUSU; WARDENS GERARD O’GARA AND ROGER SLATTERY; AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
x

01 CIV 8279 (DC) FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION .............................................................................4

VENUE ............................................................................................................................................5

PARTIES .........................................................................................................................................5

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..............................................................................................12

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................14

The Pattern of Misconduct by Uniformed Staff Assigned to Department Institutions .....14 The Complicity and/or Acquiescence of Department of Correction Supervisors in the
Pattern of Misconduct in the Institutions...............................................................18 Liability of the City of New York .....................................................................................27 The Named Plaintiffs .........................................................................................................29
Adam Ingles ...........................................................................................................29 Shawn Davis ..........................................................................................................31 Ed Sykes.................................................................................................................32 Miguel Roman .......................................................................................................35 Al Smith .................................................................................................................37 Charles Paige .........................................................................................................38 Jamal Butler ...........................................................................................................40 Andre Pratt .............................................................................................................43 Robert Allaway ......................................................................................................45 Patrick Washington................................................................................................47 Randolph Johnson..................................................................................................49 Rogelio Figueroa ...................................................................................................51 Paul Person ...........................................................................................................53 Calvin Daniels........................................................................................................54 Bobby Jones ...........................................................................................................56 Phillip Campbell ....................................................................................................58 Johnathan Lukes ...................................................................................................59 Lamont Bradley .....................................................................................................61 Gary Smith .............................................................................................................63 Darold Freeman ....................................................................................................65 Eric Richards..........................................................................................................66 Kimada Dixon........................................................................................................69 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................70 By Class Representatives.......................................................................................70 Adam Ingles ...........................................................................................................70 Shawn Davis ..........................................................................................................70 Ed Sykes.................................................................................................................71 Miguel Roman .......................................................................................................72

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

2

Al Smith .................................................................................................................73 Charles Paige .........................................................................................................73 Jamal Butler ...........................................................................................................74 Andre Pratt .............................................................................................................75 Robert Allaway ......................................................................................................76 Patrick Washington................................................................................................76 Randolph Johnson..................................................................................................77 Rogelio Figueroa ...................................................................................................78 Paul Person ...........................................................................................................79 Calvin Daniels........................................................................................................79 Bobby Jones ...........................................................................................................80 Phillip Campbell ....................................................................................................81 Johnathan Lukes ...................................................................................................81 Lamont Bradley .....................................................................................................82 Gary Smith .............................................................................................................83 Darold Freeman ....................................................................................................83 Eric Richards..........................................................................................................84 Kimada Dixon........................................................................................................84 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................85

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

3

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

4

NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION 1. This action is brought to end a pattern and practice of unconstitutional and excessive
force by uniformed employees of the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC” or “Department”) against prisoners housed in a number of DOC detention facilities. Defendants include officers and captains assigned to jails operated by the Department who have inflicted brutal beatings on the named plaintiffs and other inmates, and who have lied and coerced false statements to prevent the beatings from coming to light. Defendants also include supervisors in these jails and at the highest levels of the Department, who have implicitly authorized the beatings, have failed to supervise uniformed staff in the face of historical and continued evidence of inmate abuse in Department jails, and have failed adequately to investigate reports of excessive force by uniform staff and evidence that incidents of excessive force are being covered up. 2. Plaintiffs, twenty-two former and present inmates within Department-run jails, bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and for money damages, to redress defendants’ violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the laws and Constitution of the State of New York. Plaintiffs, and other inmates of Department-operated jails, have been subjected to brutal and unlawful beatings by uniformed Department staff while in Department custody. Over the past fifteen years, in four class action lawsuits, prisoners in DOC custody housed in four different Department jails have secured injunctive relief against senior supervisory staff in the Department to address the systemic use of excessive force and its coverup. Plaintiffs in this action seek an appropriate remedial order to curb the use of brutal

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

5

physical force in Department jails not already operating under court orders directed at the misuse of force. 3. This action is brought pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 (a), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides for supplemental jurisdiction over claims which arise under the relevant provisions of New York state law.
VENUE 4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. PARTIES
5. Plaintiffs Adam Ingles, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes, Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards and Kimada Dixon at all times referred to in this complaint were, and in the case of plaintiffs Davis, Sykes, Person and Bradley still are, prisoners in the custody of DOC and incarcerated in one of the jails operated by the Department. Plaintiffs Washington and Richards are no longer incarcerated in Department facilities, but have been returned, or are likely to be returned, to DOC custody to attend court proceedings in pending cases. Plaintiff Ingles is under the supervision of the New York Department of Parole, and would be returned to DOC custody if found to have violated any condition of his parole.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

6

6. Defendants Caldero, Gray, Lanausse, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis, Yates, Givens,

McConnon, Rivera, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri,

Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Swetokas, Mastroainni,

Straughn, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford,

Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke,

Anderson, Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz, Arnold, Castro, Hande, Berkeley, Grayson, Russo,

Dougherty, Boyles, Mitchell, Sanacore, and John Does 5-8, 12-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24-44,

66-68, and 71-73 were at all times referred to in this complaint correction officers

employed by DOC and assigned to Department-operated jails. These defendants are sued

in their individual and official capacities. At all times referred to in this complaint, all

named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of the

Department, and acting under color of state law. Plaintiffs do not know the names of the

corrections personnel sued as John Does and will amend this complaint to state the true

names when they become known.

7. Defendants Alcia, Ramos, Sullivan, Cardo, Small, Wright, Velez, Haynes, Mulvaney,

Spencer, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Perez, Daniels, Deiso, Barbour, and John Does

16, 46-48, 54-55, 63 and 65 were at all times referred to in this complaint captains

employed by DOC and assigned to Department-operated jails. These captains had direct,

first-line supervisory responsibilities over the correction officers assigned to the jails,

including responsibility for taking appropriate measures to ensure and protect the

personal safety of inmates assigned to their housing or program areas. These

responsibilities were required to be carried out in a manner consistent with the legal

mandates that govern the operation of the Department and its jails, including the

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

7

Department directives and orders governing the use of force and the reporting of use of

force and the Board of Correction Minimum Standards. Each of these captains is sued in

his individual and official capacities.

8. Defendant Gerard O’Gara was from November 2001 through mid-May 2002 the Warden

of the George R. Vierno Center (“GRVC”), a Department-operated jail. Defendant

O’Gara is now the Warden of the Anna M. Kross Center (“AMKC”), another

Department-operated jail. As Warden of these facilities, at all times his responsibilities

have included supervision of correction officers, captains and other supervisors with

respect to the care, custody and control of prisoners confined in the jail. These

responsibilities were and are required to be carried out in a manner consistent with the

legal mandates that govern the operation of DOC and its jails, including the Department

directives and orders governing the use of force and the reporting of use of force and the

Board of Correction Minimum Standards. As the Warden, defendant O’Gara has at all

times been provided on a daily basis with all reports of use of force, allegations of use of

force, and other violent incidents in his jail. Defendant O’Gara is sued in his individual

and official capacities.

9. Defendant Roger Slattery was from November 2001 through May 2002 the Warden of

the Anna M. Kross Center (“AMKC”), a Department-operated jail. Since May 2002, he

has been the Warden of GRVC. As Warden of these facilities, at all times his

responsibilities have included supervision of correction officers, captains and other

supervisors with respect to the care, custody and control of prisoners confined in the jail.

These responsibilities were and are required to be carried out in a manner consistent with

the legal mandates that govern the operation of DOC and its jails, including the

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

8

Department directives and orders governing the use of force and the reporting of use of force and the Board of Correction Minimum Standards. As Warden, defendant Slattery is provided on a daily basis with all reports of use of force, allegations of use of force, and other violent incidents in his jail. Defendant Slattery is sued in his individual and official capacities. 10. At all times referred to in this complaint, defendant Pennes was an Assistant Deputy Warden at the Queens House of Detention, a Department-operated jail. As such, his responsibilities included supervision of correction officers, captains and other supervisors with respect to the care, custody and control of prisoners confined in the jail. These responsibilities were required to be carried out in a manner consistent with the legal mandates that govern the operation of DOC and its jails, including the Department directives and orders governing the use of force and the reporting of use of force and the Board of Correction Minimum Standards. Defendant Pennes is sued in his individual and official capacities. 11. At all times referred to in this complaint, defendant Owusu was an Assistant Deputy Warden at GRVC, a Department-operated jail. As such, his responsibilities included supervision of correction officers, captains and other supervisors with respect to the care, custody and control of prisoners confined in the jail. These responsibilities were required to be carried out in a manner consistent with the legal mandates that govern the operation of DOC and its jails, including the Department directives and orders governing the use of force and the reporting of use of force and the Board of Correction Minimum Standards. Defendant Owusu is sued in his individual and official capacities.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

9

12. Defendant Toro was at all times referred to in this complaint, and still is, the Deputy

Commissioner of the Investigation Division of DOC. As such, defendant Toro was and

is responsible for ordering and supervising the investigation of any and all incidents in

which any employee of the Department uses force against any inmate. Defendant Toro

was provided on a daily basis with reports of applications of force, allegations of

unreported use of force, and other breaches of security in Department jails. Defendant

Toro is sued in his individual and official capacities.

13. Defendant Dash was the Chief of Security of the Department from November 2000

through April 2002. He was succeeded by defendant Steven Conry, who is now the

Chief of Security. As Chief of Security, defendant Dash was responsible for monitoring

and addressing all operational issues in Department jails pertaining to the safety and

security of inmates and staff. These responsibilities included the tracking of violent

incidents and the formulation of responses designed to protect the personal safety of

Department staff and inmates in its custody. As Chief of Security, defendant Dash was

provided on a daily basis with reports of applications of force, allegations of unreported

use of force, and other breaches of security in Department jails. Defendant Dash is sued

in his individual and official capacities.

14. Defendant Steven Conry has been the Chief of Security of the Department from April

2002 to the present. As Chief of Security, defendant Conry is responsible for monitoring

and addressing all operational issues in Department jails pertaining to the safety and

security of inmates and staff. These responsibilities include the tracking of violent

incidents and the formulation of responses designed to protect the personal safety of

Department staff and inmates in its custody. As Chief of Security, defendant Conry is

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

10

provided on a daily basis with reports of applications of force, allegations of unreported

use of force, and other breaches of security in Department jails. Defendant Conry is sued

in his individual and official capacities.

15. Defendant Davoren was the Chief of Security of DOC beginning prior to the events

alleged in this complaint until November 2000, and since November 2000 has been the

Chief of Department. As Chief of Security, defendant Davoren was responsible for

monitoring and addressing all operational issues in Department jails pertaining to the

safety and security of inmates and staff. These responsibilities included the tracking of

violent incidents and the formulation of responses designed to protect the personal safety

of Department staff and inmates in its custody. As Chief of Security, Davoren was

provided on a daily basis with reports of applications of force, allegations of unreported

use of force, and other breaches of security in Department jails. As Chief of Department,

he is the highest ranking uniformed member of the department, and is responsible for the

supervision, oversight, and discipline of the uniformed security staff, including the

supervisory security staff, in all the Department jails. He is also responsible for the care,

custody, and control of all inmates in the Department jails. As Chief of Department,

Davoren is provided on a daily basis with reports of applications of force, allegations of

unreported use of force, and other breaches of security in Department jails. Defendant

Davoren is sued in his individual and official capacities.

16. Defendant Fraser was the Chief of Department of DOC from March 1999 until

November 2000, and since November 2000 has been the Commissioner of DOC. As

Chief of Department, he was the highest ranking uniformed member of the Department,

and was responsible for the selection, supervision, oversight, and discipline of the

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

11

uniformed security staff, including the supervisory security staff, in all the Department

jails. He was also responsible for the care, custody, and control of all inmates in the

Department jails. As Commissioner, he is the chief executive officer of the Department,

responsible, consistent with the legal mandates governing the Department, for the

management and control of all City jails, and for all matters relating to the selection,

supervision, promotion, training, and discipline of the uniformed staff, including the

supervisory security staff, of the City jails. As Commissioner, defendant Fraser is also

responsible for the care, custody, and control of all inmates housed in the Department’s

jails. As Chief of Department and as Commissioner, Fraser was and is provided on a

daily basis with reports of applications of force, allegations of unreported use of force,

and other breaches of security in Department jails. Defendant Fraser is sued in his

individual and official capacities.

17. Defendant Kerik was the Commissioner of the Department from January 1, 1998, until

August 21, 2000. During this period he was the chief executive officer of the

Department, responsible, consistent with the legal mandates governing the Department,

for the management and control of all City jails, and for all matters relating to the

selection, supervision, promotion, training, and discipline of the uniformed staff,

including the supervisory security staff, of the City jails. As Commissioner, defendant

Kerik was also responsible for the care, custody, and control of all inmates housed in the

Department’s jails. As Commissioner, Kerik was provided on a daily basis with reports

of applications of force, allegations of unreported use of force, and other breaches of

security in Department jails. Defendant Kerik is sued in his individual and official

capacities.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

12

18. Defendant City of New York is a municipal corporation which, through its Department of Correction, operates a number of detention jails. The Department, through its senior officials at the central office and in each facility, promulgates and implements policies, including those with respect to the use, reporting, and investigation of force by uniformed staff, and access to medical and other program services mandated by local law and court orders. In addition, senior officials in the Department are aware of and tolerate certain practices by subordinate employees in the jails, including those that are inconsistent with formal policy. These practices, because they are widespread, long-standing, and deeply embedded in the culture of the agency, constitute unwritten Department policies or customs. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

13

19. Plaintiffs Davis, Sykes, Person, and Bradley bring this action on behalf of all present and

future inmates confined in any of the institutions and commands operated by DOC on

Rikers Island, and in Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx, that have not already been made

subject to court order as a result of the successful litigation of claims of excessive use of

force on inmates by Department staff. These institutions and commands that are not

subject to ongoing injunctive orders are the Adolescent Reception and Detention Center

(“ARDC”), Anna M. Kross Center (“AMKC”), George Motchan Detention Center

(“GMDC”), George R. Vierno Center (“GRVC”), Manhattan Detention Complex

(“MDC”), North Infirmary Command (“NIC”), Otis Bantum Correctional Center

(“OBCC”), Rose M. Singer Center (“RMSC”), West Facility, Bronx House of Detention

(“BxHDM”), Queens House of Detention (“QHDM”), Transportation Division,

Emergency Services Unit (“ESU”) and Vernon C. Bain Correctional Facility (“VCBC”

or “the Barge”). This action is brought pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Rules 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2). The class meets the requirements of Rule 23 as follows:

a. There are well over 10,000 inmates confined within the aforementioned

institutions at any one time. The membership of the class continuously changes,

rendering joinder of all members impracticable.

b. The questions of law and fact presented by the named plaintiffs are

common to other members of the class. Such questions include the existence of a pattern

of brutality and the use of gratuitous and excessive physical violence in Department-

operated institutions involving correction officers and supervisory personnel; the

encouragement and institutionalization of such brutality by supervisory defendants; the

acquiescence of supervisory personnel in the known unlawful acts of subordinates; and

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

14

the failure of supervisory defendants to train, supervise, and discipline line officers in the

institutions. These practices, policies, and procedures result in both the frequent

infliction of severe physical and psychological injuries on inmates confined in these jails,

and the maintenance of an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. As a result, every inmate

in these institutions risks being subjected to and injured by these unlawful practices. The

claims and practices alleged in this complaint are common to all members of the class.

c. The violations suffered by plaintiffs Davis, Sykes, Person, and Bradley are

typical of those suffered by the class. The entire class will benefit from the relief sought.

d. Plaintiffs Davis, Sykes, Person, and Bradley are presently incarcerated

within institutions operated by DOC. These named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately

protect the interests of the class. The Legal Aid Society, Prisoners’ Rights Project,

counsel for plaintiffs, is a legal services organization experienced in prisoners’ civil

rights litigation that, through prior such litigation, has secured court-ordered institutional

reform within several Department-operated jails. Emery Brinckerhoff Cuti Abady P.C. is

a law firm with offices in New York City that has extensive experience in successful civil

rights litigation, including class action lawsuits against state and local governments and

the Department of Correction. Sullivan & Cromwell is a law firm with offices in New

York City that has extensive experience in complex federal litigation and in pro bono

federal civil rights litigation on behalf of prisoners and others.

e. The defendants have acted, or omitted to act, on grounds generally

applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the

class as a whole.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

15

The Pattern of Misconduct by Uniformed Staff Assigned to Department Institutions 20. Members of the uniformed staff in Department-operated jails have used force without
justification against inmates as punishment for minor misconduct, verbal complaints, protests, or perceived disrespect to staff. Many of these beatings have occurred hours or days after the initial contact between officer and inmate. See paragraphs 50, 65, 73-74, 81, 88-90, 104-05, 111, 126-27, 134-35, 141, 146, 160-61, 172-73, and 188, infra. Members of the uniformed staff have applied excessive, injurious force to beat prisoners under circumstances where, at most, some minimal, non-injurious force may have been justified to restrain the prisoner. 21. Members of the uniformed staff in Department-operated jails have gratuitously singled out particular inmates for physical abuse in an effort to assert their authority over the general inmate population. Often inmates become targets for physical abuse when staff members are unable to determine which inmate in a group committed a particular offense but nonetheless want to inflict punishment for that offense in a “show beating.” The inmates selected for arbitrary physical punishment are often chosen for their relative physical vulnerability. See paragraphs 81, 96-97, 118, and 179-80, infra. 22. Other inmates who are targeted for abuse by members of the uniformed staff in Department-operated jails are routinely removed from their cells to isolated areas, such as search rooms and areas of facility receiving rooms (also known as “intake areas”), and beaten by groups of officers with no inmates or civilians as witnesses. Others are beaten in their cells. Many inmates are beaten while they are handcuffed and/or naked. See paragraphs 51-52, 67, 107, 114, 128, 136-37, 147-48, 154, 161, 168, 193, and 201, infra.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

16

23. Inmates who have been beaten by uniformed staff have suffered a range of injuries, many

of which have required the provision of emergency medical care and/or hospitalization,

and some of which have resulted in severe and permanent damage. A number of inmates

beaten by staff have suffered severe internal injuries, in addition to the visible abrasions

and contusions associated with punches to the face and body. See paragraph 107 and

114, infra. Many beatings have resulted in facial lacerations, fractured noses and other

facial bones, broken teeth, perforated ear drums, and eye injuries. See paragraphs 54, 56,

61, 68, 75, 83, 92, 100, 119, 129, 137, 142, 154, 162, 169, 174, 189, 195, and 201, infra.

24. After an inmate has been assaulted by a member of the uniformed staff in Department-

operated jails, Department employees routinely falsify documents or fabricate claims to

cover up their own unlawful conduct or that of their colleagues. In some cases,

defendants fail to report any use of force; in others, they attempt to justify excessive force

by falsely claiming that an inmate had physically threatened or attacked a staff member

and was injured in the course of being restrained. See paragraphs 55, 69, 76, 84-85, 93,

106, 115, 120, 132, 138, 143, 148, 155, 163, 170, 175, 184, 196, and 202, infra.

25. Inmates who have been beaten or who have witnessed beatings are often solicited by

members of the uniformed staff to make false statements about incidents and the sources

of their injuries, or to refrain from reporting them at all. Often inmates are threatened

with disciplinary charges if they report the incidents truthfully. See paragraphs 106, 154,

and 174, infra.

26. Inmates beaten in Department jails routinely are falsely charged administratively with

“assault on staff” and, when found guilty, confined in punitive segregation following

disciplinary proceedings conducted by “adjudication captains.” These proceedings are

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

17

frequently conducted in violation of Department procedures and deny basic, constitutionally mandated protections. See paragraphs 55, 84, 93, 120, 132, 138, 143, 155, 163, 170, 175, 184, and 196, infra. 27. Inmates beaten in Department jails are often arrested by or at the request of Department employees assigned to the “Gang Intelligence Unit” and falsely charged with assaulting the staff who beat them. See paragraphs 85, 121-22, 138, 156, 175 and 196, infra. These arrests, which are routinely initiated without the Department's having conducted any meaningful investigation of the incident, are effected to cover up the fact that the inmate was beaten and the staff reports fabricated. 28. Some captains in Department-operated jails have ordered or participated in beatings; others have stood by while officers assaulted inmates in their presence and taken no steps to prevent injury to the inmate. Some captains have covered up, or attempted to cover up, the illegal conduct of their subordinates. See paragraphs 52, 66, 74, 81, 98-99, 10506, 118-19, 136, 141, 148-49, 166-67, and 174. 29. Uniformed staff assigned to the Emergency Services Unit (ESU) routinely engage in gratuitously aggressive and intimidating conduct when assigned to search a prisoner, his living quarters, or his property, often punching and striking prisoners when no physical force is necessary or justified. When conducting a Tactical Search Operation (TSO), members of the ESU frequently inflict physical injuries on inmates, when no or minimal force is necessary, often causing serious physical trauma. See paragraphs 166-68 and 179-80, infra. When the ESU conducts a TSO of a housing area or a jail facility, it operates independently of the facility chain of command, and its members are

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

18

accountable solely to ESU supervisors. Contrary to written Department of Correction

policy, these searches are not routinely videotaped.

30. The pattern of violence by the ESU, and the fact that the unit refuses to videotape its

operations, have been well known throughout the Department for years. The routine

misuse of force by members of the ESU is so obvious and striking that Department

supervisors have barred the Unit from operating in the jail facility subject to the most

intense public scrutiny, the Central Punitive Segregation Unit (“CPSU”), which was

subject to federal court oversight from July 1998 through July 2002. Nevertheless,

Department supervisors, including the Commissioner, Chief of Department, Chief of

Security, and Deputy Commissioner of the Investigation Division, allow the ESU to

operate, and tolerate its members’ beating and striking inmates in the rest of the

Department jails.

The Complicity and/or Acquiescence of Department of Correction Supervisors in the Pattern of

Misconduct in the Institutions

31. The supervisory staff within the Department-operated jails, including defendant Wardens

Slattery and O’Gara, and the command structure of the Department (defendants Fraser,

Davoren, Dash, Conry, Kerik and Toro) knew and/or know that the pattern of physical

abuse described above existed and still exists in the city jails. Their failure to take

measures to curb this pattern of brutality constitutes an acquiescence in the known

unlawful behavior of their subordinates. The prevalence of these practices and general

knowledge of their existence, and the failure of these defendants to take remedial action

despite the fact that the misuse of force in city jails has been persistently brought to their

attention, constitutes deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of the inmates in their

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

19

care and custody, including those inmates named as plaintiffs in this action. These

defendants’ conduct has been a substantial factor in the continuation of such violence and

a proximate cause of the constitutional violations alleged in this complaint.

32. The Department of Correction operates under a system-wide use of force policy. With

some exceptions for those facilities operating under court order, the Department trains all

of its staff at a single Training Academy according to a uniform curriculum; maintains a

centralized Investigation Division to investigate staff use of force under uniform

procedures; similarly maintains a centralized unit to conduct administrative prosecutions

(or to decline to prosecute, or to plea-bargain) in those few instances where the

Department concludes excessive force has been used. Use of force incidents are reported

through a centralized “Communications Control Center” to the Department’s highest

administrators. The subsequent use of force reports reflecting the nature of use of force

incidents, the degree of injury inflicted on prisoners, the asserted justifications for force,

and the findings of the jail-based investigations are also routed to the office of the Chief

of Department and to the Investigation Division. Administratively, the Department is

organized with a paramilitary chain of command running from the Commissioner, Chief

of Department, and other top administrators in its central office through its four Division

Chiefs, each of whom has supervisory authority over several of the jails and other

commands (e.g., the Transportation Division), down to the jails and commands. Staff

are routinely transferred from jail to jail or to non-jail commands. Staff who are

promoted are transferred to new commands following their promotion, and Wardens and

Deputy Wardens are routinely transferred between facilities. Officers who are known to

have used excessive force in one command are often transferred to another command,

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

20

especially where the original command is under court order or judicial scrutiny.

Prisoners are also routinely transferred among the different facilities; many, including a

number of the named plaintiffs are or were housed in several different facilities while in

Department custody

33. The supervisory staff of Department-operated jails, including defendants O’Gara and

Slattery, have consistently failed to investigate use of force incidents thoroughly and

without bias, and to discipline officers who have violated Department guidelines. The

investigation of use of force incidents in Department-operated jails by central office staff,

including defendants Toro, Davoren, Dash, Conry, Fraser and Kerik, reflects the same

bias in favor of uniformed staff which the District Court found with respect to central

office use of force investigations at the Correctional Institution for Men (a DOC facility)

fourteen years ago. Fisher v. Koehler, 692 F.Supp. 1519, 1553-57 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff’d

F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1990). Although the Department agreed in 1998 to implement specific,

court-ordered remedies for the long-standing deficiencies in investigation of staff use of

force in the CPSU (Sheppard v. Phoenix, 91 Civ. 4148 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y.) (Order

Approving Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, July 10, 1998)), it continues to refuse to

apply these measures to the rest of the jail system.

34. The pattern of misconduct by security staff assigned to Department-operated jails has

been condoned by ranking commanders and supervisors in the Department. The Deputy

Commissioner of the Investigation Division, the former and current Chiefs of Security,

the former and current Chief of Department, and the former and current Commissioner--

defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, Conry and Kerik–have been or are aware of the

number, frequency, and severity of use of force incidents in Department-operated jails

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

21

and of the continuing risk to inmates of physical injury at the hands of uniformed staff.

Each of these central office supervisors receives and/or received daily a compilation of

reports from Department commands documenting violent incidents, including staff use of

force. These “24-hour reports,” which are circulated throughout the Department, contain

brief summaries of use of force incidents. These summaries have for years documented,

and continue to document, the routine application of injurious force to prisoners by staff

members under circumstances which very often suggest that the staff accounts are

fabricated to cover up brutality and other misconduct.

35. Defendant O’Gara, who is now the warden at AMKC, was previously assigned as the

warden of GRVC. Defendant Slattery, who is now the warden at GRVC, was previously

the warden of AMKC. Both defendants O’Gara and Slattery have been consistently

apprised of the frequency and severity of inmates’ injuries in violent encounters with

correction staff in their commands. As Warden, each is responsible for the review and

approval of staff “use of force” reports before these reports are forwarded to the

Investigation and Operations Divisions. These use of force reports routinely document

the infliction of serious injuries on prisoners by guards, and consistently find no basis to

question correctional staff’s conduct, even when staff reports describe use of force which

is proscribed by Department written policy or fail to account for the inmate’s injuries.

36. For the past several years, these reports made by staff of Department-operated jails about

use of force incidents and of the investigations conducted at the jails and forwarded to the

Department’s central office put the Deputy Commissioner of the Investigation Division,

the Chief of Security, the Chief of Department, and the Commissioner on notice that

there existed in Department-operated jails a clear pattern of excessive and/or unnecessary

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

22

force used by uniformed staff on inmates. These reports (1) document frequent and

numerous instances in which serious injuries, including head and facial trauma, multiple

blunt trauma to the body, and perforated ear drums, were inflicted on inmates in

encounters with correction staff; (2) with rare exception conclude that the inmate

instigated the incident through some aggressive action and needed to be “subdued” or

“restrained”; (3) very often identify the location of the incident as a facility receiving

room, an inmate’s cell, or a similarly isolated area, where a single inmate, in some cases

naked, allegedly assaulted an officer who was accompanied by a number of other staff

members; and (4) identify certain correction officers or captains as having been involved

in a disproportionate number of these incidents, and certain captains as having reported

or “investigated” these incidents.

37. In addition to his routine review of the Department’s reports, the Deputy Commissioner

of the Investigation Division, defendant Toro, has for the past several years received

numerous letters from the Prisoners’ Rights Project of the Legal Aid Society alleging

serious physical abuse of significant numbers of inmates by uniformed staff in

Department-operated jails. Many of these letters identify specific staff members as

having engaged in repeated assaults on inmates. Defendant O’Gara has also received a

number of these letters alleging staff brutality at GRVC.

38. Since 1988, senior supervisors and uniformed staff in DOC have been sued repeatedly by

inmates alleging staff beatings and cover-up. These cases have been settled for sums

totaling millions of dollars. In addition, during the past three decades, senior correction

supervisors and/or the City of New York have been defendants in four class actions

brought in response to serious violations of inmates’ constitutional rights--including

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

23

widespread physical abuse of inmates and its cover-up by Department staff--in various

Department-operated jails. Fisher v. Koehler, 692 F. Supp. 1519 (S.D.N.Y. 1988),

injunction entered, 718 F. Supp. 1111 (1989), aff’d., 902 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1990)

[Correction Institution for Men]; Jackson v. Montemagno, CV 85-2384 (AS) (E.D.N.Y.)

(Order Approving Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, November 26, 1991) [Brooklyn

House of Detention]; Reynolds v. Ward, 81 Civ. 101 (PNL) (S.D.N.Y.), Order and

Consent Judgment, October 1, 1990) [Bellevue Prison Psychiatric Ward]; Sheppard v.

Phoenix, 91 Civ. 4148 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y.) (Order Approving Stipulation for Entry of

Judgment, July 10, 1998); see 1998 WL 397846 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 1998) [Central

Punitive Segregation Unit]. In each of these cases, federal courts approved the entry of

comprehensive remedial orders governing the use of physical force by Department jail

guards and the investigation and discipline of staff members who misuse force. In each

case, the City has narrowly confined its remedial efforts to the institution and violations

at issue in the action, despite the growing body of evidence--more indisputable and

compelling with each successive action and its resolution--that staff abuse of inmates is a

severe and endemic problem within Department-operated jails. In light of this evidence,

the City’s failure to direct its reform efforts toward Department-operated jails as a whole,

rather than just the ones under court order, constitutes and demonstrates a policy of

deliberate indifference toward the rights and safety of inmates under Department control.

39. The discovery obtained in Sheppard, which included reports of over a thousand use of

force incidents and the investigation of these incidents over a ten year period (1988-

1998), demonstrated the consistent tolerance, if not encouragement, by high-ranking

Department supervisors, of uniformed staff brutality and its cover-up through the

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

24

preparation of false reports; their failure to ensure that unbiased and thorough investigations of use of force incidents were conducted; their failure to engage in prompt and meaningful discipline of staff; and their long-standing failure or refusal to hold uniformed staff accountable for their misconduct. 40. During their careers in DOC, Kerik, Fraser, Dash and O’Gara acquired direct, first-hand knowledge of the scope and severity of the misuse of physical force by Department uniformed staff: • In late 1995 and early 1996 DOC, of which defendant Kerik was then the First
Deputy Commissioner, acknowledged the existence of a pattern of misconduct in the CPSU, including planned beatings of inmates and cover-ups of these assaults orchestrated and organized by facility supervisors. Defendant Kerik had operational responsibility for the implementation of the Department's plan to remedy this pattern of abuse. • From 1995-1996, defendant Fraser was the Warden in command of the DOC facility in which the CPSU was located, and was actively engaged in the formulation and implementation of the Department's initial response to the overwhelming evidence of the pattern of physical abuse uncovered in the Sheppard case, the relocation of the CPSU to a facility equipped with video surveillance cameras and the re-staffing of the Unit by Department employees whose use of force histories had been reviewed by Department managers. Earlier in his career, Fraser has been assigned to the Correctional Institution for Men during the period that facility was the subject of the Fisher litigation. He was

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

25

subsequently assigned to the Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward immediately after the entry of judgment in the Reynolds litigation. • Defendant Dash was assigned as a captain in the CPSU in the early 1990s, and was fully familiar with the pattern of misconduct which existed in the unit at that time. Subsequently he became the Deputy Warden in Command of the CPSU and the Warden at OBCC after the CPSU was relocated to that command. During these periods, Dash was repeatedly made aware of the continuing guard brutality and cover-up, which was not substantially addressed until after he was replaced in those positions. • Defendant O’Gara was an Assistant Deputy Warden assigned to the CPSU after it was relocated to OBCC in 1996. During this period O’Gara was aware of the continuing pattern of brutality and cover-up in the Unit by officers and captains under his supervision. 41. In response to the Sheppard litigation and the earlier lawsuits, DOC agreed to implement a number of systemic remedial measures in the institutions which were the subject of these actions, including the installation of video surveillance cameras in areas which had been the site of repeated applications of force, screening and selection of staff members assigned to the particular commands, rigorous investigation of use of force incidents and the imposition of meaningful staff discipline. Defendants Kerik, Fraser, Davoren (who became Chief of Department in November, 2000) and Conry (who became Chief of Security in April 2002), however, have taken no steps to address the continuing, obvious persistence of correction officer brutality and false reporting at other commands, which

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

26

had not been the subject of litigation but at which significant numbers of prisoners continued to be injured by staff. 42. Notwithstanding the fact that high-ranking officials in Department-operated jails and in the Department’s central office know or knew that a pattern existed in Departmentoperated jails of inmates being routinely injured by correction officers and captains, under circumstances that clearly indicated that staff was utilizing excessive and unnecessary force, defendants O’Gara, Slattery, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, Conry and Kerik failed to implement measures that would curb the unlawful conduct of their subordinates. These defendants routinely dismissed inmates’ complaints of staff beatings, even when the correction officers and captains allegedly involved had failed to report a use of force and the inmate was seriously injured; when the inmate’s injuries were obviously more serious than the staff accounts of their actions would suggest; and when the same correction officers and captains reported essentially the same scenarios over and over to describe incidents in which different inmates were injured. 43. High-ranking Department officials are and have been aware of the Department’s Gang Intelligence Unit’s practice of arresting the victims of staff beatings and initiating their prosecution for assault and related offenses without any meaningful internal investigation of the facts surrounding the incident. Despite this knowledge, they have tolerated and encouraged staff to continue to arrest and request prosecution of prisoners beaten in the jails. These supervisors’ continued acquiescence to this practice--of arresting inmates who have been seriously injured by staff and falsely charging them with assault on staff-manifests deliberate indifference toward the rights of inmates under Department control.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

27

44. With rare exception, uniformed staff whose misconduct is brought to the attention of supervisory personnel continue to work with inmates in Department-operated jails without any substantial disciplinary action being taken against them. Many of these staff members are simply transferred from one jail to another, where their misconduct continues. Although the Department has a computerized system capable of identifying officers involved in multiple use of force incidents, this information has not been utilized by Wardens or Deputy Wardens for Security in Department-operated jails to reduce the number of incidents of excessive or unnecessary use of force in the jails. The fact that physical abuse by officers remains unchecked and unrestrained leads the staff to believe that inmates may be beaten with impunity.
Liability of the City of New York 1. Prior to and at the time of the assaults upon each of the plaintiffs named in this action,
which are described infra in paragraphs 49-203, there existed in Department-operated jails a pattern and practice of physical abuse of inmates by the uniformed staff assigned to these jails. The elements of this pattern are described in paragraphs 19-43, supra. 45. The pattern of unrestrained physical abuse by uniformed staff; the failure to conduct unbiased and thorough investigations of use of force incidents, and to discipline staff meaningfully and promptly for misconduct; and the long-standing failure or refusal to supervise uniformed staff, including supervisory staff, are now so institutionalized as to constitute a policy or custom of tolerating and authorizing physical abuse of inmates. It is this policy or custom of abuse and cover-up that has caused the deprivation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

28

46. The Department, through its Commissioners, Chiefs of Department, Chief of Security, and Deputy Commissioner of the Investigation Division, has failed or refused to hold accountable high-ranking supervisors--captains, assistant deputy wardens, deputy wardens, and wardens--in the face of frequent and significant misconduct, over a period of years, by these supervisors and by the officers they supervise. This failure is a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the named plaintiffs and by other inmates injured in Department-operated jails. The continuing inaction of defendants Toro, Conry, Davoren and Fraser subjects current and future inmates in Department-operated jails to a pervasive risk of serious injury at the hands of correctional staff.
47. By the exercise of his promotional authority, the Commissioner has the power to reward supervisors who perform their jobs adequately and to punish--or fail to reward--those who do not. The Commissioners’ actions and omissions have created and maintained the perception among high-ranking supervisors in the Department that a supervisor in a Department-operated facility who turns a blind eye towards evidence of staff misuse of force and fails to investigate incidents in which prisoners are injured by staff will suffer no damage to his or her career.
48. The pattern of unchecked physical abuse by uniformed Department staff, the extent to which these unlawful practices have been adopted by significant numbers of the staff, and the persistent failure or refusal of the Department to supervise these officers properly and to take action to curb the misconduct, demonstrate a Department policy of deliberate indifference which tacitly authorizes the utilization of brutal, excessive and unjustified physical force against inmates.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

29

The Named Plaintiffs Adam Ingles 49. On or about February 8, 2000, plaintiff Ingles, a pre-trial detainee, was in his housing
area at GMDC during the 11:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. shift. Earlier that day, an officer on the day shift had permitted Ingles to move to a newly-available bunk. Defendant Caldero, a correction officer, came on duty for the night shift, and asked Ingles why he was not in his previously-assigned bunk. Although Ingles explained that an officer had allowed him to switch bunks, Caldero threatened to charge him with a disciplinary infraction. Caldero then began throwing Ingles’ personal belongings from his locker. Ingles began to pick up his belongings and Caldero grabbed him by the neck and shoved him. When Ingles told him not to do that again, Caldero again grabbed Ingles’ neck and shoved him. Caldero then punched Ingles in the face. Ingles punched Caldero back, and the two began fighting. Caldero continued to punch Ingles in the face, and shoved his fingers into Ingles left eye. Officer Holmes observed the assault, and called for a response team, but did not intervene or attempt to stop Caldero’s assault. Ingles was then sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray, blurring his vision. 50. An institutional response team, consisting of defendant officers Lanausse and Gray and defendant captain Alcia, arrived and took Ingles out of the housing area. In the vestibule outside the housing area, he was struck violently in the face by a blunt instrument. He was then slammed into an iron gate and thrown on the floor. Defendant Lanausse placed a knee on Ingles’ back and handcuffed him behind the back, tightening the handcuffs and causing Ingles severe pain.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

30

51. Ingles was then dragged down some stairs. One of the response team officers stood

Ingles up by his rear handcuffs and told defendant Caldero to “beat his ass.” Caldero

began to beat Ingles, hitting him a number of times in the body. Defendants Gray and

Lanausse joined in and continued beating him. Captain Alcia watched the officers beat

Ingles, but took no steps to prevent Ingles from injury.

52. Ingles was then escorted to a search room in the facility intake area, with either Gray or

Lanausse continuing to punch him as they walked. In the intake area, either Gray or

Lanausse hit him again until a captain told him to stop. One of the defendant officers

then told Ingles to “sit and bleed.” Ingles was left in the intake room, and later given a

towel and told to clean himself up. He was then moved to another cell and photographed.

53. Ingles was taken to the infirmary, where he was treated for a bleeding and deformed nose

and possible fracture, swelling to the right orbit, and pain in the rib cage. X-rays the next

morning confirmed a rib fracture. Although medical staff ordered x-rays to be taken of

the orbital rim and nose, these x-rays were not taken. After leaving the infirmary, he was

taken back to the search area, where he was left alone in a cell, wearing only his shorts,

until morning.

54. Reports prepared by DOC staff subsequently falsely stated that Ingles had initially

assaulted Caldero, and that the force was applied to restrain him. Mr. Ingles was placed

in punitive segregation for 30 days after the incident. He was not informed of the charges

against him.

55. As a result of the beating inflicted on him on February 8, 2000, Ingles sustained severe

emotional and physical injuries, including a fractured rib and possible fractured nose and

orbital rim.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

31

56. Ingles’ conduct did not constitute a threat or perceived threat to the security of the jail or anyone therein such as to warrant the repeated application of blows. His beating was a grossly disproportionate response to Ingles’ resistance to Caldero’s initial assault, and was intended to punish him for having struggled with Caldero. Defendants Alcia, Gray, Lanausse and Caldero acted sadistically and maliciously and demonstrated deliberate indifference toward Ingles’ rights and physical well-being.
Shawn Davis 57. On or about May 28, 2002, in the late afternoon or early evening, Shawn Davis, a pre-
trial detainee, returned from a court appearance in the Bronx to AMKC, where he was housed. Mr. Davis approached the housing area officer in the “A station” and inquired about his psychiatric medication, which he believed he was supposed to receive that day. The “A officer” told Davis, in words or in substance, that she could not deal with his problem. 58. Davis then tried to address his concerns to a captain, but was not successful in securing his attention. Anxious and agitated about what he perceived to be staffs’ ignoring his medical problem, Davis picked up a plastic chair and threw it. Three correction officers, defendants Orozco, Tolentino, and Ortiz, then rushed towards him and began to punch him. Davis fell or was thrown on his stomach, and his arms were handcuffed behind his back. When he was placed on his feet by the three officers, one of them, Tolentino, punched him in his stomach. 59. Davis was escorted outside his housing area, where a “response team,” consisting of correction officer defendants Arnold and John Does 5, 6, and 7 had gathered. One of the

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

32

members of the team, Arnold, jabbed him in the stomach with his baton. The team then

escorted Davis to the facility receiving room and placed Davis in a cell, alone.

60. In the receiving room cell, Tolentino, Arnold, and Does 5 and 8 struck Davis a number of

times in is face and body, causing him to fall to the floor. While he lay on the floor, with

his hands still cuffed behind his back, Arnold kicked Davis in his left eye, rupturing his

eyeball.

61. As a result of the beating he sustained on May 28, 2002, Davis suffered severe physical

and emotional injuries, including but not limited to impaired vision in his left eye.

62. Davis did not present a threat to the safety or security of jail staff which warranted the

repeated application of blows and strikes to his head and face. The conduct of defendants

Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz, Arnold, and Does 5-8 was malicious and sadistic, and

manifested deliberate indifference to Davis’ rights and physical well-being.

63. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Davis filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the

City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.

Ed Sykes

64. On or about March 28, 2002, plaintiff Sykes, a pre-trial detainee, was housed in a

punitive segregation area in building 1 at GRVC. Sykes was confined to his cell for 23

hours each day, and only allowed out of the cell for a one hour recreation period and a

shower each day. DOC staff had turned off the water in his cell, and for two days Sykes

had been unable to flush the toilet or wash himself in his cell. When defendant

Hershaway, a correction officer, served Sykes a meal through the food slot in his cell

door, Sykes held the slot open, and asked Hershaway to restore water to his cell.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

33

Hershaway told Sykes that defendant Ramos, the area captain, did not want Sykes’ water turned on, and then he slammed the slot down on Sykes’ arm. Sykes then requested access to the jail clinic. 65. Shortly afterwards, defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis and Yates approached Sykes’ cell. Defendant Ramos refused Sykes’ request to restore water to his cell but agreed to have him escorted to the clinic. Sykes’ cell was opened and his hands were handcuffed behind his back. When Ramos questioned whether he “really” wanted to go the clinic, and Sykes said he did, Ramos told Dice to “talk to him,” and then walked into the officers’ station. Dice told Sykes that if he went to the clinic, he would have to go for an injury, and then he punched Sykes in the face, knocking him down. Hershaway and Dice then struck Sykes in the face and body while Lewis and Yates stood by and took no steps to protect Sykes from further injury. When he was directed to stand up, Sykes said that he could not, and Dice then threw a bucket of water on him. Dice then told Sykes he had sustained his injury from falling in water in his flooded cell, which was not true. 66. Dice took Sykes outside the housing area and escorted him towards the clinic. He pushed Sykes’ head into a wall, then proceeded to an area adjacent to the clinic. He ordered Sykes to stop walking, then forcefully pushed his head face-first into a glass partition, fracturing his nose and inflicting a 3.5 cm. long triangular laceration over the nose. 67. Sykes was then taken to clinic staff, who documented that he was bleeding at the site of the laceration, had extensive swelling to his forehead, and was complaining of dizziness and blurry vision. Sykes was immediately referred to the “urgi-care” facility, where his nose was sutured. X-rays confirmed fractures to his nose and wrist, which was splinted.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

34

68. Neither the injuries to Sykes’ arm or face were reported by the defendants as having been inflicted by correction staff. An “injury to inmate” report prepared by defendant Ramos, or at his direction, falsely claimed that Sykes’ injuries were sustained when he slipped and fell leaving his cell and when he “ran face first into the clinic door.”
69. Sykes suffered severe physical and emotional injuries, including extensive scarring to his face, as a result of the actions of defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis and Yates on March 28, 2002.
70. Plaintiff Sykes did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Sykes did not provoke the assaults, nor did he conduct himself in any manner that would warrant any use of force: he was beaten and injured solely to punish and intimidate him for requesting that he be provided with running water in his cell. The conduct of defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis and Yates was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Sykes’ rights and physical well-being.
71. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Sykes filed and served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.
Miguel Roman

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

35

72. On or about May 18, 2001, plaintiff Roman, a state prisoner housed at GRVC while

awaiting a court appearance in New York City, was assaulted by two inmates in housing

area 7-A of GRVC. Later that day, Roman was told that he would be transferred to

housing area 8-A. Roman told the officer escorting him to 8-A that he feared he would

be a target of further inmate violence there, and that officer told him to tell the staff of the

housing area that he feared for his safety. Roman did so, and a housing area officer

conveyed Roman’s concerns to defendant Sullivan, a captain. Sullivan ordered Roman to

enter the housing area, but another officer working in the housing area told Roman that it

would probably be unsafe for Roman to enter. Roman then refused to enter, explaining

to Sullivan that the second housing area officer had warned him against doing so.

73. Sullivan entered the officers’ station and moments later emerged to the vestibule where

Roman was standing. Sullivan lunged at Roman and kicked him in the torso, knocking

him down. Sullivan then struck Roman repeatedly with his fists, handcuffed him behind

his back, and continued to punch and kick him. Sullivan called for officer assistance, and

defendants Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12 soon arrived. Deiso grabbed the prone

Roman by the hair and pulled his head up, and Sullivan struck him in the ear with an

open hand. Castro then struck him in the forehead with a baton. Deiso, Castro, Hande,

and Doe 12 kicked Roman multiple times in the back and ribs.

74. After the beating, Roman was escorted to the clinic, where he was treated for a perforated

eardrum, tenderness to his left wrist, left ribs, and tailbone, and numerous bruises,

including one on his forehead measuring three centimeters in diameter, and a large one

on his back. An x-ray taken a week later indicated that Roman had also sustained a

collarbone fracture.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

36

75. Roman was later issued an infraction falsely charging him with assaulting and physically resisting staff. This administrative charge was a deliberate attempt to cover up the misconduct of Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12. The charge was subsequently dismissed.
76. On or about July 2, 2001, Roman was arrested and charged with assault. This charge, which was subsequently dismissed, was a further attempt to cover up the misconduct of Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12
77. As a result of the beating inflicted on him on May 18, 2001, Roman sustained severe physical and emotional injuries.
78. Plaintiff Roman did not provoke the beating inflicted upon him, nor did he conduct himself in a manner that would warrant any use of force. Roman did not assault or attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. The conduct of defendants Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12 was a grossly disproportionate response to Roman’s refusal to follow Sullivan’s order, was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Roman’s rights and physical well-being.
79. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Roman filed and served on the Comptroller of the City of New York, within ninety days of the date of his beating, a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.
Al Smith

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

37

80. On or about February 13, 2001, plaintiff Smith, who was incarcerated after having been accused of a technical parole violation, was in a holding pen with a number of other inmates in the Rikers Island Judicial Center following a hearing on his parole status. One or more inmates in the pen were kicking the door, and defendant Givens entered the doorway of the pen, pointed at Smith, and told him to come out. After Smith refused, fearful that he would be assaulted and falsely accused of kicking the door, defendants Givens, McConnon and Doe 13 entered the pens and began to remove Smith. These defendants, together with defendants McKeller and Cardo, a captain, then took Smith to a hallway and put him on the floor. While Smith was on the floor, Givens punched him in the eye, and defendants Rivera, Doe 13, McKeller, and Cardo, struck him several times in the back, side, and head.
81. After being beaten, Smith was taken to an empty holding pen. When he asked an officer for a doctor, the officer cursed at him and told him, in words or in substance, that he was lucky the officers had not killed him.
82. Smith was later taken to the clinic, where he was treated for a possible fracture to his right orbital rim and contusions, hemorrhaging, and lacerations to his face. Smith also suffered back pain, bleeding from his left outer ear and blurred vision.
83. After the beating, Smith was issued a notice of infraction that charged him with assault on staff, physically resisting staff, and disrupting institutional programs. These charges were fabricated in an attempt to cover up the misconduct of the defendants who participated in the assault on Smith.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

38

84. Smith was arrested by correction officers and falsely charged with assaulting staff. This

arrest was effected to cover up the fact that correction officers had assaulted and brutally

injured Smith.

85. As a result of the beating on February 13, 2001, Smith suffered severe physical and

emotional injuries.

86. The beating defendants inflicted on plaintiff Smith was totally unprovoked. Smith did

not assault or attempt to assault any officer, nor did he at any time present a threat to the

personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. The conduct of defendants

Givens, McConnon, Rivera, McKeller, Cardo, and Doe 13 was malicious and sadistic,

and manifested deliberate indifference to Smith’s rights and physical well-being.

Charles Paige

87. On or about December 4, 2001, plaintiff Paige, a pre-trial detainee, was confined at

ARDC. At approximately 9:30 A.M., his cell block was searched by several correction

officers, including members of the ESU. When a correction officer entered Paige’s cell

and stood on his prayer rug, he asked her to step off the rug. A captain then approached

Paige, admonished him for talking during the search, and after hearing Paige explain why

he had spoken to the officer searching his cell, advised the officer to avoid standing on

his prayer rug. The officer searching the cell then began to throw Paige’s property

around the cell. At the conclusion of the cell search, Paige was directed to return to his

cell and sit on the bed. Shortly thereafter, members of the ESU handcuffed him behind

his back and escorted him to the facility receiving room. During the escort, one or more

of these staff members threatened to beat Paige the next time they encountered him

during a search.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

39

88. Paige was held in the receiving room for approximately one hour. He was then returned to his cell, which was in complete disarray: religious books and personal hygiene items were in the toilet; his radio was smashed. Paige went to the officers’ station and asked the “A” officer to summon the Deputy Warden of Security, Emmanuel Bailey, whom Paige knew.
89. As Paige stood at the officers’ bubble, defendant Roberts, an officer, confronted him and told him he could not attempt to speak to the “A” officer. Roberts pushed Paige towards the front of the housing block, away from other prisoners. Defendant Natale, another officer, then forcefully shoved Paige towards Roberts, who punched Paige in the face. Page fell to the floor, where defendant Natale sprayed him with pepper gas, then cuffed his hands behind his back. While Paige lay on the ground, defendants Roberts and Natale punched him repeatedly in the body. Natale then pulled Paige’s handcuffs to stand him up, and once Paige was on his feet, Natale punched him again in the body. A “response team” arrived in the housing area and removed Paige to the hallway.
90. Two members of the “response team,” defendant correction officers Doe 14 and Doe 15, each held Paige by an arm while their supervisor, defendant Captain Doe 16, stood by. As Doe 14 and Doe 15 held Paige, defendant Roberts repeatedly punched Paige in his face. Other members of the “response team,” Does 17 and 18, punched Paige in the body. This beating took place in full view of the supervising captain, defendant Doe 16, who took no action to stop it or to prevent further injury to Paige.
91. Paige was taken to the facility clinic, where staff documented extensive bruising and swelling to his forehead, cheek, jaw, back and legs. He was then transferred to Bellevue

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

40

Hospital, where x-rays confirmed that he had sustained a comminuted, displaced fracture

of the zygomatic arch.

92. Paige was falsely charged with assault on staff in an attempt to cover up the fact that he

had been beaten by officers. Paige was found guilty of the administrative charges and

sentenced to 110 days in punitive segregation. While in punitive segregation, Paige was

confined to a cell for twenty-three hours a day, required to eat in his cell, afforded limited

telephone and law library privileges, and restrained with his hands cuffed behind him

whenever he left his cell.

93. Paige did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the

personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Paige did not provoke the

assault, nor did he conduct himself in any manner that would warrant any use of force: he

was beaten and injured solely to punish and intimidate him for requesting to speak to a

supervisor concerning the destruction of his property during a cell search. The conduct

of defendants Roberts, Natale, and Does 14-18 was malicious and sadistic, and

manifested deliberate indifference to Paige’s rights and physical well-being.

94. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Paige filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the

City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.

Jamal Butler

95. On or about December 25, 2001, Jamal Butler, a state prisoner, was housed in AMKC

pursuant to a New York State Family Court order. Earlier that day, AMKC staff had

assaulted another prisoner in 12 Upper, the housing area immediately adjoining Mr.

Butler’s. After witnessing that prisoner being struck in the face and kicked while in

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

41

handcuffs, a number of prisoners in Mr. Butler’s housing area began to yell at the staff to stop assaulting the prisoner. A “response team” was dispatched to Mr. Butler’s housing area to confront the inmates, who were ordered to lock into their cells, which they did without further incident. 96. Later that evening, at approximately 10 P.M., correction officers struck another prisoner in 12 Upper with batons and dragged him by the hair into an area visible from 10 Upper, where Mr. Butler was housed. Again, prisoners in 10 Upper shouted at staff to stop injuring the prisoner, and again a “response team” was dispatched. As the team approached the gate to 10 Upper, its captain, defendant Wright, sprayed prisoners indiscriminately with pepper spray while ordering them to lock in. Butler and other prisoners on the tier were unable to lock in because their cells were locked, consistent with DOC policy. 97. Defendants Wright, Small (a captain), and a number of officers, including defendants Elliot, Berkeley, Grayson, Barbour (a captain), and Does 21, 22, and 24-28 then entered 10 Upper, swinging their batons and striking prisoners on the tier, including Butler. Defendants Berkeley, Grayson, and Doe 21 threw Butler face first on the tier, handcuffed him and struck him on the back with their batons. While Butler was lying face down on the tier, defendant Doe 22 placed a tee shirt around Butler’s neck and tightened it, cutting off his breath. Barbour and Doe 24 grabbed Butler’s hair and pants and dragged him to the front of the housing area, where he was placed on his feet and struck in his head with a baton by defendant Elliot. Elliot, Barbour, and Doe 24 then pushed Butler down a flight of stairs.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

42

98. Other members of the response team escorted Butler and a number of other prisoners from 10 Upper to the AMKC receiving room, where they were placed in a pen. Butler was bleeding from a head laceration sustained when he was struck by defendant Elliot. After approximately one hour, a group of ESU officers, Does 29-38, entered the receiving room and proceeded from one cell to the next, punching and kicking prisoners who had been removed from 10 Upper. When these defendants entered Butler’s pen, he tried to crawl under a bench but was dragged by his pants and struck with fists and kicks.
99. At approximately 2 A.M., clinic staff examined Butler and noted head lacerations, a “strangle injury” (“ligature marks”), multiple “patterned contusions with edema” on his back and shoulder, and a possible scapular fracture. He was transferred to the Emergency Room at Elmhurst Hospital, where his scalp laceration was sutured and he was x-rayed.
100. As a result of the beating on December 25, 2001, Butler suffered severe physical and emotional injuries, including scarring to his head and neck.
101. The defendants’ attack on Butler was totally unprovoked. Butler did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. The beating was effected solely to inflict pain and injury against him and other prisoners who had protested the beatings of other prisoners. Butler was never afforded an opportunity to comply with the order to lock in his cell before he was gassed and beaten. The conduct of the defendants who beat him, both in his housing area and in the receiving room, was malicious, sadistic and arbitrary, and manifested deliberate indifference to Butler’s rights and physical well-being.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

43

102. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Richard filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the

City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.

Andre Pratt

103. On or about December 17, 2001 Andre Pratt, a pre-trial detainee, was held at the Vernon

C. Bain Center (“VCBC”). At approximately 7:30 A.M., a large group of correction

officers, supervised by defendant Captain Velez, began a search of Pratt’s housing area.

After Pratt’s locker was searched, he was directed to proceed to his bed. Pratt told a

correction officer that he would be unable to lift his mattress, which is part of the search

routine, because he had prosthetic devices in both arms which were surgically inserted to

repair extensive injuries sustained in an automobile accident several years ago.

Defendant Velez yelled at Pratt, calling him “Michael Jackson.” (Pratt was wearing a

silk shirt.)

104. When Pratt did not respond, Velez cursed at him, and Pratt told him that his name was

not “Michael Jackson.” Velez then ordered an officer, defendant Doe 39, to “take” or

“get him,” and defendant Doe 39 grabbed Pratt by his the back of his shirt and threw him

forcefully onto a table. As Pratt lay draped over the table, a number of officers, including

Does 39-44, kicked and punched him in his body and buttocks. A number of blows

struck Pratt’s right arm.

105. Members of the search team then dragged Pratt, whose hands were cuffed behind his

back, out of the housing area and escorted him to the receiving room. Pratt was bleeding

from the site of the previous surgery on his right arm and asked a captain in the receiving

room, defendant Haynes, to allow him to go to the clinic. Defendant Haynes told him

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

44

that if he reported his injuries had been sustained in a “use of force,” he would be re-

arrested for assaulting staff. Pratt then agreed not to report that he had been injured by

staff, and he was transferred to a different housing area. Neither Captain Haynes, nor any

of the defendants who participated in beating Pratt, nor any of the other staff members

who witnessed the assault, reported the use of force to jail supervisors.

106. After several days, Pratt was transferred to OBCC, a jail on Rikers Island.

Approximately one week later, he developed a purulent discharge from the wound site on

his right arm and pain and reduced range of motion in the arm. Facility clinic staff, who

suspected that there was an infection at the site of the prosthetic hardware in the arm,

transferred him to Bellevue Hospital. He was diagnosed there with a septic shoulder,

admitted, and operated on for drainage and lavage of his shoulder and removal of the

prosthetic hardware. Pratt subsequently underwent eight weeks of antibiotic intravenous

therapy to cure his infection.

107. As a result of the beating on or about December 17, 2001, Pratt suffered severe physical

and emotional injuries.

108. The defendants’ attack on Pratt was totally unprovoked. Pratt did not assault or attempt

to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to

the security of the jail. The beating was effected solely to inflict pain and injury in

retaliation for Pratt’s having suggested that his physical limitations prevented him from

performing the tasks normally associated with a jail housing area search. The conduct of

the defendants who beat him was malicious, sadistic and arbitrary, and manifested

deliberate indifference to Pratt’s rights and physical well-being. Defendant Haynes’

warning to Pratt not to report that he had been injured by staff was a deliberate attempt to

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

45

interfere with his access to necessary medical care and to deny him the opportunity to

request an investigation of the incident.

109. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Pratt filed and served

on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the City

of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.

Robert Allaway

110. On or about July 22, 2000, plaintiff Allaway, a pre-trial detainee, was returning to his cell

in GMDC after breakfast when he asked a female officer for toilet paper. Defendant

Kramer mocked this request, and Allaway swore at him. After entering his cell, Allaway

turned around and saw Kramer in the doorway of the cell. Kramer punched Allaway in

the face and rushed into his cell. Allaway pushed Kramer away. The two fought, and

Kramer fell to the floor and was removed from the area by other officers. Shortly

afterward, defendant Mulvaney, a captain, arrived with a response team and told Allaway

to come out of his cell. Allaway, fearing that he would be assaulted if he did so, initially

refused, but finally complied. Allaway was handcuffed and escorted to the receiving area

by Mulvaney and, on information and belief, defendant Guarneri. While escorting

Allaway, Mulvaney struck him with a baton and Guarneri punched him in the ribs.

111. En route to the receiving area, Allaway saw defendant Owusu, a deputy warden. Owusu

swung at Allaway, who ducked.

112. Allaway was placed in a pen in the receiving room, still in handcuffs, and shortly

afterwards defendants Captains Does 46-48, and Officers Cox and Does 49-52 entered.

Cox and Does 46-52 struck Allaway several times; then Allaway was shackled and Cox

and Does 46-52 kicked and punched him multiple times until he was bleeding from the

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

46

face and legs. The group left the pen, after which a second group of staff, Captain

Spencer, Does 54-55, all captains, and Does 56-60, all officers, entered. Defendant

Spencer struck him several times in the torso with a blunt object. This group left but

came back, removed Allaway’s cuffs and shackles, and resumed punching and kicking

him. During the beating, Allaway struggled to push his assailants away and get out of the

receiving room, but never managed to escape the pen. He was handcuffed again, kicked

and punched several more times.

113. Allaway was later escorted to the clinic, from which he was transported by an emergency

medical team to the hospital. He remained there for three days, where he was treated for

a collapsed lung, a cardiac contusion, a broken rib, and multiple abrasions and contusions

all over his head and body.

114. After the beating, Allaway was falsely charged administratively with assault on staff in

an attempt to cover up the misconduct of defendants Mulvaney, Kramer, Guarneri, Cox,

Spencer, and Owusu, and Does 46-52, and Does 54-60. The charge was later dismissed.

115. As a result of the beating inflicted on him on July 22, 2000, Allaway suffered severe

physical injuries and emotional distress.

116. Allaway’s beating was not provoked by any assault upon or attempt to assault any

officer, nor by any threat or perceived threat to the security of the jail or anyone therein.

The beating was a grossly disproportionate response to Allaway’s resistance to Kramer’s

initial assault, and was intended to punish him for having struggled with Kramer.

Defendants Mulvaney, Kramer, Guarneri, Cox, Spencer, Owusu, Does 46-52, and Does

54-60, acted sadistically and maliciously, and manifested deliberate indifference to

Allaway’s rights and physical well-being.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

47

Patrick Washington 117. On or about December 3, 2001, plaintiff Washington, a pre-trial detainee, returned to
ARDC after a court proceeding. Upon entering the facility, he was ordered to stand in line in the facility receiving room, together with a number of adolescents returning from court, under the supervision of defendants Powell, a correction officer, and Gallagher, a captain. Apparently reacting to a remark made by one of the adolescent prisoners, Gallagher obtained a baton from an adjacent area, approached the line of prisoners, and stood next to Washington. He pointed the baton at one of the adolescent prisoners and threatened to beat him so badly he would not be able to return to his housing area. Washington then stepped back, and admonished the adolescent to behave appropriately. Defendant Gallagher then grabbed Washington by his clothing, announced to the other prisoners that he “had his herb,” pulled him away from the other prisoners, and then struck him with great force over his left eye with the baton, knocking him to the ground. Gallagher then struck Washington with the baton a number of times over his body. While Gallagher was beating Washington, Powell made no effort to stop the assault or prevent Washington from being injured. 118. After assaulting him with the baton, Gallagher directed a correction officer to remove Washington to an isolated room, where he remained, bleeding from the open wound over his eye, for approximately one hour, when he was taken to the facility clinic. While he was in the room, Gallagher threw a white towel at him and told him he “hope[d] he got a good lawyer.” At the jail clinic, medical staff documented a deep laceration over his left eye brow 3.5 cm. in length which was actively bleeding, swelling and discoloration to

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

48

this left cheek, and bruising and discoloration to the left shoulder and left hip.

Washington was sent to the “urgi-care” facility, where his eyebrow was sutured.

119. Defendants Powell and Gallagher falsely charged Washington with assaulting Gallagher

and refusing his orders. These disciplinary charges were lodged to cover up their own

misconduct. Washington was found guilty of the administrative charges, and sentenced

to serve 110 days in punitive segregation. While in punitive segregation, Washington

was confined to a cell for twenty-three hours a day, required to eat in his cell, afforded

limited telephone and law library privileges, and restrained with his hands cuffed behind

him whenever he left his cell.

120. Several weeks after the Legal Aid Society submitted a written complaint and request for

an investigation to the Department of Correction, Washington was arrested and charged

with assaulting Captain Gallagher.

121. Both the administrative and criminal charges were lodged against Washington to attempt

to cover up the misconduct of defendants Powell and Gallagher.

122. As a result of the beating he sustained on December 3, 2001, Washington suffered severe

physical and emotional injuries.

123. Plaintiff Washington did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a

threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Washington did

not provoke the assault, nor did he conduct himself in any manner that would warrant any

use of force: he was beaten in the presence of a number of adolescent prisoner in order to

to frighten and intimidate these prisoners. The conduct of defendants Gallagher and

Powell was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to

Washington’s rights and physical well-being.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

49

124. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Washington filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the

City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.

Randolph Johnson

125. On or about June 28, 2001, at approximately 10 p.m., plaintiff Johnson was returned to

OBCC following a court appearance, and was taken to a pen in the jail’s receiving room.

Johnson and several other inmates in the receiving room asked an officer if there was

any food available, as they had not eaten since mid-day. Corrections staff told Johnson

he would be fed in an hour. However, after the change of tour at 11 p.m., no food had

been brought for any of the inmates.

126. After Johnson and the other inmates continued to complain about not being fed, receiving

room officers directed Johnson to exit the pen and proceed to a pen that was farthest

removed from the other prisoners. Johnson feared that he would be assaulted once he

was isolated, and began to walk to the pen in the front of the receiving room. Defendant

Williamson, an officer, grabbed Johnson by the shoulder and threw him to the ground.

Williamson and defendants Hernandez, a captain, and Graham and Smalls, both officers,

then punched and kicked Johnson, repeatedly striking him in the head, face and groin.

These defendants then dragged Johnson on the ground to the pen farthest removed from

the other prisoners, and locked him in.

127. Once in the pen, Johnson, who was bleeding from his ear and in severe pain, cursed at the

officers and captain. Defendants Hernandez, Graham, Smalls, and Williamson then

approached the front of the pen and Hernandez, Williamson, and either Graham or

Smalls sprayed Johnson with pepper spray.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

50

128. Although visibly injured, Johnson was not provided with medical attention until a jail

supervisor made a tour of the receiving room and found him in the pen, reeking of pepper

spray. This supervisor ordered that Johnson be taken to a medical facility immediately.

When seen in the jail clinic, he was diagnosed with a perforated ear drum, abrasion to his

testicle, and back and neck trauma.

129. As a result of the beating he received on June 28, 2001, Johnson suffered severe physical

and emotional injuries.

130. Plaintiff Johnson did not assault or threaten to assault any officer, nor did he present a

threat to the physical safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Defendants

Williamson, Graham, Smalls, and Hernandez beat Johnson to punish him for protesting

their failure to feed him, and for challenging their order to move to an isolated cell where

he feared he would be beaten. The conduct of defendants Williamson, Graham, Smalls,

and Hernandez was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to

Johnson’s rights and physical well-being.

131. After beating Johnson, defendants Williamson and Hernandez prepared administrative

charges falsely alleging that Johnson had assaulted them. At an administrative

proceeding, Johnson was advised that correction staff had prepared three infractions

against him, although he had been served with only one. Johnson was advised that all the

infractions would be dismissed.

132. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Johnson filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York, within ninety days of the date of his

beating, a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date this claim has

not been settled.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

51

Rogelio Figueroa

133. On or about February 24, 2002, plaintiff Figueroa was incarcerated in a punitive

segregation area in building 2 at GRVC as a pre-trial detainee under the name, “Jose

Ortega.” Because of a defect in the sewer drainage system, waste water had flooded the

tier in front of several cells, including Figueroa’s. In mid to late morning, an inmate

worker, accompanied by defendant Torres, a correction officer, delivered a tray through

the food slot in Figueroa’s cell. Figueroa took the tray, then placed his arm through the

slot and asked Torres for a mop so that he could clean his cell floor, which smelled of

human waste. Defendant Crooms, a captain who was the area supervisor, told Figueroa

that he could leave the slot open and an inmate sanitation worker would provide him a

mop to clean his cell. Despite the captain’s instructions to leave the cell slot open,

defendant Debblay, a correction officer, instructed Figueroa to remove his arm from the

slot and allow it to be closed. Defendant Torres came to Figueroa’s cell and requested

the “A” officer to open the cell door electronically. Defendants Debblay and Torres then

entered the cell and began to push and strike at Figueroa, who ran out of the cell on to the

tier and requested to see a captain. Defendant Debblay and Torres then threw Figueroa to

the floor, placed him in handcuffs, and escorted him to the search area of the block,

where defendant Echiveria, a correction officer, removed the handcuffs and instructed

Figueroa to place his hands behind his back, where they were cuffed again.

134. Defendants Echiveria, Clark (a correction officer), Torres, and Debblay then removed

Figueroa from the housing area. While Echiveria held Figueroa by the rear cuffs,

defendant Turrissi, a correction officer, punched him in the face, causing him to fall to

the floor. Defendants Debblay, Turrissi, Torres, Echiveria and Clark then began kicking

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

52

Figueroa, who was on the floor, handcuffed, and unable to protect himself. Figueroa was

struck in his eye, ears and body. While they were beating him, one of the defendant

officers summoned a “response team.” Supervised by a captain, defendant Navoy, the

response team escorted Figueroa to the facility receiving room. As they proceeded,

defendant Navoy twice pushed Figueroa into magnetometers, striking his head.

Defendant Echeveria punched Figueroa several times in his ribs while the group

proceeded through the jail corridors.

135. Figueroa was held in the facility receiving room for several hours before receiving

medical attention. The jail clinicians documented diffuse, severe blunt force trauma to his

head, face and body, including two perforated eardrums, lacerations over both eyes, a

hematoma in the back of his head and chest and back tenderness. Figueroa was then

taken by EMS to Elmhurst Hospital, where x-rays confirmed at least one broken rib.

136. Defendants falsely charged Figueroa with assault on staff, but after Figueroa requested

that the hearing officer take testimony from several prisoner witnesses, his hearing was

adjourned and never resumed. Figueroa was then arrested on a criminal charge of assault

on staff, but this charge was subsequently dismissed. Both the administrative and

criminal charges were based on false allegations, and were intended to cover-up

defendants’ malicious assault on Figueroa.

137. Figueroa suffered severe physical and emotional injuries as a result of the actions of

defendants Torres, Clark, Echiveria, Debblay, Turrissi and Navoy on February 24, 2002.

138. Plaintiff Figueroa did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a

threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Figueroa did not

provoke the assaults, nor did he conduct himself in any manner that would warrant any

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

53

use of force: he was beaten and injured solely to punish and intimidate him for requesting that he be provided with a mop to clean up the sewage flooding his cell. The conduct of defendants Torres, Clark, Echiveria, Debblay, Turrissi and Navoy was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Figueroa’s rights and physical wellbeing. 139. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Figueroa filed and served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled. Paul Person 140. On or about the afternoon of May 2, 2000, plaintiff Person, a pre-trial detainee, was in a hallway in GRVC on his way to the clinic when he was confronted by defendants Swetokas and Mastroainni. Without provocation, either Mastroainni or Swetokas took hold of Person from behind while the other punched Person in the nose. A squad of officers soon arrived. Person was handcuffed while lying on his stomach, then he was kicked in the mouth by Swetokas or Mastroainni. The incident was witnessed by defendant Daniels, a captain, who took no steps to protect Person from injury. 141. After the assault, Person was taken to the clinic, where he was treated for a nasal fracture, lip lacerations, back strain, and lumbar and wrist contusions. 142. Person was falsely charged administratively with, and found guilty of, assaulting staff. He was also arrested and falsely charged criminally with assaulting an officer. Subsequently, he pled guilty to harassment in the second degree. The criminal charges were fabricated in order to cover up the misconduct of Swetokas and Mastroainni.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

54

143. As a result of the beating he received on May 2, 2000, Person suffered severe physical and emotional injuries.
144. Plaintiff Person did not assault or attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Person did not provoke the assault, nor did he conduct himself in a manner warranting use of force. The attack by Swetokas and Mastroainni was apparently motivated by their anger that Person had heard them being chastised by a captain and had argued with them the previous evening. The conduct of Swetokas, Mastroainni, and Daniels was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Person’s rights and physical well-being.
Calvin Daniels 145. On or about June 24, 2001, Calvin Daniels, who had been sentenced but remained in
DOC custody awaiting transfer to state custody, was confined at ARDC. Late at night, defendant Straughn, an officer assigned to Daniels’ housing area, shut off the lights in the inmate bathroom while Daniels was there. Daniels complained to Straughn, who, together with defendant Wells, the other officer assigned to the area, approached Daniels. Wells ordered Daniels to step outside the dormitory. Daniels complied. 146. Outside the housing area, Wells admonished Daniels for having complained about shutting off the lights, and Straughn ridiculed him. Wells then grabbed Daniels from the rear and pulled him to the floor, placing his knee on Daniels’ back and holding him by the neck. Straughn entered the officers’ station and summoned a captain, who then entered the officers’ station. Wells attempted to place Daniels in handcuffs, but Daniels resisted and said he would not be cuffed unless the captain was present. Wells then

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

55

forcefully slammed Daniels’ face on the floor, fracturing his zygoma, and pulled his arms

behind his back in order to place him in handcuffs.

147. By the time Daniels was handcuffed, a “response team” had arrived outside his housing

area. Several officers on the response team advised Daniels, in front of the captain who

was supervising them, that he should report that he had fallen and injured his face;

otherwise, he was told, he would be charged with assaulting staff. The response team

then escorted Daniels to the facility receiving room.

148. Daniels was housed in a cell in the receiving room. Suffering from a facial fracture, and

in severe pain, he asked a correction officer, John Doe 64, and a captain, John Doe 65, to

allow him to see a doctor. Both refused. At approximately 4 a.m., he was returned to his

housing area. Shortly after noon on June 25, Daniels again requested to be taken to see a

doctor, and he was escorted to the facility clinic. He reported that he had been injured

the night before, and complained of facial pain and an inability to open his mouth. The

clinician referred him for x-rays, which documented a comminuted, displaced fracture of

the right zygomatic arch.

149. As a result of the beating on June 24, 2001, Daniels suffered severe physical and

emotional injuries.

150. The defendants’ attack on Daniels as totally unprovoked. Daniels did not assault or

attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any

officer or to the security of the jail. Defendants’ beat Daniels solely to inflict pain and

injury in retaliation for Daniel’s having complained about the lights being turned off in

the bathroom area of his dormitory. The conduct of the defendants who beat him was

malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Daniels’ rights and

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

56

physical well-being. The refusal of John Doe 64 and John Doe 65 to allow Daniels access to the clinic after he was beaten was a deliberate attempt to interfere with his access to necessary medical care and to deny him the opportunity to request an investigation of the incident. 151. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Daniels filed and served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled. Bobby Jones 152. On or about the evening of June 13, 2001, plaintiff Jones, a pretrial detainee, was in a pen in the intake area of the Barge after returning from court. Defendant Lopez took Jones out of the pen and told him to strip, which Jones did. Lopez then applied plastic handcuffs to Jones and fastened them too tightly, causing Jones significant pain. Defendant Lopez told Jones to squat and Jones complied, whereupon Lopez kicked Jones in the testicles. Defendants Vasquez and Fernandez observed Lopez assaulting Jones and did not intervene. Jones fell to the ground, whereupon Lopez started kicking Jones in the body and face. Either Vasquez or Fernandez then struck Jones forcefully in the ear with a radio while Lopez stood by. 153. Jones was uncuffed, told to put on his clothes, and placed back in the pen. Either Vasquez or Fernandez had been standing at the door of the intake area during the assault, and after the assault this officer told Jones, who was crying, to “take it like a man” and warned him not to report the assault or he would be served with an infraction. Jones was later taken to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a perforated ear drum.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

57

154. Jones was falsely charged administratively with assault on staff based on the events of June 13, 2001; the charge was an effort to cover up the misconduct of Lopez, Fernandez, and Vasquez. Jones was found guilty on those charges after a hearing held in his absence. Jones was not informed that he had been charged until after the hearing took place, and as a result was not able to defend himself against the false allegations.
155. On or about July 19, 2001, Jones was arrested and criminally charged with assault. The arrest was a further attempt to cover up the egregious misconduct of Lopez, Fernandez, and Vasquez.
156. As a result of being beaten, Jones suffered severe physical injuries and emotional distress.
157. The assault on plaintiff Jones was completely unprovoked. Jones did not assault or attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. In their intentional infliction of pain and injury on Jones, defendants Lopez, Vasquez, and Fernandez were malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Jones’ rights and physical well-being. Defendant Vasquez’s or Fernandez’s attempt to coerce Jones into not reporting the assault demonstrated deliberate indifference to Jones’ rights.
158. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Jones filed and served on the Comptroller of the City of New York, within ninety days of the date of his beating, a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.
Phillip Campbell

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

58

159. On or about March 25, 2001, plaintiff Campbell, a pre-trial detainee, was in the search room of the intake area of ARDC. He had just returned from a visit, at which he had asked an officer for extra time to say goodbye to his visitor. In preparation to be searched, Campbell had just removed all of his clothing when defendant Case punched him in the face several times while defendant Wright held Campbell’s arms from behind. Campbell fell to the floor and was cuffed, after which he was punched and kicked in his face, his ribs, and his buttocks by defendant Case while Wright stood on Campbell’s hands.
160. After the beating, the officers removed Campbell’s handcuffs and told him to get dressed. After he did so, he was escorted to a holding pen in the intake room. He was approached there by defendant Fisher, who urged Campbell to tell medical clinic staff that his injuries were the result of a fight with another inmate, not of a beating by correction staff. When Campbell refused to agree to do so, Fisher told Campbell that he would be charged with assault on staff.
161. After being held in the pen for a number of hours, Campbell went to the clinic, where he was treated for multiple contusions and lacerations to his ribs and head; the laceration to Campbell’s lip and gums was repaired with fourteen sutures.
162. Campbell was later falsely charged administratively with, and found guilty of, assaulting and resisting staff. The charge was an attempt to cover up the misconduct of Case, Fisher, and Wright.
163. As a result of the beating inflicted on him on March 25, 2001, Campbell suffered severe physical and emotional injuries.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

59

164. Plaintiff Campbell was beaten utterly without provocation. Campbell did not assault or

attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any

officer or to the security of the jail. Defendants Case and Wright beat Campbell solely to

inflict pain and injury on Campbell to punish him for requesting extra time with his

visitor. The beating was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to

Campbell’s rights and physical well-being. Defendant Fisher’s attempt to coerce

Campbell into lying about the cause of his injuries manifested deliberate difference to

Campbell’s rights.

Johnathan Lukes

165. On the evening of May 8, 2000, the ESU performed a search of the 3A housing area of

NIC. During the search, defendant Perez (an ESU captain), and defendants Gatto and

Bradford, ESU officers, singled out plaintiff Lukes for a particularly intensive search.

Officers’ references to Lukes as a “fucking homo” and “tinkerbell” during the incident,

suggested that they focused their attention on Lukes because he is homosexual. The

defendant officers ordered Lukes to strip while in his cell and to bend over and spread his

buttocks. They then told Lukes to leave the cell while they searched it, discovering gay

literature (which is not prohibited in the jails) and a quart of milk. Defendant Perez

began throwing Lukes’ belongings out of the cell, striking Lukes with some of them.

When Lukes protested, Captain Perez threw Lukes’ radio on the floor.

166. The defendant officers then handcuffed Lukes and took him to the intake area. They

instructed Lukes and the other inmates present to face the wall, and removed Lukes’ cuffs

and ordered him to strip. When Lukes requested that officers get a video camera,

defendants Gatto and Bradford began to punch and kick Lukes in the head and torso,

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

60

drawing blood. Officers then handcuffed Lukes and resumed punching and kicking him. They then stopped, warning Lukes to lie on the floor without moving. After some minutes, they resumed the assault, again warning Lukes not to move. 167. After the beating, the defendant officers ordered Lukes to lie on the floor, handcuffed, where he remained for approximately half an hour, bleeding from his face. Officers removed his belt, pants, and shirt, then ordered him to remain kneeling for several minutes. They then removed Lukes’ handcuffs and left the area. 168. As a result of the beating on May 8, 2000, Lukes sustained severe physical injuries, including a laceration and blunt trauma to his left orbital rim, and multiple bruises and contusions about his head and body. 169. Lukes was issued an infraction, falsely charging him with assault on staff, and was found guilty by an “Adjudication Captain.” This disciplinary charge was a calculated attempt to cover up the misconduct of defendants Perez, Gatto, and Bradford. Lukes successfully appealed the finding of guilt. 170. The beating defendants inflicted on Lukes was provoked solely by the intent to inflict pain, injury, and humiliation, and to punish him for requesting that a video camera be used to tape the search. Plaintiff Lukes did not assault or attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. The conduct of defendants Perez, Gatto, and Bradford was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Lukes’ rights and his physical well-being.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

61

Lamont Bradley

171. On or about December 5, 2001, plaintiff Bradley, a pre-trial detainee incarcerated at

GRVC, was locked in his cell, waiting for an escort officer to take him to the visiting

room. Bradley had been informed that his former wife had arrived at the facility to visit

him, and he was expecting her to bring clothing so that he could attend his brother’s

funeral the next day. At approximately 3:30 p.m, Bradley and the other prisoners in his

housing area remained locked in their cells, after the completion of the institutional

count. Bradley asked defendant Chapman, an officer assigned to the housing area, to

expedite his escort to the visit room. Defendant Keith Jackson, an officer assigned to the

adjacent housing area, banged on Bradley’s cell door, cursed at him, and told him to

“shut up.”

172. Approximately one half hour later, defendant Chapman released Bradley from his cell,

but continued to lock-in all the other prisoners in the housing area. Chapman told

Bradley that defendant R. Jackson would escort him to the visit area. R. Jackson then

cuffed Bradley’s hands behind his back. Defendant Keith Jackson cursed at Bradley,

then punched him in the mouth, causing him to fall on one knee. Keith Jackson then

kicked Bradley in the back, forcing him to the floor, where he kicked him again, in the

face. While Keith Jackson was kicking Bradley, defendants Chapman and R. Jackson

stood by and took no steps to intervene or prevent Bradley from being injured. While

Bradley was being kicked, or shortly afterwards, one of the officers sounded an alarm,

summoning a “response team” to the housing area.

173. Members of the response team escorted Bradley to the clinic, where medical staff treated

his injuries, which included a large bruise and swelling to the back of his head, a

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

62

contusion and swelling of the left upper eyelid, which covered part of his eye, tenderness to the cheek and three discrete lacerations to his lower lip, which were sutured. Clinic staff then referred Bradley to a psychiatric social worker, to whom he expressed his distress at having been beaten while in handcuffs merely because he had requested assistance in getting to a visit. Because of his injuries and the medical attention he required, Bradley did not meet with his visitor, who had been directed to leave the jail. On the following day, Bradley–with his face sutured and swollen and his left eye partially closed–attended his brother’s funeral under DOC escort. Before leaving for the funeral, a GRVC supervisor, Captain Hernandez, advised Bradley to tell his family that he had injured his face “playing ball.” 174. Bradley received an infraction, falsely charging him administratively with assault on staff. Three weeks later, after the Legal Aid Society submitted a written complaint about the beating and requested an investigation, Bradley was arrested on the false charge of assaulting an officer. The administrative and criminal charges were initiated in an attempt to cover up the misconduct of defendants K. Jackson, R. Jackson and Chapman. 175. As a result of the beating on December 5, 2001 Bradley suffered severe physical and emotional injuries. 176. The defendants’ attack on Bradley was totally unprovoked. Bradley did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. The beating was effected solely to inflict pain and injury in retaliation for Bradley’s having requested assistance in meeting with his visitor. The conduct of defendants K. Jackson, R. Jackson and Chapman was malicious and

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

63

sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Bradley’s rights and physical well-

being.

177. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Bradley filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the

City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.

Gary Smith

178. On or about May 21, 2001, the ESU entered the 3-Upper housing area of OBCC on a

TSO at approximately 5:00 a.m. The inmates in the housing area, including plaintiff

Smith, who was confined as a parole violator, were ordered to line up and enter the day

room. There, they were ordered to remain lined up according to their bunk order, in a

close back-to-front formation, with each inmate’s toes making contact with the heels of

the inmate before him. One of the members of the search team told the assembled

inmates that they were there “for two reasons: because we were called, and to fuck you

up.”

179. As the inmates were lining up and proceeding into the day room, and while they were

standing in formation in the day room, one captain and several officers slapped several

inmates in the back of the head and verbally abused them, apparently in an attempt to

anger or provoke them. Some inmates were punched in the ribs and shoved into one

another.

180. Defendant Lamont, on information and belief, shoved Smith into the inmate in front of

him. Lamont then grabbed Smith by the hair, punched him in the face, jerked his head

back, and kicked Smith’s feet out from under him. The blow knocked Smith to the floor,

where he hit his head on the concrete.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

64

181. Smith protested that he could not breathe and that the officers were hurting his neck,

whereupon he was punched in the chest and kicked in the midsection by defendants

Lamont and, on information and belief, Valentine.

182. After the beating, Smith was handcuffed, dragged to the corridor outside the day room

and left to lie on the floor. Smith requested medical attention. He was escorted to the

intake area, where he remained until approximately 8:00 a.m., at which time he was taken

to the clinic.

183. Smith was falsely charged administratively with, and found guilty of, physically resisting

staff and disobeying direct orders, in connection with the May 21, 2001, incident. The

charge was intended to cover up the misconduct of defendants Lamont and Valentine.

184. As a result of the beating inflicted on him on May 21, 2001, Smith sustained serious

physical injuries, including severe headaches, strain to his neck and cervical spine, and

suspected nerve damage, as well as emotional distress.

185. Plaintiff Smith did not assault or attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat

to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. Smith did not provoke

the assault, nor did he conduct himself in a manner that would warrant any use of force.

The conduct of defendants Lamont and Valentine was malicious and sadistic, and

manifested deliberate indifference to Smith’s rights and physical well-being.

186. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Smith filed and

served on the Comptroller of the City of New York, within ninety days of the date of his

beating, a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has

not been settled.

Darold Freeman

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

65

187. On or about October 31, 1999, in his dormitory at GMDC, plaintiff Freeman, a pre-trial

detainee, was speaking with an inmate who was being transferred to another facility.

When he continued to speak with the other inmate despite defendant Kinder’s order to

“mind his business,” defendant Rivera instructed Freeman to step out of the dormitory

area and stand against the wall. Freeman complied with the order, and as he was putting

his hands against the wall, Rivera sprayed him with chemical agent, punched him in the

face, and knocked him to the ground. Freeman was then told to kneel. A response team

soon arrived, and members of the team, defendant officers John Doe 66, Doe 67, and Doe

68, struck Freeman several more times, or stood by and observed the beating and took no

steps to intervene. Freeman was then escorted to the receiving area, where he waited for

approximately seven hours before being taken to the clinic for treatment of his injuries.

188. As a result of the beating on October 31, 1999, Freeman received severe physical

injuries, including a broken nose and bruises to his face and body. Freeman also suffered

severe emotional damage as a result of the assault.

189. Freeman was falsely charged administratively with, and found guilty of, assaulting and

threatening staff. The charge was fabricated in order to cover up the misconduct of

defendants Rivera, Kinder and Does 66-68.

190. Plaintiff Freeman’s beating was completely unprovoked. Freeman did not assault or

attempt to assault any officer, nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any

officer or to the security of the jail. Freeman was beaten as punishment for talking to

another prisoner after he was told not to. The conduct of defendants Rivera, Kinder, and

Does 66-68 was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to

Freeman’s rights and well-being.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

66

Eric Richards

191. On or about January 29, 2002, Eric Richards, a pre-trial detainee, was in a cell in the

court pens adjacent to the Supreme Court, Queens County, while he waited to be escorted

to the court room for an appearance in his criminal case. Defendant Pennes, an Assistant

Deputy Warden, ordered Richards to submit to a strip search in the cell. Richards

objected on religious grounds to being searched in front of female correction officers, and

Pennes cursed at him. Pennes directed that he be moved out of the cell. Richards’ arms

were handcuffed behind his back and he was taken to an isolated area of the receiving

room. Pennes then ordered several correction officers, including defendant Sanacore, to

remove Richards’ clothes, which they did, forcefully throwing him to the ground and

pulling off his shoes, pants and shirt. While Richards lay naked on the ground in

handcuffs, one or more of the uniformed staff members, including defendant Sanacore,

grabbed his buttocks, and Pennes made a crude, threatening and sexually offensive

remark to Richards.

192. Richards was then placed naked in a cell. Some time later, his clothes were thrown into

the cell, and after another ten or fifteen minutes, he was uncuffed and permitted to dress

himself. Afterwards, he was taken from the cell, placed again in rear handcuffs, and

escorted to the area where prisoners await DOC busses that return them to their jails.

Richards asked one of the correction officers for his legal papers, which had been missing

since he was forcibly stripped earlier that morning. Pennes approached Richards and

cursed at him. Four officers assigned to the Transportation Division, defendants Russo,

Dougherty, and John Does 71 and 72 grabbed Richards and threw him forcefully on the

ground. Pennes straddled his back and pushed his fingers forcefully on Richards’ eyes.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

67

The Transportation officers and other officers assigned to the Queens court pens, defendants Doe 73, Boyles, and Mitchell punched and kicked Richards, striking him over his face, head and body. The beating ceased when some number of prisoners began shouting that they could see Richards being beaten. 193. Pennes then ordered that Richards be removed from the area and placed in a cell. A captain assigned to the Queens court pens approached Richards and told Pennes to “leave him alone.” Pennes objected to captain’s remark and then entered the cell, together with the officers who had been beating Richards earlier, and they resumed punching and kicking him over his face, head and body. The beating stopped when the captain screamed at Pennes, “that’s enough.” 194. Shortly afterwards, the captain who had directed Pennes and the other defendants to stop beating Richards took photographs of him and had him escorted to the clinic. After being examined, he was transported to the Bellevue Hospital Emergency Room, where clinicians documented extensive facial swelling and lacerations, trauma to his right eye and vision impairment; swelling and tenderness to his back, chest and arms; bleeding from his right ear and a perforated eardrum. Richards subsequently underwent surgery to repair damage to his right eye. 195. Richards was made the subject of false administrative charges for having assaulted defendant Pennes, but no disciplinary hearing was ever conducted by the Department of Correction to adjudicate the infraction. Richards was also arrested on the false charge of assaulting Pennes. The arrest was effected in an attempt to cover up the misconduct of the defendants who had beaten him.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

68

196. As a result of the beating on January 29, 2002, Richards suffered severe physical and emotional injuries.
197. The defendants’ attack on Richards was totally unprovoked. Richards did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a threat to the personal safety of any officer or to the security of the jail. The beating was effected solely to inflict pain and injury in retaliation for Richards’ having requested that he be strip searched in a private setting, consistent with the Department of Correction’s policy and procedures, and for his having questioned Pennes about the status of his missing legal papers as he was about to be returned to Rikers Island. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Richards’ rights and physical well-being.
198. Prior to the commencement of this action, and over thirty days ago, Richards filed and served on the Comptroller of the City of New York a verified Notice of Claim against the City of New York. To date, this claim has not been settled.
Kimada Dixon 199. On or about August 9, 1999, in the holding pens at the Bronx Criminal Court, plaintiff
Dixon was strip-searched by defendant Dedicke, who was assigned to the Department’s Transportation Division. After searching Dixon, Dedicke ordered him to get dressed. Expressing anger that Dixon was not dressing quickly enough, Dedicke kicked Dixon in the face while Dixon was bent over picking up his belongings. When Dixon stood up, Dedicke punched him several times in the face and slammed him against a locker. Defendant Anderson stood by and watched Dedicke beat Dixon without intervening.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

69

200. After the beating, Dixon was taken to the infirmary of the Bronx House of Detention and treated for a cut on his lip, a loose tooth, swelling of his face and jaw, and an abrasion on his back.
201. Dixon was falsely charged administratively with an assault on staff. The charge, which was later dismissed, was fabricated in an attempt to cover up Dedicke’s and Anderson’s misconduct in the August 9, 1999, incident.
202. As a result of the beating, Dixon suffered severe physical and emotional injuries. 203. Plaintiff Dixon did not assault or attempt to assault any officer; nor did he present a
threat to the personal safety of any officer. Defendants Dedicke and Anderson beat Dixon solely because they believed he was inadequately deferential to their authority. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and sadistic, and manifested deliberate indifference to Dixon’s rights and physical well-being.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Class Representatives 204. By reason of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 19-204, supra, plaintiffs Person,
Bradley, Sykes, and Davis, and the class they represent, were deprived, and continue to be deprived, by defendants Slattery, O’Gara, Toro, Davoren, Conry, Fraser and the City of New York of their right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Adam Ingles

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

70

205. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-57 supra, plaintiff Ingles was

deprived by defendants Caldero, Gray, Lanausse, Alcia, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser

and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and

punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Shawn Davis

206. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 58-64 supra, plaintiff

Davis was deprived by defendants Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz, Arnold, Does 5-8, Slattery,

Toro, Dash, Davoren, Conry, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be

free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as

guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional

rights.

207. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz,

Arnold, and Does 5-8 caused plaintiff Davis to be deprived of his rights under the laws of

the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as

well as defendant the City of New York, are liable.

208. The use of excessive force by defendants Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz, Arnold, and Does 5-

8, and the failure of defendants Slattery, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Conry, Fraser, and the

City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in

Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s

rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law,

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

71

and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and

physical abuse.

Ed Sykes

209. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 65-72 supra, plaintiff

Sykes was deprived by defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis, Yates, O’Gara,

Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from

gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed

to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These

defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

210. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Ramos, Hershaway,

Dice, Lewis and Yates caused plaintiff Sykes to be deprived of his rights under the laws

of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants,

as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable.

211. The use of excessive force by defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis and Yates, and

the failure of defendants O’Gara, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York

to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-

operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the

New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under

Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical

abuse.

Miguel Roman

212. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 73-80 supra, plaintiff

Roman was deprived by defendants Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, Doe 12, Toro, Dash,

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

72

Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 213. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12 caused plaintiff Roman to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant City of New York, are liable. 214. The use of excessive force by defendants Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse. Al Smith 215. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 81-87 supra, plaintiff Smith was deprived by defendants Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Cardo, McKeller, Doe 13, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Charles Paige

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

73

216. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 88-95 supra, plaintiff Paige was deprived by defendants Roberts, Natale, Does 14-18, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
217. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Roberts, Natale and Does 14-18 caused plaintiff Paige to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant City of New York, are liable.
218. The use of excessive force by defendants Roberts, Natale, and Does 14-18, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

74

Jamal Butler

219. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 96-103 supra, plaintiff

Butler was deprived by defendants Slattery, Small, Wright, Elliot, Berkeley, Grayson,

Barbour, Does 21, 22, 24-38, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New

York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to

due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to

plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

220. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Small, Wright, Elliot,

and Does 19-38 caused plaintiff Butler to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the

State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as

well as defendant the City of New York, are liable.

221. The use of excessive force by defendants Small, Wright, Elliot, Berkeley, Grayson,

Barbour, and Does 21, 22, 24-38, and the failure of defendants Slattery, Toro, Dash,

Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the

widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this

complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1,

Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be

free from degrading treatment and physical abuse.

Andre Pratt

222. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 104-10 supra, plaintiff

Pratt was deprived by defendants Velez, Haynes, Does 39-44, Toro, Dash, Davoren,

Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

75

excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 223. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Velez and Does 39-44 caused plaintiff Pratt to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 224. The use of excessive force by defendants Velez and Does 39-44 and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse. 225. By his refusal to provide plaintiff with access to prompt medical attention after he was beaten and injured, defendant Haynes violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Board of Correction’s New York City Correctional Health Care Minimum Standards, and under Correction Law §§ 500-k and 137(5). 226. By his refusal to provide plaintiff with access to prompt medical attention after he was beaten and injured, defendant Haynes violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant Haynes’s conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Robert Allaway

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

76

227. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 111-117 supra, plaintiff Allaway was deprived by defendants Mulvaney, Kramer, Guarneri, Cox, Spencer, Owusu, Does 46-52, Does 54-60, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Patrick Washington 228. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 118-125 supra, plaintiff
Washington was deprived by defendants Powell, Gallagher, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 229. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Powell and Gallagher caused plaintiff Washington to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 230. The use of excessive force by defendants Powell and Gallagher, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

77

Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law

§§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse.

Randolph Johnson

231. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 126-133 supra, plaintiff

Johnson was deprived by defendants Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Hernandez, Toro,

Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from

gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed

to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These

defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

232. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Graham, Williamson,

Smalls, and Hernandez caused plaintiff Johnson to be deprived of his rights under the

laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these

defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable.

233. The use of excessive force by defendants Graham, Williamson, Smalls, and Hernandez,

and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to

take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated

institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York

State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law

§§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse.

Rogelio Figueroa

234. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 134-140 supra, plaintiff

Figueroa was deprived by defendants Crooms, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Debblay,

Turrissi, Navoy, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik and Fraser of his right to be free from

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

78

gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 235. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Crooms, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Debblay, Turrissi and Navoy caused plaintiff Figueroa to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 236. The use of excessive force by defendants Crooms, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Debblay, Turrissi and Navoy, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse. Paul Person 237. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 141-145 supra, plaintiff Person was deprived by defendants Swetokas, Mastroainni, Daniels, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Calvin Daniels

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

79

238. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 146-152 supra, plaintiff Daniels was deprived by defendants Straughn, Wells, Does 64-65, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
239. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Straughn and Wells caused plaintiff Daniels to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, is liable.
240. The use of excessive force by defendants Straughn and Wells, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse.
241. By their refusal to provide prompt medical attention to plaintiff after he was beaten and injured, defendants Does 64 and 65 violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Board of Correction’s New York City Correctional Health Care Minimum Standards, and under Correction Law §§ 500-k and 137(5).
242. By their refusal to provide plaintiff with access to prompt medical attention after he was beaten and injured, defendants Does 64 and 65 violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Eight

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

80

and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Bobby Jones 243. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 153-159 supra, plaintiff Jones was deprived by defendants Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 244. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Lopez, Vasquez, and Fernandez caused plaintiff Jones to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 245. The use of excessive force by defendants Lopez, Vasquez, and Fernandez, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse. Phillip Campbell

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

81

246. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 160-165 supra, plaintiff Campbell was deprived by defendants Case, Wright, Fisher, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Johnathan Lukes 247. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 166-171 supra, plaintiff
Lukes was deprived by defendants Perez, Gatto, Bradford, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 248. By their refusal to provide plaintiff with access to prompt medical attention after he was beaten and injured, defendants Perez, Gatto, and Bradford violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant’s conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

82

Lamont Bradley 249. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 172-178 supra, plaintiff
Bradley was deprived by defendants Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, O’Gara, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 250. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Chapman, Keith Jackson and R. Jackson caused plaintiff Bradley to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 251. The use of excessive force by defendants Chapman, Keith Jackson and R. Jackson, and the failure of defendants O’Gara, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Departmentoperated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse.

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

83

Gary Smith 252. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 179-187 supra, plaintiff
Smith was deprived by defendants Lamont, Valentine, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 253. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Lamont and Valentine caused plaintiff Smith to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 254. The use of excessive force by defendants Lamont and Valentine, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff Smith’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse. Darold Freeman 255. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 188-191 supra, plaintiff Freeman was deprived by defendants Rivera, Kinder, Does 66-68, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

84

Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Eric Richards 256. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 192-199 supra, plaintiff Richards was deprived by defendants Pennes, Russo, Dougherty, Boyles, Mitchell, Sanacore, Does 71-73, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 257. The malicious and sadistic use of excessive force by defendants Pennes, Russo, Dougherty, Boyles, Mitchell, and Does 71-73 caused plaintiff Richards to be deprived of his rights under the laws of the State of New York to be free from assault and battery, for which these defendants, as well as defendant the City of New York, are liable. 258. The use of excessive force by defendants Pennes, Russo, Dougherty, Boyles, Mitchell, and Does 71-73, and the failure of defendants Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, and the City of New York to take appropriate steps to curb the widespread pattern of brutality in Department-operated institutions, as described in this complaint, violated plaintiff’s rights under the New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 6, to due process of law, and under Correction Law §§500-k and 137(5), to be free from degrading treatment and physical abuse. Kimada Dixon

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

85

259. By reason of the allegations contained in paragraphs 20-49 and 200-204 supra, plaintiff Dixon was deprived by defendants Anderson, Dedicke, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik and the City of New York of his right to be free from gratuitous and excessive force and punishment, and to due process of law, as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These defendants’ conduct manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request this court as follows: 1. Declare that the continuing inaction of the supervisory defendants--Slattery, O’Gara, Fraser, Davoren, Conry and Toro--as described above, violates the rights of the plaintiff class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and under New York State Law; 2. Enjoin defendants Slattery, O’Gara, Fraser, Davoren, Conry and Toro, their successors, agents, servants, employees, and all those in active concert or participation with them from subjecting inmates in Department-operated jails to verbal and physical abuse and the threat of physical abuse, and require these defendants to formulate a remedy, subject to the court's approval and modification, if necessary, to end the pattern of excessive physical abuse in Department-operated jails. Such a remedy should include measures which address continuing deficiencies in selection, training, evaluation, supervision, and command of the uniformed correction staff, and in the Department’s investigatory and disciplinary practices, as described earlier in this complaint;

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

86

3. Award plaintiff Adam Ingles compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial against defendants Caldero, Gray, Lanausse, Alcia, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Caldero, Gray, Lanausse and Alcia for violation of his federal constitutional rights;
4. Award plaintiff Shawn Davis compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial against defendants Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz, Arnold, Does 5-8, Slattery, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Conry, Fraser, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Orozco, Tolentino, Ortiz, Arnold, and Does 5-8 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;
5. Award plaintiff Ed Sykes compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial against defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis, Yates, O’Gara, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Ramos, Hershaway, Dice, Lewis, and Yates for violation of his federal constitutional rights;
6. Award plaintiff Miguel Roman compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial against defendants Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, Doe 12, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Sullivan, Deiso, Castro, Hande, and Doe 12 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

87

7. Award plaintiff Al Smith compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Cardo, McKeller, Doe 13, Toro, Dash,

Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in

punitive damages individually against each of defendants Givens, McConnon, Rivera,

Cardo, McKeller, and Doe 13 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

8. Award plaintiff Charles Paige compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Roberts, Natale, Does 14-18, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City

of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and

$100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Roberts, Natale and

Does 14-18 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

9. Award plaintiff Jamal Butler compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Small, Wright, Elliot, Berkeley, Grayson, Barbour, Does 21, 22, and 24-

38, Slattery, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of New York, jointly and severally,

on each of his state and federal causes of action, and $100,000 in punitive damages

individually against each of defendants Small, Wright, Elliot, Berkeley, Grayson, Barbour,

and Does 21, 22, and 24-38 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

10. Award plaintiff Andre Pratt compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Velez, Haynes, Does 39-44, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of

New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and

$100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Velez, Haynes and

Does 39-44 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

11. Award plaintiff Robert Allaway compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Mulvaney, Kramer, Guarneri, Cox, Spencer, Owusu, Does 46-52,

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

88

Does 54-60, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser and the City of New York, jointly and severally,

and $100,000 individually in punitive damages against each of defendants Mulvaney,

Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Spencer, Owusu, Does 46-52, and Does 54-60, for violation of his

federal constitutional rights;

12. Award plaintiff Patrick Washington compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Gallagher, Powell, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the City of

New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and

$100,000 individually in punitive damages against each of defendants Gallagher and Powell

for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

13. Award plaintiff Randolph Johnson compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Graham, Williamson, Small, Hernandez, Toro, Dash, Davoren,

Kerik, Fraser, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and

federal causes of action, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of

defendants Hernandez, Graham, Williamson, and Smalls for violation of his federal

constitutional rights;

14. Award plaintiff Rogelio Figueroa compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Crooms, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Debblay, Turrissi, Navoy, Toro,

Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000

individually in punitive damages against each of defendants Crooms, Torres, Echiveria,

Clark, Debblay, Turrissi and Navoy for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

15. Award plaintiff Paul Person in compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Swetokas, Mastroainni, Daniels, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the

City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

89

against each of defendants Swetokas, Mastroainni, and Daniels for violation of his federal

constitutional rights;

16. Award plaintiff Calvin Daniels compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Straughn, Wells, Does 64-65, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and

the City of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action,

and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Straughn, Wells

and Does 64-65 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

17. Award plaintiff Bobby Jones compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City

of New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and

$100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Lopez, Vasquez and

Fernandez for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

18. Award plaintiff Phillip Campbell compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Case, Wright, Fisher, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the

City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually

against each of defendants Case, Wright, and Fisher for violation of his federal constitutional

rights;

19. Award plaintiff Johnathan Lukes compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Perez, Gatto, Bradford, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the City of

New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each

of defendants Perez, Gatto, and Bradford for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

20. Award plaintiff Lamont Bradley compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, O’Gara, Toro, Davoren,

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

90

Fraser, Kerik, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive

damages individually against each of defendants Chapman, Keith Jackson and R. Jackson for

violation of his federal constitutional rights;

21. Award plaintiff Gary Smith compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Lamont, Valentine, Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of

New York, jointly and severally, on each of his state and federal causes of action, and

$100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of defendants Lamont and Valentine

for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

22. Award plaintiff Darold Freeman compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at

trial against defendants Rivera, Kinder, Does 66-68, Toro, Davoren, Fraser, Kerik, and the

City of New York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually

against each of defendants Rivera, Kinder and Does 66-68 for violation of his federal

constitutional rights;

23. Award plaintiff Eric Richards compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Pennes, Russo, Dougherty, Boyles, Mitchell, Sanacore, Does 71-73,

Toro, Dash, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of New York, jointly and severally, on

each of his state and federal causes of action, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually

against each of defendants Pennes, Russo, Dougherty, Boyles, Mitchell, Sanacore, and Does

71-73 for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

24. Award plaintiff Kimada Dixon compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial

against defendants Dedicke, Anderson, Toro, Davoren, Kerik, Fraser, and the City of New

York, jointly and severally, and $100,000 in punitive damages individually against each of

defendants Dedicke and Anderson for violation of his federal constitutional rights;

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

91

25. Retain jurisdiction in this case until the unlawful conditions, practices, policies, acts, and
omissions complained of herein no longer exist and this Court is satisfied that they will not
recur;
26. Award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
27. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
EMERY CELLI CUTI BRINKERHOFF & ABADY PC
_____________________________ Joanna C. Schwartz (JS 0016) Jonathan S. Abady Ilann M. Maazel 545 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 763-5000
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Jonathan S. Chasan John Boston Mary Lynne Werlwas Madeline Delone Prisoners’ Rights Project 1 Battery Park Plaza, 27th floor New York, New York 10004 (212)577-3530 Counsel for Plaintiffs
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL Penny Shane (PS 0185) Stacy Stoller J. Andrew Kent 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 558-4000
Counsel for Plaintiff Class
Dated: August 11, 2003 New York, New York

W:\1257\1\JS0689.WPD

92

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ADAM INGLES, SHAWN DAVIS, ED SYKES,

COPY

MIGUEL ROMAN, AL SMITH, CHARLES PAIGE,

JAMAL BUTLER, ANDRE PRATT, ROBERT

ALLAWAY, PATRICK WASHINGTON, RANDOLPH

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

JOHNSON, ROGELIO FIGUEROA, PAUL PERSON, CALYIN DANIELS, BOBBY JONES, PHILLIP

01 CV 8279 (DC)

CAMPBELL, JONATHAN LUKES, LAMONT

BRADLEY, GARY SMITH, DAROLD FREEMAN,

ERIC RICHARDS, and KIMADA DIXON

Plaintiffs,

-against-
ELMER TORO, ROBERT DASH, ROBERT DAVOREN, WILLIAM FRASER, STEVEN CONRY, BERNARD KERIK; OFFICERS CALDERO, LANAUSSE, GRAY, GIVENS, MCCONNON, RIVERA, MCKELLER, ROBERTS, NATALE, ELLIOTT, KRAMER, COX, GUARNERI, WILLIAMSON, GRAHAM, SMALLS, POWELL, TORRES, ECHIVERIA, CLARK, HERSHAWAY, DICE, LEWIS, YATES, SWETOKAS, MASTROAINNI, STRAUGHN, WELLS, LOPEZ, VASQUEZ, FERNANDEZ, CASE, WRIGHT, FISHER, GATTO, BRADFORD, LAMONT, VALENTINE, CHAPMAN, KEITH JACKSON, R. JACKSON, RIVERA, KINDER, DEDICKE, ANDERSON, OROZCO, TOLENTINO, ORTIZ, ARNOLD, CASTRO, HANDE, BERKELEY, BRAYSON, RUSSO, DOUGHERTY, BOYLES, MITCHELL, SANACORE, and JOHN DOES 5-8, 12-15, 17, 18, 21, 22,24-44,49-52,56-62,62,66-68, and 71-73, CAPTAINS ALCIA, SULLIVAN, CARDO, SMALL, WRIGHT, VELEZ, HAYNES, MULVANEY, SPENCER HERNANDEZ, GALLAGHER, CROOMS, RAMOS, PEREZ, DANIELS, DEISO, BARBOUR and JOHN DOES 16,46-48, 53-55,63 and 65; ASSISTANT DEPUTY WARDEN PENNES and OWUSU; WARDENS GERARD O'GARA AND ROGER SLATTERY; CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

PREAMBLE This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into, subject to Court approval, as ofFebruary 17, 2006 by the Plaintiff Class (as defined herein) and by the Municipal Defendants (as defined herein) (collectively, the "Parties") in Ingles et al. v. Taro et al., No. 01 Civ. 8279, pending before the Honorable Denny Chin in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Action"). The Agreement, upon approval by the Court, will resolve all of the injunctive and declaratory claims in the Action. All of the individual claims in the Action are being resolved by separately executed agreements. WHEREAS, in the Action, plaintiffs Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes, Al Smith, Paul Person and Lamont Bradley (collectively, the "Class Representatives") seek, on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, injunctive and declaratory relief against the Municipal Defendants relating to the use of force against inmates by uniformed staff in the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC" or the "Department"); and WHEREAS, the Class Representatives and plaintiffs Adam Ingles, Miguel Roman, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Jonathan Lukes, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards and Kimada Dixon (collectively, the "Named Plaintiffs") commenced the Action with the filing of the Amended Complaint on or about September 6, 2002, and filed the Fourth Amended Complaint on or about August 11, 2003 (the "Complaint"), which alleges that the use of excessive force by uniformed DOC staff against the Named Plaintiffs and against members of the Plaintiff Class, pursuant to a pattern and practice of excessive use of force that the Municipal Defendants (and/or their predecessors) have failed to remedy,

violated and/or violates the rights of the Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution and laws of the State ofNew York; and
WHEREAS, in the Action, the Named Plaintiffs seek monetary damages from defendants identified in the Complaint to address specific incidents of alleged excessive use of force against them; and
WHEREAS, in the Action, the Class Representatives seek, on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, injunctive and declaratory relief against the Municipal Defendants to remedy alleged deficiencies in the Department's use of force policies and practices that the Class Representatives contend, on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, contribute to the alleged pattern and practice of excessive use of force in the Department, including those policies and practices relating to videotaping and investigating use of force incidents, supervising and training uniformed DOC staff, tracking use of force information, and disciplining misconduct by uniformed DOC staff relating to use of force incidents; and
WHEREAS, all defendants deny any and all allegations in the Complaint, and the Municipal Defendants deny that they or their predecessors had or currently have any policy or engaged in or currently engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprived or deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States and deny that the Department's use of force policies and practices contributed or contribute to any alleged pattern and practice of excessive use of force in the Department, including those policies and practices relating to videotaping and investigating usc of force incidents, supervising and training
-2-

uniformed DOC staff, tracking use of force information, and disciplining misconduct by uniformed DOC staff relating to use of force incidents; and
WHEREAS, the Court certified the Plaintiff Class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(l)(A), 23(b)(l)(B) and 23(b)(2) by order dated February 26, 2003 (the "February 26, 2003 Class Certification Order"); and
WHEREAS, all of the plaintiffs and defendants in the Action have engaged in extensive discovery relating to the use of force practices, policies, customs and procedures of DOC, including the depositions of DOC employees and of the Named Plaintiffs, the disclosure of expert reports, and the production of more than 350,000 pages of documents; and
WHEREAS, the Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, and the Municipal Defendants desire mutually to settle all claims asserted in the Action on behalf of the Plaintiff Class and have negotiated this Agreement for more than one year; and
WHEREAS, these negotiations have resulted in the Agreement, which, subject to the approval of the Court after notice to members of the Plaintiff Class, settles all of the injunctive and declaratory claims in the Action upon the terms set forth below; and
WHEREAS, each of the Named Plaintiffs, including each of the Class Representatives, is entering into a separately executed agreement to settle his individual claims in the Action, pursuant to which those individual claims will be dismissed with prejudice;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:
-3-

A. INTRODUCTION

1.

The Plaintiff Class and the Municipal Defendants enter into this

Agreement for the purpose of avoiding the burdens of further litigation. Settlement of the

Action under the terms stated in the Agreement is in the public interest because the Agreement avoids diversion of private and public resources to adversarial action between

the Municipal Defendants and the Plaintiff Class.

2.

The Plaintiff Class enters into this Agreement for the purpose of

addressing the allegations in the Complaint. The Plaintiff Class believes that the terms of

the Agreement arc in the public interest because they are designed to protect members of

the Plaintiff Class from the use of excessive force.

3.

The Municipal Defendants deny that they had or currently have any policy

or engaged in or currently engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprived

persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and

laws of the United States.

4.

This Agreement docs not and shall not be deemed to constitute any

admission by the defendants as to the validity or accuracy of any of the allegations,

assertions, or claims made in the Action. No determinations have been made by the

Court concerning the merit or lack of merit of the allegations made in the Action. This

Agreement does not constitute an admission, adjudication, or finding on the merits of the

Action; nor does it constitute a finding of a violation of a federal right.

5.

The Court has jurisdiction over the Action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,

and 1367. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Upon dismissal of the Action with prejudice,

-4-

this Court shall not retain jurisdiction except in the event that Class Counsel seeks and

the Court grants reinstatement of the Action.

B. DEFINITIONS

6.

The "Plaintiff Class" shall mean "[a]ll present and future inmates confined

in any of the [DOC] institutions and commands not already subject to court order based

on prior use of force litigation" as defined in the February 26, 2003 Class Certification

Order, entered following the Court's Memorandum Decision granting class certification,

dated February 18, 2003 (the "February 18, 2003 Memorandum Decision"). At the time

of the Court's February 18, 2003 Memorandum Decision, Class members were in the custody of DOC in the following institutions and commands: Adolescent Reception and Detention Center ("ARDC"), Anna M. Kross Center ("AMKC"), George Motchan

Detention Center ("GMDC"), George R. Vierno Center ("GRVC"), Manhattan Detention

Complex ("MDC") (now known as Bernard B. Kerik Center ("BBKC")), North Infirmary Command ("NIC"), Otis Bantum Correctional Center ("OBCC"), Rose M. Singer Center ("RMSC"), West Facility, Bronx House of Detention ("BxHDM"), Queens House of

Detention ("QHDM"), Transportation Division, Emergency Services Unit ("ESU"), and

Vernon C. Bain Correctional Facility ("VCBC" or the "Barge"). The DOC institutions

and commands excluded from this Agreement are the Central Punitive Segregation Unit ("CPSU"), Eric M. Taylor Center ("EMTC"), Brooklyn House of Detention for Men (now known as the Brooklyn Detention Complex ("BKDC")), Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward ("BHPW"), Kings County Hospital Prison Ward ("KCHPW"), and Elmhurst

Hospital Prison Ward ("EHPW").

-5-

7.

The "Effective Date" shall be the date upon which this Agreement enters

into effect, which shall be twenty (20) days after the Court dismisses the Action with

prejudice.

8.

"Facilities at Issue" shall mean the DOC institutions and commands with

custody of members of the Plaintiff Class as defined in the February 26, 2003 Class Certification Order, entered following the Court's February 18, 2003 Memorandum Decision. At the time of the Court's February 18, 2003 Memorandum Decision, Class members were in the custody of DOC in the following institutions and commands: ARDC, AMKC, GMDC, GRVC, BBKC, NIC, OBCC, RMSC, West Facility, BxHDM, QHDM, Transportation Division, ESU, and VCBC. "Facilities at Issue" shall not mean

the CPSU, EMTC, BKDC, BHPW, KCHPW, or EHPW.

9.

The "Municipal Defendants" shall mean the City of New York (the

"City") and the following individuals in their official capacity: Martin Hom, current Commissioner of DOC (successor to defendant William Fraser); Richard White, current Deputy Commissioner of DOC Investigations and Trials Division (successor to defendant Elmer Taro); Robert Davoren, current DOC Chief of Department; Steven Conry, former DOC Chief of Security and current DOC Bureau Chief of Facility Operations; Brian Riordan, current warden of AMKC (successor to defendant Gerard O'Gara); Larry Davis, current warden of GRVC (successor to defendant Roger Slattery); and any and all successor(s) to the City and these individuals. The City assumes all obligations

undertaken by DOC under this Agreement. 10. "Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras" shall mean cameras that employ a
recording capability sufficient to produce footage showing smooth action and to produce image quality sufficient to permit identification of persons with the assistance of
-6-

documents or other available information, if such information exists. The Parties agree that "Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras" may operate with motion sensors and shall produce recordings of at least seven and one-half (7 .5) frames per second.
11. "Agreed-Upon Location" shall mean any location in a DOC facility in which DOC herein agrees to install Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras.
12. "Coverage" shall mean that Recording Wall-Mounted-Cameras will be installed in sufficient numbers and in sufficient positions to record (1) any person while such person is present in an Agreed-Upon Location; and (2) activity transpiring in an Agreed-Upon Location. "Coverage" need not extend to the interior of cells, pens, or search areas.
13. Member(s) of Service ("MOS") shall mean any uniformed member(s) of DOC staff. C. WALL-MOUNTED VIDEO CAMERAS
14. DOC shall install Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras that, unless otherwise specified, will provide Coverage in Agreed-Upon Locations identified in Exhibit A.
15. DOC shall provide Class Counsel with (a) quarterly reports reflecting the installation of all Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras required to be installed in the Agreed-Upon Locations; (b) notification that all Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras required by this Agreement have been installed according to the timeline agreed upon in Exhibit C; and (c) semiannual certifications as to whether or not cameras in the AgreedUpon Locations are operable and recording. The first quarterly report required under (a) above shall reflect all Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras installed as of the date of the
-7-

first report. Subsequent reports shall reflect all Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras

installed during the relevant quarter. 16. Class Counsel shall be permitted to tour all facilities in which Recording
Wall-Mounted Cameras are required to be installed under this Agreement to observe the placement and operation of the cameras two (2) times per year until all cameras are installed, each visit limited to one seven-hour business day of one group of counsel touring together at all times. Class Counsel shall advise DOC which areas they wish to observe no less than three (3) weeks in advance of each visit. During the tour, Class Counsel shall be permitted to view monitors to observe the field of vision captured by

any particular camera. 17. Class Counsel shall be permitted to make non-binding suggestions to DOC
that additional Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras be installed in specific locations in the

Facilities at Issue.

D. HAND-HELD CAMERAS 18. DOC shall continue to maintain a command-level order requiring the ESU
to carry hand-held cameras when conducting searches and to record searches and any

related uses of force.

E. REVISIONS TO THE USE OF FORCE DIRECTIVE 19. DOC will issue a revised use of force directive (the "Revised Use of Force

Directive") reflecting the following modifications to the existing Directive 5006R-A:

a.

Paragraph I, entitled "Purpose," will provide: "This Directive is

promulgated to establish Departmental policy concerning the usc

of force and use of security equipment, and to provide guidelines

and procedures for staff when they are confronted with a situation

requiring the use of force in order to minimize injuries to both

inmates and staff."

-8-

b. Paragraph III, entitled "Policy," will provide: "The Department recognizes that there are occasions when the use of force is necessary. When force is used, the actions of staff must be consistent with the law and this Directive. It is expressly prohibited to use more force than is necessary to restrain the inmate, control the situation or protect oneself or others. Force
may not be used to punish an inmate."

c. Paragraph VB.2 will provide: "Not all options will be available in all circumstances; however, staff must start with the minimum amount of force needed and escalate the amount of force used only if the situation requires escalation. The actions described below are listed in order of least to greatest degree of force, and should be used in proportion to the situation, in order to minimize injuries to staff and inmates, increasing as the situation becomes more dangerous or threatening, and decreasing as the situation comes under control. For example, blows should not be struck if control holds, grasping or pushing would be adequate to restrain the
inmate."

d. Paragraph VB.2(a) will provide: "Staff should first try to defuse the situation by talking to the inmate."

c.

Paragraph IV C. will provide: See attached Exhibit B.

The Revised Use of Force Directive, like all DOC directives, shall be enforceable

through the DOC disciplinary process.

20. Department-wide applicability ofthe Revised Use of Force Directive.

a.

All changes in the Revised Use of Force Directive shall apply

Department-wide, and any usc of force policy and/or directive(s)

currently in effect as a result of other consent decrees or court

orders (e.g., those addressing EMTC and BKDC) shall be replaced

by the Revised Use of Force Directive, as provided in paragraph

20(b).

b. Within two (2) business days of the signing of this Agreement, Class Counsel shall advise counsel for the City in the Action and counsel for the City in Jackson v. Montemagno, CV 85-2384
(E.D.N.Y.) (concerning Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, now known as BKDC) that the Revised Use of Force Directive complies with the Order Approving Stipulation of Settlement and Entry as Consent Judgment (November 26, 1991) in Jackson and shall be applicable to the DOC command governed by that Order.
Within two (2) business days of the signing of this Agreement,

-9-

Class Counsel shall make an appropriate application to the court presiding over Fisher v. Koehler, 83 Civ. 2128 (S.D.N.Y.) (concerning EMTC), seeking approval of a modification to the July 14, 1989 Decree entered in that case to permit the Revised Use of Force Directive to be applied to EMTC.

c.

Should the Fisher application referred to in the preceding

paragraph be finally denied, this Agreement will be voidable in

toto by the City within ten (1 0) days following written notice of

any such denial. If the Fisher application is denied and this

Agreement is not voided by the City within the ten (1 0) days

allotted, the Revised Use of Force Directive shall not apply to

EMTC.

21. DOC shall promulgate the Revised Use of Force Directive within forty-

five (45) days of the entry or denial of the appropriate requested order by the court in

Fisher, or within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of the Agreement, whichever is

later, and provide a copy of the Revised Use of Force Directive to Class Counsel within

the same time period. Further, DOC shall issue command-level orders reflecting the

changes to Directive 5006R-A within thirty (30) days of the promulgation of the Revised

Usc of Force Directive, shall provide copies of those orders to Class Counsel within the

same time period, and shall instruct supervisors to apprise all MOS and ID investigators

and supervisors of the changes.

F. INVESTIGATION DIVISION 22. Investigations Manual. With the assistance of outside consultants who
will be selected solely at DOC's discretion (hereafter the "Consultant"), DOC will create a new Investigation Division Manual ("the New ID Manual") that will address use of force investigations, among other topics. The New ID Manual will include, but not be

limited to, the following topics:

a.

Burden of proof for recommending charges to be consistent with

paragraph 25(h) below;

-10-

b.

The timeliness of investigations and the circumstances that may

lead to delay;

c. Basic medical terminology;

d.

Evaluating evidence, including (i) the importance of reviewing

medical evidence and the relationship of any injuries to versions of

events, (ii) even-handed review of staff and inmate statements and

credibility; and (iii) consideration of whether staff prepared their

reports based on their own observations, and wrote their reports

independently from other staff who were involved or were alleged

to have been involved in the incident;

c. Writing reports;

f.

Vouchering procedures and preserving the chain of custody

(including procedures for preserving videotapes);

g. Understanding any video of the incident;

h.

Criteria as to whether staff should be interviewed following a use

of force (see~~ 25(a) & 32(e) below);

1.

Determining whether the force used and the procedures followed

were appropriate under the law and Department policy.

23. DOC will use best efforts to complete and distribute the New ID Manual

by December 31, 2006, or within twelve ( 12) months after the Effective Date, whichever

is later. DOC will use best efforts to provide a draft of the New ID Manual to Class

Counsel by October 1, 2006 or within ten ( 10) months of the Effective Date, whichever is

later. Class Counsel will have thirty (30) days after receipt of the draft to provide DOC

with non-binding comments. DOC shall notify Class Counsel of any significant delay in

producing the New ID Manual beyond the target dates. DOC will provide to Class

Counsel a copy of the New ID Manual upon its completion and will certify that it has

been distributed to staff with appropriate instructions to use it in use of force

investigations.

-11-

24. DOC shall inform Class Counsel of the name and address of the Consultant within thirty (30) days of the Consultant's retention or of the Effective Date, whichever is later. Class Counsel may thereafter request a meeting, through counsel for the Municipal Defendants, with the Consultant (who may meet with Class Counsel if he

deems it appropriate) and submit materials and non-binding comments.

25. Forty-hour training program for investigators. DOC will provide all

current and new ID investigators with adequate training materials and a forty-hour

training program that include but are not limited to the following topics:

a.

Interviewing skills and techniques, including criteria as to whether

staff should be interviewed following a use of force;

b. Basic medical terminology;

c. Evaluating evidence;

d.

Writing analytic reports;

e. Vouchering procedures/preserving chain of custody;

f.

How to conduct a video review;

g. Use of the Department's computer databases; and

h. Burden of proof for recommending charges, i.e., ID investigators will be instructed in the New ID Manual that when the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that an MOS violated a DOC rule or regulation concerning the use of force, ID investigators
shall recommend charges regarding that violation.

The topics for the forty-hour training program shall be consistent with the topics for the

New ID Manual. 26. DOC shall provide Class Counsel with the following regarding the forty-

hour training program for ID investigators:

a.

certification (by letter or otherwise, sufficient to establish that all

staff attended) upon completion of initial forty-hour training

program for current ID investigators;

-12-

b.

annual certification of subsequent forty-hour training programs for

new ID investigators; and

c.

any DOC training curriculum and training materials for the forty-

hour ID investigator training program.

27. Annual training for investigators. DOC shall provide fourteen (14) hours

of annual training for ID investigators related to further development of investigation

skills and techniques, including those skills and techniques used in use of force

investigations.

28. DOC shall provide Class Counsel with the following regarding the annual

training for ID investigators:

a.

annual certification of attendance at 14-hour annual training for ID

investigators; and

b.

any DOC training curriculum and training materials for the 14-

hour annual training for ID investigators.

29. Usc of medical forensic professionals. When, in the judgment of the ID

investigator, a use of force incident investigation presents sufficiently complex or unclear

forensic medical questions, s/he shall request the approval of the Deputy Commissioner

for Investigations and Trials, or his or her designee, to consult with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). If the Deputy Commissioner agrees that such

questions are presented, s/he shall grant permission for the consultation. 30. Criteria for opening investigations. DOC will open an ID investigation in

the following cases:

a.

Class "A" uses of force (as defined in current Directive 5006R-A

(V)(F)(4)(a));

b.

Allegations of force involving an inmate with injuries classifiable

as Class "A," as defined in current Directive 5006R-A

(V)(F)( 4)(a);

-13-

c.

Allegations that inmates were dissuaded from reporting use of

force;

d.

Allegations that inmates were denied medical treatment; and

e.

Uses (or allegations of use) of (i) unauthorized equipment, or (ii)

authorized equipment in an unauthorized manner.

The Investigation Division ("ID") shall conduct a limited mqmry of any

allegation involving an inmate with injuries classifiable as Class "B," as defined m

current Directive 5006R-A (V)(F)(4)(b). In conducting such an inquiry, an ID

investigator shall interview the injured inmate(s) in DOC custody within two (2) weeks

of notice of such allegation and review any videotape(s) made in or around the time and

location at which the incident was alleged to have occurred. An ID investigator may

interview any inmate witnesses but shall interview inmates in DOC custody who have

declined to speak to facility investigators but for whom an interest in speaking to

investigators from outside the facility has been indicated in writing. Additionally, the

facility shall conduct an investigation into the allegation, unless ID or an outside entity

(e. g., the Department of Investigation, the Inspector General or a prosecutor's office)

takes over the investigation before it has been completed by the facility. Based on the ID

investigator's independent interviews and review of the facility investigation packet,

including any videotape(s), a Deputy Director of Investigations ("DDI") shall determine

whether the allegation is corroborated. If the DDI determines that an allegation is

corroborated, and only when consistent with lawful authority, an investigation shall be

opened, unless a Memorandum of Complaint ("MOC") has already been filed against an

MOS. Such corroboration may include direct evidence, such as an injury consistent with

the allegation or statements of witnesses who saw or heard part or all of the incident and

report one or more facts consistent with the allegation. Such corroboration may also -14-

include circumstantial evidence, such as an officer being off post at the time of the

incident, or an inmate being taken out of a housing area without explanation. Beginning no later than six (6) months after the Effective Date, DOC shall provide Class Counsel on a quarterly basis with a list of allegations made during the preceding calendar quarter involving an inmate(s) with injuries classifiable as Class "B," of which limited inquiries were conducted but for which no full investigation was opened. Consistent with lawful

authority, nothing shall prevent ID from opening an ID investigation when it deems it

appropriate.

31. Time Limits for Investigations.

a.

DOC agrees to maintain an eight-month average for the

completion of ID investigations of Class "A" use of force

incidents. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent DOC from

completing such investigations in a shorter average time period.

b. Any Class "A" use of force investigation which has not been closed within five (5) months of ID' s receipt of the facility packet shall be reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner for Investigations and Trials or his designee not below the rank of Deputy Director of
Investigations to determine the status of the investigation. The Deputy Commissioner shall take appropriate action to ensure the timely conclusion of the investigation. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent DOC from reviewing the status of ID investigations
less than five (5) months after the receipt of facility packets.

c.

DOC shall provide Class Counsel with quarterly reports for all 10

investigations related to use of force incidents opened during the

preceding quarter, listing the incident date, use of force number,

and the date the investigation was opened; and for all Class "A" ID

investigations related to use of force opened after the Effective

Date and pending in the preceding quarter, listing the incident date

and use of force number and indicating any action taken by the

Deputy Commissioner or his designee to ensure that the

investigation was completed timely.

32. Interim Investigation Division Memorandum. Pending completion of the

New ID Manual, DOC shall create an Interim Memorandum ("Interim ID Memo") signed

-15-

by the Deputy Commissioner for Investigations and Trials, to be followed by ID

investigators. The Interim ID Memo shall include the following information:

a.

Notice that the DOC will be creating a New ID Manual and

installing Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras.

b.

Changes in ID investigator training, as set forth in paragraphs 25

through 28 above.

c.

Criteria for opening ID investigations, as set forth in paragraph 30

above.

d.

Time limits for ID investigations, as set forth m paragraph 31

above.

e.

Criteria on when staff should be interviewed, including the

following: "Subject to circumstances that render an interview

inappropriate (such as a pending criminal investigation), investigators shall interview staff when, in the investigator's view,

such an interview is necessary to understand the events of the

incident. If the investigator has doubt about whether such an

interview is necessary, he/she shall consult his/her supervisor for

guidance."

f.

Instruction regarding the burden of proof for recommending

charges, including the following: "Investigators will be instructed

in the New ID Manual that when the evidence shows that it is more

likely than not that an MOS violated departmental rules and

regulations concerning the use of force, investigators shall

recommend charges regarding that violation or those violations."

g.

Instruction regarding evaluating evidence, including the following:

"Investigators shall (i) consider the importance of reviewing

medical evidence and the relationship of any injuries to versions of

events, (ii) review staff and inmate statements and credibility even-

handedly; and (iii) consider whether staff prepared their reports

based on their own observations and wrote their reports

independently from other staff who were involved or were alleged

to have been involved in the incident."

The Deputy Commissioner shall distribute the Interim ID Memo to and review it with ID

staff, with appropriate instructions to use it in use of force investigations. DOC shall

provide Class Counsel with a copy of a draft of the Interim ID Memo for non-binding

comment within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date. Within ninety (90) days of the -16-

Effective Date, DOC shall provide Class Counsel with a copy of the final version and

shall certify that the Interim ID Memo has been distributed.

G. FACILITY LEVEL INVESTIGATIONS 33. Diagram to document inmate injuries. DOC will use an Injury to Inmate

Report that includes a diagram of the human body ("homunculus") that enables medical

staff to note the locations of all injuries to the inmate, and on which medical staff shall so

identify the injuries that they observe.

34. Upgrades of incidents. Captains shall be required to confirm the results of

any medical diagnostic tests and/or hospital referrals related to use of force by DOC staff

that may warrant upgrading an incident from Class "B" to Class "A" and to report any

necessary upgrades to the Central Operations Desk, prior to submission of the

investigating captain's supervisor reports. DOC will issue a teletype order stating that

wardens shall not accept use of force packages unless the investigating captain has

indicated in his/her report that s/he has confirmed the results of any relevant medical

diagnostic tests and/or hospital referrals. DOC shall provide Class Counsel with a copy

of the teletype order within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date.

35. Photographing of inmate injuries.

a.

After a usc of force incident, a captain will take four (4)

photographs of each inmate involved in the incident from no more

than four feet away from the waist up, showing left, right, front

and back views. The inmate's face shall be included in all such

photographs. If, and only if, the four (4) photographs do not

capture the visible injuries on the inmate's body, the investigating

captain shall then take any photographs which may be necessary to

show all visible injuries. Provided, however, that such photographs

shall not be required to be taken whenever (i) in the judgment of

the investigating captain, the taking of photographs would

endanger the safety of staff or inmates, or the security of the

institution; (ii) the inmate is in need of immediate medical

attention; or (iii) the inmate refuses to be photographed.

-17-

b.

Such photographs shall be taken after an inmate receives medical

treatment and before an inmate is discharged from the medical

clinic. Captains shall be instructed to make best efforts to take

clear photographs.

c.

The health and well-being of both inmates and officers is the

highest priority. When not inconsistent with the need for medical

treatment and the circumstances existing at the time, photographs

shall be taken before bandages are applied to an inmate injury.

36. Facility Investigation Procedures/Materials. DOC shall review its facility

use of force investigation procedures, and develop written materials for facility use of

force investigations that will include the terms set forth in paragraphs 33 through 35

above (the "Facility Investigations Materials"). DOC will use best efforts to complete

and distribute the Facility Investigations Materials by December 31, 2006, or within

twelve (12) months after the Effective Date, whichever is later. DOC will use best efforts

to provide a draft of the Facility Investigations Materials to Class Counsel by October 1,

2006, or within ten (1 0) months of the Effective Date, whichever is later. Class Counsel

will have thirty (30) days after receipt of the draft to provide DOC with non-binding

comments. DOC will provide to Class Counsel a copy of the Facility Investigations

Materials upon their completion and will certify that they have been distributed. The

materials shall be reviewed by wardens with jail supervisors at staff meetings, with

appropriate instructions to usc them in facility investigations.

37. Interim Facility Investigations Materials. Pending completion of the

Facility Investigations Materials, to the extent the Parties agree to modify DOC

procedures for conducting facility usc of force investigations (as reflected in paragraphs

33 through 35 above), those modifications will be disseminated in writing by the

Department, in whatever form the Department deems suitable (the "Interim Facility

Investigations Materials"). The Interim Facility Investigations Materials shall be -18-

reviewed by wardens with jail supervisors at staff meetings, with appropriate instructions to use them in conducting facility use of force investigations. DOC shall provide Class

Counsel with a copy of the Interim Facility Investigations Materials within sixty (60)

days of the Effective Date for non-binding comment and will provide Class Counsel with

a copy of the final version within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date and will certifY

that it has been distributed.

H. USE OF FORCE TRAINING

38. Increase in gym training.

a.

With respect to in-service use of force training, DOC will allocate

one ( 1) hour of current usc of force classroom training to use of

force gym training for correction officers. This paragraph shall not

operate to increase the total number of hours of use of force

training.

b.

DOC will provide Class Counsel with certification, within ninety

(90) days of the Effective Date, of the change in in-service use of

force training for correction officers to allocate one ( 1) hour of

current classroom training to gym training.

39. Certification of knowledge of defensive techniques.

a.

At recruit and in-service training in defensive techniques, the

training instructor shall require all attendees to demonstrate to the

instructor that they can perform the defensive technique(s) they

were taught at the training session, as a condition to completing the

class.

b.

DOC shall provide Class Counsel with the written instructions

issued to training instructors directing them to certifY staff

demonstration of defensive techniques within ninety (90) days of

the Effective Date. DOC shall also provide Class Counsel with

quarterly certification of correction officers' satisfactory

demonstration of defensive techniques at recruit and in-service

training.

40. Additional roll call training.

a.

DOC will require that, once per month, roll-call trammg at all

facilities includes rev1ew and reinforcement of the use of force

-19-

policy. Such roll call training will not be limited to pro forma admonitions to avoid force. Supervisors who conduct roll call training will be encouraged to discuss specific examples of uses of force, and proper and improper applications of force, if deemed
relevant.

b.

DOC will provide Class Counsel with a copy of the written

instructions requiring and setting forth the contents of monthly roll

call training regarding use of force as set forth in the above

paragraph, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date. Further,

DOC shall provide Class Counsel with quarterly certifications of

monthly roll call training on use of force for correction officers.

I.

USE OF FORCE TRACKING

41. Tracking Uses ofForce.

a.

DOC will create a system (the "System") that will track officer use

of force. The System will track data including: (i) the injuries

sustained by inmates and staff; (ii) the location of the incident; and

(iii) whether there was a videotape of the incident.

b.

With respect to the location of incidents, the System shall track the

number of use of force incidents that occur in the following areas:

(i) punitive segregation areas; (ii) mental observation areas; (iii)

receiving rooms; (iv) general population housing areas; (v)

corridor/vestibule/bridge areas; and (vi) stairwells outside housing

areas.

c.

The information in the System will be used by facility commanders

and central office staff for management purposes, as well as by ID

investigators for investigation purposes.

d. Additionally, for all use of force incidents and allegations, DOC will track (i) whether disciplinary charges were recommended and/or filed and (ii) the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings. The information will be used by ID investigators for investigation purposes and by facility commanding officers for management
purposes.

e.

Best efforts will be made for the System and the data tracking set

forth in paragraph 41 (d) to be in place within twelve (12) months

ofthe Effective Date.

42. Upon completion of the System and one (1) time only during the term of

the Agreement, DOC shall provide Class Counsel with one month's worth of use of force

-20-

tracking information, in the form of a report or other document that is generated from the System in a form that can be or may be utilized by facility commanders, central office staff and ID investigators. At the same time, DOC shall provide Class Counsel with one month's worth of information tracked as set forth in paragraph 41(d), in the form of a report or other document that can be or may be utilized by ID investigators and facility

commanding officers.

J. NEGOTIATED PLEAS 43. The Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and
Trials shall continue to approve all negotiated pleas before they are entered into in cases

involving violations of use of force regulations. 44. DOC shall provide Class Counsel with a quarterly report of disciplinary
charges preferred against any MOS at the Facilities at Issue related to any violation of law in relation to use of force; any violation of Departmental use of force rule, regulation or policy; or any misconduct in connection with use of force relating to videotaping, reporting, falsifying documents, falsifying or failing to make notations or entries, or making false statements. The quarterly report shall include the name(s) of the MOS against whom the charges are preferred, the use of force incident number, and the

disposition of the charges. K. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED BY DOC
45. In addition to obligations specifically set forth above, DOC shall provide

Class Counsel with copies of the following, no later than the quarter after each is issued:

a.

Any revisions to the "Use of Force Directive 5006" curricula and

lesson plans used in recruit and in-service training.

b.

Any updates or revisions to the following writings required to be

provided pursuant to this Agreement: command-level orders

-21-

issued regarding the Revised Use of Force Directive (~ 21), the New ID Manual(~ 23), DOC curriculum/training materials for 40hour ID training (~ 26), DOC curriculum/training materials for 14hour ID training (~ 28), injury to inmate report containing a diagram of the human body (~ 33), and the Facility Investigations Materials (~ 36).
c. Any revisions to or rescissions of the following which occur during the Term of the Agreement: Directive 7002R, "Investigation Division - Use ofForce Unit" (07119/93); Directive 4516, "Injury to Inmate Reports" (02/21197); Directive 5003, "Monitoring Uses of Force" (11117/86); Directive 7001 R, "Investigation Division" (09/28/92); Operations Order 09/93, "Use of Force Incident Investigations" (3/1 0/93); Operations Order 06/98, "Reporting the Use of Force" (04/01198); and Operations Order 16/97, "Reclassifying Incident Data" ( 11113/97). In the event that directives or operations orders have been superseded, the obligation to provide revisions or rescissions of such documents shall cease.
d. Any directives or orders applicable Department-wide concerning the use of force tracking system set forth in section I above.
e. The command-level order governing the use of hand-held cameras by ESU (sec Section D above).
46. Facility Packets and ID Files.
a. Subject to the limitations in b. and c. below, DOC shall provide Class Counsel with on-site access on a monthly basis to all closed facility packets and closed ID files for use of force incidents at the Facilities at Issue that were closed in the preceding calendar month. Provided, however, that if Class Counsel are unable to conduct a particular monthly review, Class Counsel shall be provided with on-site access to all closed facility packets and closed ID files for use of force incidents at the Facilities at Issue that were closed since Class Counsel's last monthly review; but in no event shall Class Counsel be provided with access to files closed more than sixty (60) days prior to the first calendar day of the calendar month in which they are inspecting documents. The provisions contained in the preceding sentence shall be invoked no more than twice per year.
b. Class Counsel's on-site inspection shall not exceed five (5) consecutive days in one (1) business week per month; shall take place only during the last two (2) full business weeks of any month as agreed and confirmed at least one (1) week prior to inspection;
-22-

and shall not last longer than twelve (12) hours per day, commencing at 9:00 a.m. There shall be no limitation on the number of people conducting the document reviews. The document reviews shall be conducted in a confidential setting. Upon Class Counsel's written request, DOC shall provide Class Counsel with copies of up to 20% of the packets and files reviewed. Class Counsel shall identify to the Municipal Defendants in writing the files to be copied, and the requested copies will be provided to Class Counsel within thirty (30) days of Class Counsel's notice. In the event that Class Counsel reviews sixty (60) days' worth of documents during one inspection and identifies and requests in writing copies of such documents (which in no event shall exceed 20% of the documents reviewed), DOC shall provide Class Counsel with such copies within sixty (60) days of Class Counsel's written notice.

c.

In the event that ID or an outside entity (e.g., the Department of

Investigation, the Inspector General or a prosecutor's office) takes

over a facility investigation before it has been completed by the

facility, or in the event that an outside entity takes over an ID

investigation before it has been completed by ID, Class Counsel

shall not have access to any documents contained in the facility

packet and/or ID file, except the Injury to Inmate Reports for such

incidents, which will be provided by DOC along with the name of

the subject inmate(s); the incident date, time and location; whether

the incident has been classified as Class "A" or Class "B" and the

names and shield numbers of the MOS(s) involved. If an outside

entity investigating and/or prosecuting a matter arising out of a usc

of force incident asks DOC to withhold information so as not to

compromise or interfere with the investigation and/or prosecution,

Class Counsel shall not have access to any DOC documents, but

instead will be provided with the name of the injured inmate(s)

involved in the incident.

d. Subject to the above limitations in the preceding paragraphs and upon written request, Class Counsel shall be permitted to review any videotapes or audiotapes of any use of force incident that is the subject of a closed facility packet or a closed ID file that Class
Counsel has reviewed.

L. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COURT RELIEF 47. Class Counsel and the City shall make a good faith effort to resolve any

disputes that may arise under the Agreement. The City shall respond in writing within

-23-

thirty (30) calendar days to any written communications from Class Counsel concerning any matter addressed by the Agreement.
48. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of the Agreement, Class Counsel may seek judicial relief only by ( 1) moving to reinstate the Action in federal court, or (2) commencing an action for breach of the Agreement in state court. Provided, however, that Class Counsel may move to reinstate the Action only in the event of a material breach of the Agreement. Prior to moving to reinstate the Action or commencing an action for breach of the Agreement, Class Counsel shall notify the City in writing of the specific grounds and facts upon which Class Counsel alleges noncompliance with identified provisions of the Agreement. The City shall respond within thirty (30) calendar days. If the dispute is not resolved, Class Counsel shall notify the City by letter and request that counsel meet and confer. Class Counsel and the City shall meet within ten (I 0) business days of Class Counsel's notice or on some other date mutually agreed upon by counsel, in an attempt to arrive at an amicable resolution of the dispute. Nothing said by any party or counsel for any party during any and all meetings held pursuant to this section may be used by any opposing party in subsequent litigation in this or any other lawsuit.
49. If the dispute remains unresolved five (5) business days following the conclusion of such meeting or meetings, or if the City does not respond to Class Counsel's initial notice of dispute within thirty (30) days of that notice or if counsel do not meet and confer (or agree to a date to meet and confer) within ten (10) business days of Class Counsel's request to meet and confer, the City shall be so informed by Class Counsel in writing, and the Plaintiff Class may then, in connection with the matters which Class Counsel identified to the City, move to reinstate the Action or commence an
-24-

action for breach of the Agreement no sooner than ten (1 0) days from the written notice referenced herein. Class Counsel's compliance with the procedures outlined above is a condition precedent to any action for breach of the Agreement, any motion to reinstate the Action or any other request for judicial intervention in the Action or in connection with the Agreement. M. GROUNDS UPON WHICH CLASS COUNSEL SHALL NOT SEEK
COURT RELIEF 50. Class Counsel shall not commence an action for breach of the Agreement, move to reinstate the Action or make any other request for judicial intervention in the Action or in connection with the Agreement based upon any decision(s) by DOC not to adopt any non-binding suggestions by Class Counsel and/or any action by the Consultant to accept or not to accept Class Counsel's comments or request for a meeting; or based solely on isolated or minimal instances of non-compliance with the terms of the Agreement, or any increase in the number of usc of force of incidents. N. ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 51. In full satisfaction of any and all claims for attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements incurred in the Action by the Named Plaintiffs and/or Class Counsel up to and including the date the Action is dismissed with prejudice, the City shall pay the following amounts:
a. the sum of $700,000 to Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; and b. the sum of$750,000 to Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. The above amounts are being paid for certain of the attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements incurred by Class Counsel for prosecuting claims for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the Plaintiff Class. Class Counsel shall not seek, and the
-25-

City is not obligated to pay, any attorneys' fees, costs or disbursements incurred by Class Counsel in connection with the Agreement during the Term of the Agreement. The Legal Aid Society's waiver of all attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements incurred in the Action may not be referred to as a precedent in future actions. 0. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
52. The Agreement shall remain in effect until November 1, 2009. DOC shall use best efforts to complete its installation of Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras in the Agreed-Upon Locations according to the timeline agreed upon by the Parties (see Exhibit C) and all Recording Wall-Mounted Cameras required to be installed under this Agreement will be installed and operable, consistent with the terms of this Agreement, no later than three years after the Effective Date. P. CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE OF THE PARTIES' CONTROL
53. No party shall be liable for any failure to perform its obligations m connection with any action described in this Agreement, if such failure results from an act of God, riot, war, civil unrest, flood, earthquake, fire, strike or other cause beyond such party's reasonable control (including any mechanical, electronic, or communications failure, but excluding failure caused by a party's financial condition or negligence).
54. Further, no party to the Agreement shall be liable for any failure or delay in performance under this Agreement to the extent said failures or delays are proximately caused by causes beyond that party's reasonable control and occurring without its fault or negligence, including, without limitation, failure of suppliers, contractors, subcontractors, or carriers; provided that as a condition to the claim of nonliability, the party experiencing the difficulty shall give the other written notice, as soon as practicable, with full details following the occurrence of the cause relied upon. Dates by which
-26-

performance obligations delayed by the aforementioned circumstances are scheduled to be met will be extended for a period of time equal to the time lost due to any delay so caused. Q. CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
55. All documents and information obtained by Class Counsel from the City under this Agreement shall be deemed confidential (the "Confidential Documents and Information"). Class Counsel shall preserve the confidentiality of the Confidential Documents and Information unless and until the City expressly authorizes the disclosure of each specific document or piece of information. The Confidential Documents and Information shall not be used except to enforce this Agreement and shall not be used for any other litigation or any other purpose, including but not limited to, purposes of public disclosure or dissemination. To the extent any court filing by Class Counsel, in any action for breach of the Agreement, any motion to reinstate the Action, or any other request for judicial intervention in the Action or in connection with the Agreement includes specific references to Confidential Documents and Information, it shall be filed under seal.
56. In addition to the foregoing, the Confidential Documents and Information shall be deemed "Confidential Materials" under, and subject to, the protective order, dated June 11, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
57. All Confidential Documents and Information shall be returned to the Law Department within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement. In the event that Class Counsel requests and the Court grants reinstatement of the Action, Class Counsel shall return all Confidential Documents and Information to the Law Department within thirty (30) days of the order granting reinstatement. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of
-27-

the Protective Order dated June 11, 2003, and within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of the Agreement, Class Counsel shall return to the City all Confidential Materials produced in any form to Class Counsel in discovery in the Action. The City shall retain these Confidential Materials and provide them to Class Counsel in the event that this Action is reinstated.
58. Nothing in paragraphs 55-57 above constitutes or is intended to constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Class Counsel from obtaining or disclosing information from sources other than the Confidential Documents and Information, and from representing clients consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 55-56 above and this paragraph. R. RELEASE
59. This Agreement, as of the Effective Date, resolves in full any and all claims or rights of action for class-wide declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief by any member of the Plaintiff Class against the Municipal Defendants and their predecessors, successors, or assignees, together with past, present, and future officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the Department (the "Released Persons") based both on events occurring prior to the signing of the Agreement and on claims that were or could have been asserted in, and arise from the allegations in, the Complaint. Provided, however, that this Agreement does not prevent an individual member of the Plaintiff Class from filing or prosecuting a claim or action on his/her own behalf seeking equitable relief tailored to the specific circumstances of that individual, or prevent Class Counsel from moving to reinstate the Action or prosecuting the Action in the event of reinstatement.
-28-

60. This Agreement, as of the Effective Date, resolves in full any and all claims or rights of action for class-wide declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief that could be asserted after the signing of the Agreement through November 1, 2009 by any member of the Plaintiff Class against the Released Persons based both on events occurring after the signing of the Agreement through November 1, 2009 and on claims that were or could have been asserted in, and arise from the allegations in, the Complaint. Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not prevent an individual member of the Plaintiff Class from filing or prosecuting a claim or action on his/her own behalf seeking equitable relief tailored to the specific circumstances of that individual, or prevent Class Counsel from commencing an action for breach of the Agreement, moving to reinstate the Action or prosecuting the Action in the event of reinstatement.
61. As of the Effective Date, all members of the Plaintiff Class hereby release and waive any and all claims and any and all rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute or commence any and all causes of action for class-wide declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief against the Released Persons based both on events occurring prior to the signing of the Agreement and on claims that were or could have been asserted in, and arise from the allegations in, the Complaint. Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not prevent an individual member of the Plaintiff Class from filing or prosecuting a claim or action on his/her own behalf seeking equitable relief tailored to the specific circumstances of that individual, or prevent Class Counsel from moving to reinstate the Action or prosecuting the Action in the event of reinstatement.
62. As of the Effective Date, all members of the Plaintiff Class hereby release and waive any and all claims and any and all rights to pursue, initiate, prosecute or commence after the signing of the Agreement through November 1, 2009 any and all
-29-

causes of action for class-wide declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief against the Released Persons based both on events occurring after the signing of the Agreement through November 1, 2009 and on claims that were or could have been asserted in, and arise from the allegations in, the Complaint. Provided, however, that this Agreement does not prevent an individual member of the Plaintiff Class from filing or prosecuting a claim or action on his/her own behalf seeking equitable relief tailored to the specific circumstances of that individual, or prevent Class Counsel from commencing an action for breach of the Agreement, moving to reinstate the Action or prosecuting the Action in the event of reinstatement.
63. This Release and the terms of the Agreement will be, and may be, raised as a complete defense to and shall have res judicata and all other preclusive effect in all pending and future claims or rights of action resolved, released and/or waived by paragraphs 59-62 above. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Action is reinstated, the Agreement shall be terminated. If the Agreement is terminated, each party to the Agreement may assert any and all rights, claims and defenses to which they were entitled in law and equity immediately prior to the execution of the Agreement, in addition to any other rights, claims and defenses that may be available at the time of termination. Nothing in the Agreement shall operate as a waiver of affirmative defenses.
64. Nothing in this Agreement prevents any member of the Plaintiff Class from bringing a new action for class-wide declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief after November 1, 2009.
65. Nothing in this Agreement resolves or bars any claims for damages or rights of action for damages by or on behalf of any individual(s).
-30-

66. Any release of individual claims or rights of action for damages or injunctive relief in connection with any settlement of any Named Plaintiff's claim(s) shall be addressed in a separately executed agreement.
67. This Agreement applies to and is binding upon all members of the Plaintiff Class, including the Class Representatives, and the Municipal Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns. This Agreement constitutes a private settlement agreement and not a court order. All enforcement of the Agreement shall be by Class Counsel. The undersigned counsel to the members of the Plaintiff Class, and the undersigned counsel to the Municipal Defendants, certifY that they are authorized to enter into and consent to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to legally bind the members of the Plaintiff Class and the Municipal Defendants. S. APPLICABLE LAW
68. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed under, the laws of the State ofNew York. T. AVAILABILITY OF LEGAL AND EQUITABLE REMEDIES
69. Except where specified, the provisions set forth herein do not limit the remedies the Parties may have at law or in equity. U. JOINT DEFENSE OF AGREEMENT
70. The Parties shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain court approval of the Agreement. Upon Court approval, Class Counsel shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to obtain dismissal of the Action with prejudice in the form of an order attached hereto as Exhibit E. In the event of a challenge or objection to this Agreement in the district court, and/or if there is an appeal from any decision by the
-31-

district court, the Municipal Defendants and Class Counsel will join in the defense of the Agreement. V. MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT
71. This Agreement represents the entire agreement among the Parties as to the Class injunctive and declaratory claims in the Action, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the Parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein, or to determine the meaning of any provisions herein. This Agreement can be modified only on the written consent of all Parties. W. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY
72. This Agreement does not constitute (a) an admission by any defendant of any violation of law or wrongdoing, (b) an admission by any defendant that any standard, policy, practice or procedure addressed in this Action violated or failed to comply with either the language or intent of any applicable law, rule or regulation, or (c) an admission by any defendant that its position in this litigation was not substantially justified. The election of the particular form and terms of this Agreement to resolve the Action shall not be referred to as a precedent or serve as a precedent in any other case. X. MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY OF PROVISIONS
73. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect, unaffected and unimpaired. Y. NOTIFICATIONS
74. All written communications required by this Agreement shall be transmitted by U.S. Mail or hand-delivery to the Legal Aid Society Prisoners' Rights
-32-

Project, as Class Counsel, at the address listed below, and to the New York City Law

Department, as counsel for the Municipal Defendants, and the General Counsel of the

New York City Department of Correction, at the addresses listed below. In addition,

copies of all written communications excluding attachments, or at a minimum the cover

letters to all written communications excluding attachments, required by this Agreement

shall be transmitted simultaneously by U.S. Mail or hand-delivery to Emery Celli

Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, as Class Counsel, at the address listed below.

Notwithstanding the above, any response to a communication sent pursuant to paragraph

47 above shall be transmitted by U.S. Mail or hand-delivery only to the counsel who sent

the original communication. All counsel shall make best efforts to send courtesy copies

of all written communications by facsimile or e-mail, when possible. Counsel's receipt

of a hand-delivered or U.S. Mail-delivered communication shall trigger the running of

any applicable time limit. All counsel shall be informed promptly in the event that any

substitution is to be made in counsel to receive notification under this Agreement, and the

name and contact information for substitute counsel shall be promptly provided.

Jonathan Chasan, Esq. Mary Lynne Werlwas, Esq. Betsy Ginsberg, Esq. John Boston, Esq. Legal Aid Society Prisoners' Rights Project 199 Water Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 (212) 577-3530 (phone) (212) 509-8433 (fax) jchasan(c/) legal-aid.org mlwerlwas(a'lcgal-aid.org
Class Counsel

Andrew Celli, Esq. Jonathan Abady, Esq. Ilann Maazel, Esq. Sarah Netbum, Esq. Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP 545 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 763-5000 (phone) (212) 763-5001 (fax) jabadyCa'ecbalaw.com acelli(a)ccbalaw.com imaazcl(ci),ccbalaw .com snctbum(d;ecbalaw.com krosenfeld(Zlccbalaw.com

Class Counsel -33-

Heidi Grossman, Esq. Arthur G. Larkin, Esq. New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0303 (phone) (212) 788-9776 (fax) hgrossma(ii;,law.nyc.gov alarkin(iU,law.nvc.gov

Florence Hutner, Esq. Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters/General Counsel ofthe New York City Department of Correction 60 Hudson Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 266-1075 (phone) (212) 349-5065 (fax) tl orcncc .hutncr((vdoc.nvc. gov

Counselfor the Municipal Defendants Z. CONSTRUCTION

75. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by the Parties

collectively, and the rule that ambiguities arc to be construed against the party who

drafted the agreement shall be inapplicable.

AA. HEADINGS

76. Paragraph and section headings do not and are not intended to have any

effect on the construction of the Agreement.

BB. NOWAIVER OF PRIVILEGE

77. Nothing in this Agreement or undertaken pursuant to this Agreement

constitutes or is intended to constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege.

Signed and Agreed this 17th day of February, 2006, by:

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York

Attorneyfor the Municipal Defendants

100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

(212) 788-0303 (phone) /'

(212) 788-9776 (fax)

By:

/}V~t.-

Heidi Grossman, Esq. (HG 0933)

Arthur G. Larkin, Esq. (AL 9059)

-34-

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Prisoners' Rights Project Class Counsel 199 Water Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 1003 (212) 577-3 0
By: Jonat a S. hasan, Esq. (JC 9018) Mary nne Werlwas, Esq. (MW 6403) Betsy insberg, Esq. (BG 9890) John Boston, Esq. (JB 5511)

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP Class Counsel 545 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10022
763-Sfli!c) (212) 763-5001 (fax)
~:2)
Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. (JA 5147) Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq.(AGC 3598) llann M. Maazel, Esq. (IM 5724) Sarah Netbum (SN 4223) Katherine Rosenfeld (KR 8525)

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP

Class Counsel

125 Broad Street

New York, NY 10004

(212) 558-3588 (fax)

A) t=tvt/ (212) 558-4000 (phone)

By:

(;~

Penny Shane, Esq. (PS Of85)

Caroline M. Flintoft, Esq. (CF 9126)

Claire E. Coleman, Esq. (CC 2552)

Sara L. Manaugh, Esq. (SM 9626)

-35-

m
X :::T C;:::;": )>

m
X ::T 0'" :::+

EXHIBIT B
IV.C. Anticipated Use of Force
1. Whenever a use of force is anticipated and the inmate does not pose an immediate threat, a supervisor shall be notified. All actions shall be under his/her direction unless circumstances change and the use of force is required before the supervisor arrives. In an emergency or situation where it is not possible or practical to notify a supervisor, staff may use appropriate force consistent with the procedures contained herein.
2. It is not always possible to predict when a confrontation with an inmate will require the use of force. To determine whether force is likely and whether delay would be harmful, an officer should consider the circumstances, including the location of the inmate, the layout of a particular facility, the safety and well-being of other inmates and staff, and the location of other inmates and staff. Some examples of anticipated uses of force may include but are not limited to situations in which an inmate:
a. Refuses to go to court
b. Refuses to leave a cell when ordered to do so;
c. Is not complying with search procedures either in the cell or in the three-point search areas.
Anticipated uses of force may occur inside or outside a cell or search area.
3. The fact that force is used does not necessarily establish that it should have been anticipated.
4. In all anticipated use of force situations, except where safety or security concerns require an immediate response that would make waiting for the provision of a camera impractical, staff shall immediately obtain a videocamcra and begin recording the event as soon as it is feasible.
5. The commanding officer of every command shall ensure that a sufficient number of operable cameras are available for usc at each command. Each tour commander shall ensure at the commencement of every shift that all video cameras are operable, charged, and available and that supervisors know where they arc located and how to access them when needed.

m
X ::T C'" ;:::;:

EXHIBIT C

Location*

Best Efforts Camera Installation Date

Jail 1 Jail2 Jail 3 Jail4 All receiving rooms (intakes) in the Facilities at Issue

December 2006 June 2007 September 2007 December 2007 July 2008

*Jails 1-4 refer to AMKC, GMDC, GRVC and ARDC; however, neither this Agreement nor this exhibit is intended to identify which jails will be completed by which dates.

0

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:06 #511 P.006/012

...
, 06/11(03 WED 18:07 FAI 1 212 805 i906· ' ,,

JUDGE ClliN 'S CHAMBERS

l4l 002

UNITED STATES DISTIUC COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF W YORK.
-----------X

lit
------

Adam lngles. Shawn Da: · , Ed Sykes, Miguel

Roman, AI Smith, Charles Pai Jamal Butler, Andre

~ Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph

Johnson, R.ogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Calvin

Daniels, Bobby Jones, P · Campbel4 Jonathan

Lukes, Lamont Bradley, ary Smith, barold

Freeman, Eric: Richards and

a Dixon,

PROTECTIVE ORDER 01 Civ. 8279 (DC)

Plaintiffs,.

EJmer Toro, Robert Dash, R

Fraser, . Steven Conry, B

Caldero, Lanausse, Gray, Giv

~
)

McKeller, Roberts, Natale, ~ Williamson, r .......lH.......

Torres, Ec~v~ Clark, H
Yates, Swetokas, Mastro · ·, Straughn,. Wells,

Lopez, Vasquez, F~ Case, Wright, Fisher,

Gatto, Bradford, Lamon~ Val . e, Chapman, Keith

Jackso~ R. Jack~ ru~ Kinder, DedickeJ

Anderson and John Does 1-1 , 17-44, 49-52, 56-62,

and 66-75, Captains· Alicia, ullivan, CardoJ Small, ·Wright, Velez, Hayes, ulvaney, Hemand~

Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, P Daniels, and John

Does 16, 46-48, ~3-55, 63 65, Assistant Deputy

Warden Pennes, Wardens Ge O'Gara and Roger

Slattery, and the City ofNew ork,

........_..__________..______ ·~..-----·..·D--ef-e-:r-i.-d:a-n·ts-.X

WHEREAS. laintiffs1 have requested that .the City of New York provide certain

information and disclose doc ents in connection with this litigation; and

WHEREAS, d fendants deem certain infonnation and documents confidential; and

1 k used herein the teJ:m "'plaintiffs' includes all members oftheplaiDtiffclass.

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:07 #511 P.007/012

0' 6/1~/03 WiD 1&:07 FAX 1 212 305 7906

JUDGE CIIIN' 5 CHAMBERS

~003

fcmdants believe that revealing certain iofmmation and the contents of · certain docum!=llts to the pl - tiffs and others poses :risks to the institutional safety and security of the New York: City DePar1ment of Correction C'DOC')~ implicates the privacy interests of correction
officers, and is necessary to p ect individuals nom auooyance, embamssmcnt and oppression; and
WHEREAS, dants object to the disclosme of this infonnation and production of
these documents unless appro riate protection for their confidentiality is assured (witbOut waiVhia-the
objections set .forth in City de dants' discovery responses or any future objections);
1. OC employees' home addresses, telephone numbers, social
security num.bas, d s of birth, worker's compensation records and medical records
or actual use of force against an inmate; and
C employees' personnel ~ords .files and inforrnaticm relating to their employment histo ·es; and
Reports" (that relate to individual employment histories) performance evaluatio , pre-employment information, background information/checks
(d) pho ographs, videotapes; and diagrams showing DOC facilities and. staff; and .
cwnents that concern the location of stationary video cameras in
a tion obtained as a result of physical inspection of DOC
facilities that would bi ch safety and security ofthe fucilities; and
-2-

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:07 #511 P.008/012

06/11-/03 WED 18:08 FAX 1 %12 &05 i906

JUDGE CHIN 'S CHAM.BERS

141004

{g) DO Log Books to the extent that they reflect detailed infon:nation of

mo~t ofstaff' and

); and

":ty reports, security information. training materials, memoranda and other writings s g forth agency policy and proc~ to the extent tbat these documents provide sp "fie: operational guidance to DOC staff that, if disclosed, would
of d security DOC staffor prison~; and

~~.ly reports,,~ ..force monitoring reports," "24-hour' ("CCC")

unusual incident>' reports and all summaries, tabulations or

name ot otherwise identify individual DOC staff members in

connection with

of improper uses of force/chemical agents or other

misconduct; and

(k) · " :vestigation/Trials Division case tracking documents,'"
recoJ"ds,, "Use ofForce Rep~" "Directive 5003 records" and

all similar records connection with

name or otherwise identifY individual DOC staff members in tions of improper uses of force/chemical agents or other

misconduct; and

(1) "Ad udication and Gang Intelligence Unit" documents name or otherwise identify in 'vidual DOC staff memberS in connection with allegations of
improper uses offore chemical agents or other misconduct; and

-3-

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:07 #511 P.OOS/012

06/111'03 WED 18:08 PAX 1 212 SOS 7908 \

JUJ)GE CHIN'S CHAMBERS

Jm005

1.--t b "'" "Co "'*-
u~ 11-..::J~
d.~~

name or otherwise

staff members in CODILeCtion with allegations of imploper uses

or other misconduct.

Documents information shall not be deemed "CoDfidenti.al Materia1s90 to the extent,

tbat they are: (i) obtained by p .aintiffs' counSel fiom sources other than defendants, or (li) are otherwise

publicly available.

2. In addi on to the above, the defendants may further desiguate in good faith

particular documents as 4'Co dential Materials" by labeling such doeuments "Confidential" and/or by

y title. Bates number or other method reasonably calculated to give ·

........,..·......·.ty designation. in a writing directed to plaintiffs' counsel The

designate my documents confidential purswmt to this agreement if

necessary after production of ch documents to plaintiffs' ootm.Sel

3. If plain 'ffs' counsel object to the designation of particular documents as

"Confidential Material5.n they hall state such objection and the basis for their objection in writing to the

defendants in a reasonably · ely ba.sis and the parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve such

objection. If such objection c ot be resolved, then defendants shall~ in a reasonably timely basis after

receiving plaintiffs' counsels• bjections, move for an order approving such designation. Failure to so

ent ofany claim ofconfidentiality.

4.

• attorneys shall not disclose the Confidential Materials for any purpose

other than for the preparatio or presentation of the case entitled Adam Ingles. et al v. E1mer Toro. et

I
~)

5.

a member of the staff of th ·r law office or employed by plaintiffs for administrative purpo&es (i.e.

-4.

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:07 #511 P.010/012

06/ll:/03 WED 18:09 FAX l 212 805 7906

JUDGE CBIN 'S Cl:LUfBERS

~006

following conditions: (a)
(b)

Materials shall be deemed "for attorneys eyes only" except under the
may be made only if necessary to the preparation or
nmrennm'on oftheir case in this action; and
isclosure before trial may be made to an expert who has been retained or
ially employed by plaintif&' coUJlSel in this action in anticiPation ·or 1ligation or preparation for this action, or to the Court. Confid£ntial
aterials regarding a particul3r use of force incident may be disclosed to individual who was involved in, or witnessed, that partioular incident. this infoima.tion is disclosed to such an 'individual, any Confidential
.. ormation not related to that particular use offorce should be redacted or ·thheld ftom the individual to Whom <tisclosure is being made. Under no

.

.

e custody of any prisoner. The home addresses~ telephone numb~

tes or birth, ·and social security numbers ofDOC employees sball not be

isclosed to any plaintiff; and .

(c)

the event a conflict arises between the parties as to whether plaintiffs'

ounsel ma.y show the Confidential Materials to a potential deponent, or

ther person described in subsection (b) hereof, plaintiffs' counsel agree

ot to do so until such time that the parties can obtain a ruling from the

{d) efore any disclosure is made to any person listed in subpaxagraph (b)
ve (other than to the Court or plaintiffs), plaintiffs" attorneys shall

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:07 #511 P.011/012

06/1~/03 WED 18:09 ~~ 1 212 80 7906

JUDGE CHIN'S CHAMBERS

141007

rovide each such peJSon with a c:opy of this Stipulation and Protective

er, and such person shall consent in writing, in the form annexed

ereto as Exlubit A. not to use the Confidential Materials for any purpose

tlu:r than in connection with the prosecution of this case and not to
er disclose the Confidential Materials ~cept in testimony tab:Q in

·s case. The signed·consent shall be retained by plaintiffs• attorneys.

6.

n testimony concerning any Confidential Materials tbat reveals the

contents of such materials s be deemed confidential> and the transcript of sueh testimony, tngether

with any exlu"bits referred to ~ shall at defendanm tequest to the reporter, be either redacted or

separately bound, with a co er page or redaction prominently maiked "CONFIDENTIAL." Such

portion of the transcript sh 1 be deemed to be Cottfidential Materials within the meanin~ of tbis

Stipulation and Protective

7.

file the Confidential Materials with the Court, in

of conjunction with a motion or SUIXllmll'Y judgment or otherwise, or intends to utilize any the

Confidential Mat.mals at trial the party seeking to do so must first present the Confidential Mat=ials to

the Court for a ruling on whe er the Confidential Materials shall be filed under seal

8. If the C urt determines that the Confidential Materials shall be filed tmder seal,

fbe Confidential Materials sh 1 be placed in a sealed envelope bearing the caption of this action, an

indication ofthe nature ofthe ontents, and the following legend:

CONFIDENTIAL
This envelope ntains documents or infonnation designated confidential
pursuant to an rdcr entered by the United States District Court for the
Southern Distri t of New York in the above-captioned action. This envelope shall ot be opened or unsealed without the express direction of a judge of this urt, and its contents shall not be displayed or revealed except as the C urt may order. This envelope and its contents shall at all

-6·

From:LEGAL AID SOCIETY

212 509+8433

12/21/2005 17:08 #511 P.012/012

06/1~/03 WED 18:10 FAX 1 212 30 7006

JUl>GE COIN' S CllAMBBRS

~008

9.

in this Stipulation and Protective Order shall be construed to limit

defendants' objection to, or eo~ the .Confidential Materials in any manner.

10.

in this Stipulation and Protective Order shall be construed to limit

plaintiffs' objections to: (1)

dants, future designation of Confidential Material; or (2) defendants~

objections to, or use of. the C deritial Materials.

11.

irty (30) days after the termination of this ~ including any appea1s,

sbaa the Confidential Materials, mluding all copies, and all nonconforming copies,

upon defendants~

request, be retlU11ed to defend :ts' attorneys or destroyed.

~

Dated:

=

.. :,.· ...

-7·

m
X
o=::T
;:::::;:
m

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ADAM INGLES, SHAWN DAVIS, ED SYKES, MIGUEL ROMAN, AL SMITH, CHARLES PAIGE, JAMAL BUTLER, ANDRE PRATT, ROBERT ALLAWAY, PATRICK WASHINGTON, RANDOLPH JOHNSON, ROGELIO FIGUEROA, PAUL PERSON, CALYIN DANIELS, BOBBY JONES, PHILLIP CAMPBELL, JONATHAN LUKES, LAMONT BRADLEY, GARY SMITH, DAROLD FREEMAN, ERIC RICHARDS, and KIMADA DIXON
Plaintiffs,
-against-
ELMER TORO, ROBERT DASH, ROBERT DAVOREN, WILLIAM FRASER, STEVEN CONRY, BERNARD KERIK; OFFICERS CALDERO, LANAUSSE, GRAY, GIVENS, MCCONNON, RIVERA, MCKELLER, ROBERTS, NATALE, ELLIOTT, KRAMER, COX, GUARNERI, WILLIAMSON, GRAHAM, SMALLS, POWELL, TORRES, ECHIVERIA, CLARK, HERSHAWAY, DICE, LEWIS, YATES, SWETOKAS, MASTROAINNI, STRAUGHN, WELLS, LOPEZ, VASQUEZ, FERNANDEZ, CASE, WRIGHT, FISHER, GATTO, BRADFORD, LAMONT, VALENTINE, CHAPMAN, KEITH JACKSON, R. JACKSON, RIVERA, KINDER, DEDICKE, ANDERSON, OROZCO, TOLENTINO, ORTIZ, ARNOLD, CASTRO, HANDE, BERKELEY, BRAYSON, RUSSO, DOUGHERTY, BOYLES, MITCHELL, SANACORE, and JOHN DOES 5-8, 12-15, 17, 18, 21, 22,24-44,49-52,56-62,62,66-68, and 71-73, CAPTAINS ALCIA, SULLIVAN, CARDO, SMALL, WRIGHT, VELEZ, HAYNES, MULVANEY, SPENCER HERNANDEZ, GALLAGHER, CROOMS, RAMOS, PEREZ, DANIELS, DEISO, BARBOUR and JOHN DOES 16,46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65; ASSISTANT DEPUTY WARDEN PENNES and OWUSU; WARDENS GERARD O'GARA AND ROGER SLATTERY; CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
0 l CV 8279 (DC)

The parties having requested approval of, and the Court having approved, the Settlement Agreement of February 17, 2006, and all other claims in this action having been resolved by separately executed agreements, this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice by consent of the parties. The Court shall not retain jurisdiction over this action except if Class Counsel seeks, and the Court grants, reinstatement of the Action.

Dated:

SO ORDERED.
New York, New York ____,2006

Hon. Denny Chin United States District Judge

 
 SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 1 of 47

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-08279-DC-DCF

CLOSED

Ingles, et al v. City of New York, et al Assigned to: Judge Denny Chin Referred to: Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman Demand: $5,000,000 Related Cases: 1:02-cv-05850-DC
1:03-cv-01045-PAC-JCF Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 09/05/2001 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner: Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Adam Ingles

represented by Adam Ingles PRO SE

Adam Ingles Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2000 Dannemora, NY 12929-0750 LEAD ATTORNEY

John Boston The Legal Aid Society 111 Livingston Street 7th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 260-4757 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Phillip Campbell
Plaintiff Johnathan Lukes

Penny Shane Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP(NYC) 125 Broad Street NY, NY 10004 212-558-4837 Fax: 212-558-3360 Email: shanep@sullcrom.com
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 2 of 47

Plaintiff Lamont Bradley V. Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Department of Correctional Services
Defendant C.O. Codero

represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Lisa J. Black Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church Street Room 3-207 New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-1300 LEAD ATTORNEY
Seth M. Rosen Corporation Counsel fo the City of New York 59 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 (212) 232-2597 LEAD ATTORNEY
Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III The New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)-788-1599 Fax: (212)-788-9776 Email: alarkin@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Seth M. Rosen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa J. Black (See above for address)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 3 of 47

Defendant Supervisory Officers
Defendant John Doe Members of the Emergency Response Unit (Rikers Island Unit)
Defendant Raymond Ortiz
Defendant Darrow Arnold TERMINATED: 04/04/2006
Defendant Alfredo Tolentino

LEAD ATTORNEY
Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mathew Paulose, Jr Koehler & Isaacs, LLP 120 Broadway, 29th Floor New York, NY 10271 917-551-1300 x1353 Fax: (212) 791-4115 Email: mpaulose@koehler-isaacs.com
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address)
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 4 of 47

Defendant Angel Orozco
Plaintiff Shawn Davis
Plaintiff Ed Sykes
Plaintiff Miguel Roman
Plaintiff Al Smith
Plaintiff Charles Paige
Plaintiff Jamal Butler
Plaintiff Andre Pratt
Plaintiff Robert Allaway
Plaintiff Patrick Washington
Plaintiff Randolph Johnson

Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address)
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 5 of 47

Plaintiff Rogelio Figueroa
Plaintiff Paul Person
Plaintiff Calvin Daniels
Plaintiff Bobby Jones
Plaintiff Gary Smith
Plaintiff Darold Freeman
Plaintiff Eric Richards
Plaintiff Kimada Dixon
V. Defendant Elmer Toro
Defendant Robert Dash

(See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Penny Shane (See above for address)
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 6 of 47

Defendant Robert Davoren
Defendant William Fraser
Defendant Steven Conry
Defendant Bernard Kerik
Defendant Officer Lanausse
Defendant Officer Gray

represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 7 of 47

Defendant Officer Givens
Defendant Officer McConnon
Defendant Officer Rivera
Defendant Officer McKeller
Defendant Officer Roberts

Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 8 of 47

Defendant Officer Natale
Defendant Officer Elliott
Defendant Officer Kramer
Defendant Officer Cox
Defendant Officer Guarneri
Defendant Officer Williamson

represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 9 of 47

Defendant Officer Graham
Defendant Officer Smalls TERMINATED: 07/28/2005
Defendant Officer Powell
Defendant Officer Torres TERMINATED: 04/04/2006
Defendant Officer Echiveria TERMINATED: 04/04/2006

Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 10 of 47

Defendant Officer Clark TERMINATED: 04/04/2006
Defendant Officer Hershaway
Defendant Officer Dice
Defendant Officer Lewis
Defendant Officer Yates

Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 11 of 47

Defendant Officer Swetokas
Defendant Officer Mastroainni
Defendant Officer Straughn
Defendant Officer Wells
Defendant Officer Lopez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 12 of 47

Defendant Officer Vasquez
Defendant Officer Fernandez
Defendant Officer Case
Defendant Officer Wright
Defendant Officer Fisher
Defendant Officer Gatto

LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 13 of 47

Defendant Officer Bradford
Defendant Officer Lamont
Defendant Officer Valentine
Defendant Officer Chapman
Defendant Officer Keith Jackson TERMINATED: 04/04/2006

LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 14 of 47

Defendant Officer R. Jackson
Defendant Officer Rivera TERMINATED: 07/28/2005
Defendant Officer Kinder
Defendant Officer Dedicke
Defendant Officer Anderson
Defendant John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62,

Mathew Paulose, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address)
Lisa J. Black (See above for address)
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 15 of 47

64 and 66-75
Defendant Captain Alcia
Defendant Captain Sullivan
Defendant Captain Cardo
Defendant Captain Wright
Defendant Captain Velez TERMINATED: 07/28/2005

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 16 of 47

Defendant Captain Hayes TERMINATED: 07/28/2005
Defendant Captain Mulvaney
Defendant Captain Hernandez
Defendant Captain Gallagher
Defendant Captain Crooms
Defendant Captain Ramos

LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 17 of 47

Defendant Captain Perez
Defendant Captain Daniels
Defendant John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65
Defendant Assist. Dep. Warden Pennes
Defendant Warden Gerard O'Gara

LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 18 of 47

Defendant Warden Roger Slattery
Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Captain Small
Defendant Officers Caldero Defendant Officer Powell Defendant Captain Small Defendant Captain Spencer

represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa J. Black (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address)
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address)
represented by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 09/05/2001

#

Docket Text

1 Order endorsed on declaration in support of request to proceed in forma

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 19 of 47

09/05/2001 09/05/2001 10/30/2001 12/05/2001
12/07/2001 02/22/2002 04/15/2002
05/21/2002
06/07/2002 07/03/2002
07/12/2002 07/22/2002 07/22/2002

pauperis; I.F.P. request is granted. ( signed by Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey ) (db) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
2 COMPLAINT filed. Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (db) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (db) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
3 NOTICE of address change filed by Adam Ingles . (yv) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
4 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Seth M. Rosen, dated 11/29/01, reset answer to Complaint due for 2/28/02 for City of New York ( signed by Judge Denny ); Copies mailed. (cd) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
5 MARSHAL'S RETURN OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint unexecuted as to Codero on 11/20/01. (bai) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by City of New York, Dept. of Corrections (Attorney Seth M. Rosen from the Firm: Michael A. Cardozo) . (bai) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
7 ORDER; all discovery shall be completed by 08/16/02 ; There will be a pre-trial conference on the same day at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 11A, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United Sates courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY ; ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
8 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Mary Lynne Werlwas, dated 05/15/02; the time for proof of service is extended until 06/21/02 ; (signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
9 Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Denny Chin for the date (s) of 4/10/02 at 11:00 a.m. (ph) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
10 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Jonathan Chasan, dated 6/21/02: Granting plaintiff's request for extension of the service deadline until 7/10/02 . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (tp) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
11 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Adam Ingles by John Boston of the Legal Aid Society. (sb) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
12 NOTICE OF MOTION by Adam Ingles for an Oder pursuant to FRCP 15(a), 20(a) and 21, granting plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint . Return Date not indicated. (yv) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
13 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Adam Ingles in support of [12-1] motion for an Oder pursuant to FRCP 15(a), 20(a) and 21, granting plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint . (yv) (Entered: 07/24/2002)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 20 of 47

07/22/2002 07/24/2002 07/31/2002 07/31/2002 08/27/2002 09/06/2002
09/10/2002 09/10/2002 09/19/2002

14 DECLARATION of Jonathan S. Chasan by Adam Ingles in support Re: [12-1] motion for an Oder pursuant to FRCP 15(a), 20(a) and 21, granting plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint . (yv) Modified on 07/24/2002 (Entered: 07/24/2002)
15 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from John Boston, dated 7/22/02. The motion for class certification is to be filed, without a pre-motion conference by 7/31/02. Opposition papers shall be filed by 8/28/02 and reply papers shall be filed by 9/11/02 . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
16 NOTICE OF MOTION by Adam Ingles to certify class action purs to FRCP 23 ; Return Date not indicated (cd) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
17 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Adam Ingles in support of [16-1] motion to certify class action purs to FRCP 23 . (cd) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
18 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Jonathan S. Chasan by Adam Ingles in support Re: [12-1] motion for an Oder pursuant to FRCP 15(a), 20(a) and 21, granting plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint . (pl) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Adam Ingles, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes, Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon (Answer due 9/16/02 for John Doe, for Supervisory Officers, for Codero, for Dept. of Corrections, for City of New York ) amending [2-1] complaint against Elmer Toro, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Officer Straughn, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15,17-44, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Small, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48,, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York. (sb) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by City of New York, Dept. of Corrections et al in opposition to [16-1] motion to certify class action purs to FRCP 23 . (cd) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
21 DECLARATION of Stacy Lane Matthews by City of New York, Dept. of Corrections et al in support Re: [16-1] motion to certify class action purs to FRCP 23 . (cd) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
22 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Adam Ingles, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes, Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 21 of 47

10/18/2002 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 02/14/2003
02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/20/2003 02/20/2003

Figueroa, Paul Person, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon in support re: [16-1] motion to certify class action purs to FRCP 23. (rec'd in the night deposit box on 9/19/02 at 5:21 p.m.) (sac) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
23 ORDER; granting [12-1] motion for an Oder pursuant to FRCP 15(a), 20 (a) and 21, granting plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (sb) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
24 NOTICE of Registration and Firm Name Change for Sullivan & Cromwell, by Adam Ingles (indicated on the system) (cd) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
25 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Legal Aid Society, dated 1/7/03; Counsel writes to request that the Court direct the commencement of discovery in this case pursuant to Rule 26(f), F.R.C.P. It is hereby ordered that the parties proceed such discovery . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies faxed by Chambers. (jco) Modified on 01/16/2003 (Entered: 01/16/2003)
26 ANSWER by City of New York, Dept. of Corrections, Codero, Supervisory Officers, John Doe, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Officer Straughn, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15,17-44, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small to [19-1] amended complaint . (Attorney Lisa J. Black from the Firm: ); jury demand. Received in night deposit on 2/14/03 at 5:02 p.m. (moc) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
27 ANSWER by Keith Jackson to [19-1] amended complaint . (Attorney Matthew Paulose Jr. from the Firm: Koehler & Isaacs LLP). (moc) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
28 ANSWER by Torres, Echiveria, Clark to [19-1] amended complaint . (Attorney Matthew Paulose Jr. from the Firm: Koehler & Isaacs LLP). (moc) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
Memo endorsed on motion; granting [16-1] motion to certify class action purs to FRCP 23. Motion granted per Memorandum Decision dated 2/18/03 ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); (yv) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
29 MEMORANDUM DECISION/ORDER; Plaintiffs satisfy the criteria for class certification under Rule 23 and hence their motion for certification is granted ; Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed order on notice within five business days hereof signed by Judge Denny Chin ); (djc) Modified on

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 22 of 47

02/27/2003 03/11/2003 03/31/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003
06/06/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/25/2003

02/27/2003 (Entered: 02/26/2003)
30 ORDER granting [16-1] motion to certify class action purs to FRCP 23. The class is defined as: All present and future inmates confined in any of the New York City Department of Correction Institutions and commands not already subject to court order based on prior use of force litigation ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); (yv) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
31 ANSWER ON BEHALF OF OFFICER DAVID CALDERO to Complaint (Attorney from the Firm: Peltz & Walker) . (gmo) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
32 STIPULATION and ORDER, the Court ordered that this case proceed as a class action under FRCP 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B) and 23 (b)(2) as set forth in this document . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (kw) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
Text not available. (Entered: 05/21/2003)
33 STIPULATION and ORDER, plaintiffs shall be granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) Copies faxed by chambers. (kw) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
34 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Adam Ingles (Answer due 5/29/03 for Small, for The City of New York, for Roger Slattery, for Gerard O'Gara, for Pennes, for John Does 16, 46-48, for Daniels, for Perez, for Ramos, for Crooms, for Gallagher, for Hernandez, for Mulvaney, for Hayes, for Velez, for Wright, for Cardo, for Sullivan, for Alcia, for John Does 1-15,17-44, for Anderson, for Dedicke, for Kinder, for Rivera, for R. Jackson, for Keith Jackson, for Chapman, for Valentine, for Lamont, for Bradford, for Gatto, for Fisher, for Wright, for Case, for Fernandez, for Vasquez, for Lopez, for Wells, for Officer Straughn, for Mastroainni, for Swetokas, for Yates, for Officer Lewis, for Dice, for Hershaway, for Clark, for Echiveria, for Torres, for Powell, for Smalls, for Graham, for Williamson, for Guarneri, for Cox, for Kramer, for Elliott, for Natale, for Roberts, for McKeller, for Rivera, for McConnon, for Givens, for Gray, for Bernard Kerik, for Steven Conry, for William Fraser, for Robert Davoren, for Robert Dash, for Elmer Toro, for City of New York ) amending [19-1] amended complaint against Caldero. Summons issued. (jco) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
35 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Caldero : amends [31-1] answer (moc) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
36 ORDER concerning resolution of discovery issues ; ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); copies faxed by Chambers; (djc) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
37 PROTECTIVE ORDER, regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential materials . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies faxed by Chambers. (tp) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
38 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin, dated 6/16/03. Counsel for defendant City of New York and all of

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 23 of 47

07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/18/2003 07/18/2003
07/21/2003 07/24/2003

the individual defendants except Caldero, Jackson, Clark, Torres and Echeverria request a 30 day extension to 7/14/03 of the time by which defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Application granted. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies faxed by Chambers. (sb) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
39 ANSWER by Keith Jackson to [34-1] second amended complaint . (Attorney Matthew Paulose Jr. from the Firm: Koehler & Isaacs LLP). (cd) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
40 ANSWER by Torres, Echiveria, Clark to [34-1] second amended complaint. (Attorney Matthew Paulose Jr. from the Firm: Koehler and Isaacs LLP). (sac) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
41 Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Denny Chin for the date (s) of May 1, 2003. (dt) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
Text not available. (Entered: 07/28/2003)
44 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by Adam Ingles (Answer due 7/28/03 for Caldero, for Small, for The City of New York, for Roger Slattery, for Gerard O'Gara, for Pennes, for John Does 16, 46-48, for Daniels, for Perez, for Ramos, for Crooms, for Gallagher, for Hernandez, for Mulvaney, for Hayes, for Velez, for Wright, for Cardo, for Sullivan, for Alcia, for John Does 1-15,17-44, for Anderson, for Dedicke, for Kinder, for Rivera, for R. Jackson, for Keith Jackson, for Chapman, for Valentine, for Lamont, for Bradford, for Gatto, for Fisher, for Wright, for Case, for Fernandez, for Vasquez, for Lopez, for Wells, for Officer Straughn, for Mastroainni, for Swetokas, for Yates, for Officer Lewis, for Dice, for Hershaway, for Clark, for Echiveria, for Torres, for Powell, for Smalls, for Graham, for Williamson, for Guarneri, for Cox, for Kramer, for Elliott, for Natale, for Roberts, for McKeller, for Rivera, for McConnon, for Givens, for Gray, for Lanausse, for Bernard Kerik, for Steven Conry, for William Fraser, for Robert Davoren, for Robert Dash, for Elmer Toro ) amending [34-1] second amended complaint against Powell, Small, Spencer. Summons issued. (jco) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
42 STIPULATION and ORDER; that, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 15(a), plaintiff be granted leave to file the Third Amended Complaint to substitute the true names dft's John Doe 45 (Assist. Deputy Warden Cliffore Owusu) and John Doe 53 (Captain Arthur Spencer) . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (pl) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
43 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin, dated 7/22/03. counsel for defendants request an extension to 8/18/03 of the time by which the defendants must answer, move or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' third amended complaint for Small, for The City of New York, for Roger Slattery, for Gerard O'Gara, for Pennes, for John Does 16, 46-48, for Daniels, for Perez, for Ramos, for Crooms, for Gallagher, for Hernandez, for Mulvaney, for Hayes, for Velez, for Wright, for Cardo, for Sullivan, for Alcia, for John Does 1-15,17-44, for Anderson, for Dedicke, for for Rivera, for Keith Jackson, for Chapman,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 24 of 47

07/25/2003 07/25/2003 08/06/2003 08/25/2003
08/26/2003

for Valentine, for Lamont, for Bradford, for Gatto, for Fisher, for for Case, for Fernandez, for Vasquez, for Lopez, for Wells, for Officer Straughn, for Mastroainni, for Swetokas, for Yates, for Officer Lewis, for Dice, for Hershaway, for Powell, for Smalls, for Graham, for Williamson, for Guarneri, for Cox, for Kramer, for Elliott, for Natale, for Roberts, for McKeller, for Rivera, for McConnon, for for Gray, for Lanausse, for Bernard Kerik, for Steven for William Fraser, for Robert Davoren, for Robert Dash, Elmer Toro, for John Doe, for Supervisory Officers, for Codero, for Dept. of Corrections, for City of New York. Application approved . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copy faxed by Chambers. (yv) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
45 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and third amended complaint with jury trial demand as to Spencer by personal service on 7/25/03. Answer due on 8/14/03 for Spencer. (djc) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
46 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and third amended complaint with jury trial demand as to Asst. Deputy Warden Cliffore Owuse, at Health Mgmt Div., by personal service on 7/25/03; (djc) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
47 AMENDED ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint by Caldero: amends [35-1] answer (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
48 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT by Adam Ingles, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes, Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon (Answer due 9/4/03 for Spencer, for Small, for Powell, for Caldero, for Small, for The City of New York, for Roger Slattery, for Gerard O'Gara, for Pennes, for John Does 16, 46-48, for Daniels, for Perez, for Ramos, for Crooms, for Gallagher, for Hernandez, for Mulvaney, for Hayes, for Velez, for Wright, for Cardo, for Sullivan, for Alcia, for John Does 1-15,17-44, for Anderson, for Dedicke, for Kinder, for Rivera, for R. Jackson, for Keith Jackson, for Chapman, for Valentine, for Lamont, for Bradford, for Gatto, for Fisher, for Wright, for Case, for Fernandez, for Vasquez, for Lopez, for Wells, for Officer Straughn, for Mastroainni, for Swetokas, for Yates, for Officer Lewis, for Dice, for Hershaway, for Clark, for Echiveria, for Torres, for Powell, for Smalls, for Graham, for Williamson, for Guarneri, for Cox, for Kramer, for Elliott, for Natale, for Roberts, for McKeller, for Rivera, for McConnon, for Givens, for Gray, for Lanausse, for Bernard Kerik, for Steven Conry, for William Fraser, for Robert Davoren, for Robert Dash, for Elmer Toro, for John Doe, for Supervisory Officers, for Codero, for Dept. of Corrections, for City of New York ) amending [2-1] complaint . Summons issued. (sb) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
49 STIPULATION AND ORDER; purs. to FRCP 15(a), pltffs are granted leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint as set forth in this Order. The Court notes that although the City defts do not concede that the "correct" date of the Andre Pratt incident was 12/17/01, they do not

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 25 of 47

09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/23/2003 09/23/2003 10/06/2003
10/15/2003
10/22/2003 11/12/2003 11/19/2003

object to the filing of the 4th Amended Complaint, reserving all rights and defenses. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (sac) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
50 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and 4th Amended Complaint as to Hayes by personal service on 9/8/03. Answer due on for Hayes. (sb) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
51 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and 4th amended complaint as to C.O. Thomas Boyles by George Motchan on 9/9/03. (sb) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
52 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and 4th amended complaint as to C.O. James Dougherty by G. O'Brien on 9/9/03. (sb) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
53 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and 4th amended complaint as to C.O. Anthony Mitchell by personal service on 9/9/03. (sb) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
54 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and 4th amended complaint as to C.O. Robert Russo by C.O. Moore on 9/18/03. (sb) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
55 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and 4th amended complaint as to C.O. Charles Sanacore by C.O. Moore on 9/18/03. (sb) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
56 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Jonathan S. Chasan, dated 9/11/03; Further reasons set forth in defts' 9/15/03 letter, their obligations are sustained. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); (sac) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
57 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur Larkin, dated 10/8/03, reset all discovery due for 11/18/04, and as further set forth in this document. No further extensions will be allowed ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); copies sent by Chambers (cd) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
58 AMENDED ANSWER to Fourth Amended Complaint by Caldero : amends (yv) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
59 Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (rag) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
60 ANSWER by Elmer Toro, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Officer Straughn, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15,17-44,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 26 of 47

12/05/2003 12/10/2003 12/24/2003 12/24/2003
12/24/2003 02/11/2004

Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small, Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer to [48-1] fourth amended complaint . (Attorney Arthur G. Larkin from the Firm: Corp. Counsel of NYC); jury demand. (moc) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
61 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 11/25/03; Re: Application for an extension of discovery and for a protective order are denied. Defendants are not required to produce any documents twice, but they cannot delay producing ID files until the investigations are complete. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 12/4/03) (sac, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
62 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur Larkin dated 12/8/03 re: the request for an order requiring pltffs to identify deposition exhibits in advance is denied. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 12/9/03) (Pecorino, Joseph) (Entered: 12/28/2003)
63 ANSWER to Amended Complaint. Document filed by Keith Jackson. Related document: [48] Amended Complaint, filed by Paul Person, Shawn Davis, Eric Richards, Miguel Roman, Phillip Campbell, Randolph Johnson, Gary Smith, Adam Ingles, Kimada Dixon, Ed Sykes, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Rogelio Figueroa, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Darold Freeman, Jamal Butler, Patrick Washington.(Gencarello, John) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
64 ANSWER to Amended Complaint. Document filed by Clark, Echiveria, Torres, Joseph Debblay, Shamon Clark, and James Turrisi. Related document: [48] Amended Complaint,,,,,, filed by Paul Person, Shawn Davis, Eric Richards, Miguel Roman, Phillip Campbell, Randolph Johnson, Gary Smith, Adam Ingles, Kimada Dixon, Ed Sykes, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Rogelio Figueroa, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Darold Freeman, Jamal Butler, Patrick Washington.(yv, ) Modified on 12/31/2003 (yv, ). (Entered: 12/31/2003)
65 ANSWER to Amended Complaint. Document filed by Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco. Related document: [48] Amended Complaint,,,,,, filed by Paul Person, Shawn Davis, Eric Richards, Miguel Roman, Phillip Campbell, Randolph Johnson, Gary Smith, Adam Ingles, Kimada Dixon, Ed Sykes, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Rogelio Figueroa, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Darold Freeman, Jamal Butler, Patrick Washington.(yv, ) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Settlement Conference set for Tuesday, 3/23/2004 at 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman, in Courtroom 102 at 40 Foley Square. (sac, ) (Entered: 02/18/2004)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 27 of 47

02/11/2004 02/17/2004
03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004

66 Letter addressed to Counsel from Debra Freeman, United States Magistrate Judge dated 2/10/04; Re: A Settlement Conference scheduled for Tuesday, 3/23/04 at 11:30 A.M. in Room 102. (sac, ) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
67 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 2/9/04 re: Counsel for defts requests that the Court allow defts an additional 2 weeks to complete the document production indicated in this letter. The remaining documents are to be produced by 2/23/04, without exception. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 2/12/04) (sn) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
68 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Randolph Johnson. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
69 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Eric Richards. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
70 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Gary Smith a/k/a Shawn Johnson. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
71 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Ed Sykes. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Patrick Washington. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
72 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Philip Campbell. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
73 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Andre Pratt. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
74 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Bobby Jones a/k/a Rasheem Davis. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
75 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Jonathan Lukes. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
76 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Shawn Davis. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
77 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Darold Freeman. (Signed by Judge Denny

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 28 of 47

03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/10/2004 03/17/2004 03/17/2004
03/30/2004
03/30/2004

Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
78 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Jose Ortega. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) Modified on 3/8/2004 (jp, ). (Entered: 03/08/2004)
79 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Paul Person. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
80 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Allen Smith. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
81 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Waberly Alloway. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
82 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Lamont Bradley. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
83 ORDER; regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of the deposition of Jamal Butler. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/4/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Telephone Conference held on 3/10/2004. (kw, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
84 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Penny Shane dated 3/16/04; granting plntf's request for an extension of time to complete depositions but only to 6/25/04. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/17/04) copies sent by chambers.(cd, ) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
85 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur Larkin dated 3/15/04, re plntf's letter of 3/11/04: Daniel's objection to a "second" deposition is orverruled, as the instant case is different and far broader scope than the prior, non-discontinued suit. Defts may not, however, requestion Daniels on areas that were covered in the prior deposition, except to the extent necessary to provide a context for questioning into new areas. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/17/04) copies sent by chambers copies sent by chambers.(cd, ) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
86 ORDER that the Superintendent or other official in charge of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility produce inmate Shawn Davis, inmate #02A6250 for the taking of his deposition on 4/9/04 at 10:00 a.m. and for so long thereafter, from day to day as the deposition continues and that inmate Shawn Davis appear in such place designated by the Superintendent or other official in charge of Sing Sing Correctional Facility so his deposition may be taken. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/30/04) (dle, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Deposition due by 4/9/2004. (dle, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 29 of 47

04/16/2004
04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004
04/26/2004 05/03/2004 05/12/2004

87 ORDER: that the Superintendent or other official in charge of the Downstate Correctional Facility transport and produce inmate Phillip Campbell, Inmate No. 04-A-1376, from Franklin Correctional Facility, Located in Malone, New York to the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, located in Ossining, New York, no later than 5/16/04, for the taking of his deposition, on 5/20/04 at 10:00 a.m., and for so long thereafter, from day to day, as the deposition continues; and that inmate Phillip Campbell appear in such place as designated by the Superintendent or other official in charge of Sing Sing Correctional Facility so his deposition may be taken. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/14/04) Copies Faxed by Chambers.(db, ) Modified on 4/16/2004 (db, ). (Entered: 04/16/2004)
88 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur Larkin dated 4/15/04 re: granting counsel for dfts' request for a two day extension of time within which dfts must serve their opposition to plaintiffs' application for leave to take more than ten depositions in this case. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/19/04) (dle, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 4/21/2004. (dle, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
89 ORDER (1) that the Superintendent or other official in charge of the Downstate Correctional Facility transport and produce inmate Phillip Campbell, Inmate No. 04A1376, form Franklin Correctional Facility, located in Malone, NY to the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, located in Ossining, New York. no later than 5/16/04, for the taking of his deposition. on 5/20/04 at 10:00 a.m., and for so long thereafter, from day to day, as the deposition continues; and (2) that inmate Phillip Campbell appear in such place as designated by the Superintendent or other official in charge of Sing Sing Correctional Facility so his deposition may be taken. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/19/04) (jco, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
90 ORDER, plntfs may take 30 additional depositions, that is, 30 depositions in addition to any taken through today, as further set forth in this document. This order does not apply to depositions of expert witnesses. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/22/04) (cd, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
91 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Ilann M. Maazel dated 4/28/04 re: counsel for plaintiff requests permission to convert five of the eight-hour depositions into ten four hour depositions. Application GRANTED. Also, requested was an additional five half-day depositions. Application DENIED. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 5/3/04) Copies Faxed by Chambers.(db, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
92 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 5/5/2004 re: motion for reconsideration. The motion is denied. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 5/11/2004) (jsa, ) Modified on 5/13/2004 (jsa, ). Copies faxed by Chambers. (Entered: 05/13/2004)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 30 of 47

06/02/2004 06/22/2004
06/30/2004 07/07/2004 07/22/2004
07/22/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 08/02/2004

93 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 5/27/04 re: Denying the City Defendants' request for extension of time in which to complete fact witness depositions. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/1/04) Copies Faxed by Chambers.(tp, ) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
94 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Penny Shane dated 6/11/04 re: counsel for plaintiffs request that the court order the inspection to go forward or convene a premotion conference. The City's objections are overruled. The City shall permit plaintiffs' experts to inspect the designated areas of the three jails in question. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/21/04) (dle, ) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
95 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 06/22/04 re: Defendants' objections to the recent deposition notice are Sustained. The notice is stricken. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/28/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Telephone Conference held on 7/7/2004. Settlement Conference reset for 7/27/2004 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. (kw, ) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
96 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 7/19/04 re: This request is Granted. The deadline for plaintiffs' expert reports is extended to 09/28/04; The City shall respond to Plaintiffs' reports by 11/23/04. Expert depositions shall be completed as previously set. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/20/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
97 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Penny Shane dated 7/19/04 re: plaintiffs requests a ten-day extension of time in which to file their opening papers in support of the motion to compel. Application granted. The dates for other motion papers are extended accordingly. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/20/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
98 MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKET CLERK: that a cont'd settlement conference was held on 7/27/04; next t/c set for 10/13/04 @10:00; to confirm settlement conference 11/10/04 @11:00 a.m. (pl, ) (pl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Settlement Conference held on 7/27/2004. (pl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/13/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Denny Chin. (pl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Settlement Conference set for 11/10/2004 11:00 AM before Judge Denny Chin. (pl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
190 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 31 of 47

08/12/2004 08/12/2004 08/17/2004 08/23/2004 09/03/2004
09/03/2004

Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jar, ) Modified on 9/1/2006 (jar, ). (Entered: 09/01/2006)
99 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chiin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 8/10/2004: re: Defendant City of New York must serve its opposition papers by 8/20/2004 and plaintiffs must serve their reply papers by 9/3/2004. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/11/2004) (jsa, ) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 9/3/2004. Responses due by 8/20/2004 (jsa, ) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
100 ORDER the Court has reviewed the parties' letters dated 8/12/04, 8/13/04, and 8/16/04. Defendants seek documents relating to plaintiffs' criminal histories, and plaintiffs object, largely on the ground of burdensomeness. Plaintiffs' objections are overruled, to the following extent set forth in this Order.So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/16/04) (jco, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
101 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur Larkin dated 8/18/04 re: counsel for dfts request two additional weeks to file opposition papers to plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery to 9/3/04; plaintiffs' reply to 9/17/04; and for the City to agree to extend the deadline for submissionof plainitffs' expert reports.The request for 2 weeks is granted. The other deadlines shall remain the same. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/20/04) (dle, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
102 Defendants' Memorandum of Law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Document filed by Alcia, Anderson, Darrow Arnold, Bradford, Caldero, Cardo, Case, Chapman, Clark, Codero, Steven Conry, Cox, Crooms, Daniels, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, Dedicke, Department of Correctional Services, Dice, John Doe, Echiveria, Elliott, Fernandez, Fisher, William Fraser, Gallagher, Gatto, Givens, Graham, Gray, Guarneri, Hayes, Hernandez, Hershaway, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Bernard Kerik, Kinder, Kramer, Lamont, Lanausse, Officer Lewis, Lopez, Mastroainni, McConnon, McKeller, Mulvaney, Natale, Gerard O'Gara, Angel Orozco, Raymond Ortiz, Pennes, Perez, Powell, Ramos, Rivera, Roberts, Roger Slattery, Small, Smalls, Spencer, Officer Straughn, Sullivan, Supervisory Officers, Swetokas, The City of New York, The City of New York, Alfredo Tolentino, Elmer Toro, Torres, Valentine, Vasquez, Velez, Wells, Williamson, Wright, Wright, Yates. (dle, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
103 DECLARATION of Martin F. Horn in Opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of privileged documents. Document filed by Alcia, Anderson, Darrow Arnold, Bradford, Caldero, Cardo, Case, Chapman, Clark, Codero, Steven Conry, Cox, Crooms, Daniels, Robert Dash,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 32 of 47

09/03/2004
09/13/2004 09/17/2004 10/04/2004 10/08/2004 10/21/2004 10/25/2004

Robert Davoren, Dedicke, Department of Correctional Services, Dice, John Doe, Echiveria, Elliott, Fernandez, William Fraser, Gallagher, Gatto, Givens, Graham, Gray, Guarneri, Hayes, Hernandez, Hershaway, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Bernard Kerik, Kinder, Kramer, Lamont, Lanausse, Officer Lewis, Lopez, Mastroainni, McConnon, McKeller, Mulvaney, Natale, Gerard O'Gara, Angel Orozco, Raymond Ortiz, Pennes, Perez, Powell, Ramos, Rivera, Roberts, Roger Slattery, Small, Smalls, Spencer, Officer Straughn, Sullivan, Supervisory Officers, Swetokas, The City of New York, The City of New York, Alfredo Tolentino, Elmer Toro, Torres, Valentine, Vasquez, Velez, Wells, Williamson, Wright, Wright, Yates. (dle, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
104 DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin. Document filed by Alcia, Anderson, Darrow Arnold, Bradford, Caldero, Cardo, Case, Chapman, Clark, Codero, Steven Conry, Cox, Crooms, Daniels, Department of Correctional Services, Dice, John Doe, Echiveria, Elliott, Fernandez, Fisher, William Fraser, Gallagher, Gatto, Graham, Gray, Guarneri, Hayes, Hernandez, Hershaway, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, John Does 115, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Bernard Kerik, Kinder, Kramer, Lamont, Lanausse, Officer Lewis, Lopez, Mastroainni, McConnon, McKeller, Mulvaney, Natale, Gerard O'Gara, Angel Orozco, Raymond Ortiz, Pennes, Perez, Powell, Ramos, Rivera, Roberts, Roger Slattery, Small, Smalls, Spencer, Officer Straughn, Sullivan, Supervisory Officers, Swetokas, The City of New York, The City of New York, Alfredo Tolentino, Elmer Toro, Torres, Valentine, Vasquez, Velez, Wells, Williamson, Wright, Wright, Yates. (dle, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
105 ORDER: Regarding the issue of the inadvertently produced unredacted materials as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 09/09/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
106 Reply MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Document filed by Adam Ingles et al. (kw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
107 STIPULATION AND ORDER: regarding procedures that will govern the handling of ?Confidential Information?. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 10/1/04) (kw, ) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
108 MEMORANDUM DECISION; defendants' objections based on the deliberative process privilege are sustained and plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied in all respects. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 10/7/04) (sac, ) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Status Telephone Conference held on 10/21/2004. Telephone Conference set for 11/21/2004 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. (kw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
109 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on Motion to Compel Discovery: Motion

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 33 of 47

11/01/2004
11/01/2004 11/10/2004 11/10/2004 12/09/2004
12/21/2004 01/11/2005 01/13/2005
01/24/2005 01/25/2005

denied per Memorandum Decision dated 10/7/04. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 10/21/04) (sac, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
110 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 10/27/2004 re: Application granted only to the following extent: Defendants' time to serve rebuttal reports is extended to 12/24/2004, and the date for the close of all discovery including expert depositions is extended to 2/25/2005. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 10/29/2004) (jsa, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Deposition due by 2/25/2005. Discovery due by 2/25/2005. (jsa, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Status telephone Conference held on 11/10/2004. Next T/C 12/14/04 @5:00 p.m. (pl, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 12/14/2004 05:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. (pl, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
111 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 12/7/2004 re: the request for clarification is denied although I am not making any final rulings on what is and what is not admissible. The parties shall complete expert discovery and I will rule on any objections or in limine motions at the proper time. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 12/8/2004) (jsa, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Status Telephone Conference held on 12/21/2004. (kw, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Status telephone Conference held on 1/11/2005. (kw, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
112 ORDER; by letter dated NOvember 17, 2004, defendants sought permission to move for an order precluding or limiting the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Steve J. Martin... Defendants' November 17, 2004 letter is treated as a motion to preclude or limit Mr. Martin's testimony. The motion is denied, without prejudice to any Daubert motions or other in limine motions;...Defendants' expert repsorts shall be produced by 12/24/04, in accordance with the present schedule. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 12/6/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
113 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 1/19/05 re: defendants may serve the additional expert's report; this is without prejudice to any objections plaintiffs may have. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 1/20/05) (db, ) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
114 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Sarah Netburn dated 1/20/05 re: counsel for plaintiffs oppose the City's request for leave to file an additional expert report almost a month after the

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 34 of 47

01/27/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/03/2005 02/10/2005 02/16/2005 02/18/2005 03/10/2005
03/11/2005

deadline and pursuant to FRCP Rule 30(d)(20 to seek leave to take the depositions of dfts' expert witnesses in corrections policy and use of force Manuel Romero and Robert Johnson and to extend the deposition of dfts' psychiatric expert Dr. Paul Nassar by four hours. As to item(ii), denied as to Romero and Johnson and granted as to Nassar. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 1/21/05) (dle, ) (Entered: 01/30/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Telephone Conference held on 1/27/2005. Next T/C 2/10 at 5:00 p.m. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
115 ORDER ; for the reasons set forth on this Order, defts application is granted and Dr. Harvey's report is stricken; he will not be permitted to testify. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 1/28/2005) (jp, ) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
116 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur Larkin dated 1/28/2005 re: granting counsels request for leave to conduct 14 expert depositions in this action. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 1/28/2005) (jp, ) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
117 NOTICE of Change of Address by Mathew Paulose, Jr on behalf of Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Keith Jackson, John Doe. New Address: Koehler & Isaacs LLP, 61 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY, 10006,. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Status telephone Conference held on 2/10/2005. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
118 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Katherine Rosenfeld dated 2/14/05: granting joint request for revised experts reports and adjusted deposition schedule. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 2/15/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
119 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge CHin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 02/16/05 re: the request to extend the deposition of Dr. Henry is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 2/17/05) (djc, ) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
120 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 3/4/05 re: The application for an order barring plaintiffs' "untimely disclosures" is denied, without prejudice to any in limine motions or objections at trial. Plaintiffs have offered to make Mr. Martin available for following questioning; the City may take advantage of that offer. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 3/8/05) (sac, ) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
121 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Chin from Arthur Larkin dated 3/9/05: the request for a protective order is denied. This does not mean that the subject of 'torture" may be addressed at trial, but it may be the subject of reasonable questioning at a deposition. (Signed by Judge

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 35 of 47

04/15/2005 05/04/2005 06/03/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005
06/07/2005
06/07/2005 06/14/2005 06/27/2005

Denny Chin on 3/9/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Debra C. Freeman : Settlement Telephone Conference held on 4/15/2005. Parties directed to contact chambers w/ status. (ae, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
122 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/29/05 before Judge Denny Chin. (lma, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
123 STIPULATION; the parties, having agreed to appear before Hon. Denny Chin for one or more settlement conferences, in a good faith attempt to settle some or all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/2/06) (sac, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
124 MEMORANDUM DECISION; The case will not be bifurcated. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/3/05) (sac, ) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
125 LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Jonathan Chasan dated 6/2/05 re: counsel for plaintiffs oppose dfts' 5/31/05 letter seeking bifurcation. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes.(dle, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
126 LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 5/31/05 re: dfts' letter application purs. to rule 42(b) of the FRCP. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Darold Freeman, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 4952, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small.(dle, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
127 LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Matthew Paulose dated 6/2/05 re: counsel for 10 individual dfts join in plaintiffs' opposition to the city's motion for bifurcation.. (dle, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
128 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/20/05 before Judge Denny Chin. (mo, ) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
129 ORDER that dfts may depose Mr. Martin for up to seven hours; the

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 36 of 47

07/15/2005 07/18/2005
07/18/2005

additional documents produced by Mr. Martin shall be treated as confidential; the request for a higher level of confidentiality is denied; if dfts will be relying ona ny statistics or documents relating to use of excessive force post 8/1/03 they must produce reasonable discovery relating to those statistics as further set forth in this order; plaintiffs request for disciplinary files post August 2003 is denied. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/20/05) (dle, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
130 ORDER: for reasons further set forth in said Order, the City's request for a preclusion order is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/13/05) (db, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
144 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [143] MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D... Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (ae, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
145 DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin JULY 18, 2005 VOLUME I AND II EXHIBITS A - N in Support re: [143] MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D... Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (ae, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 37 of 47

07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/20/2005 07/22/2005

131 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Testimony of Robert Johnson and Dr. Paul Nassar, and Preclude or Limit the Testimony of Manuel Romero. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
132 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [131] MOTION in Limine.. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Ed Sykes. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
133 DECLARATION of Allen Breed. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
134 DECLARATION of Penny Shane. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
135 ORDER; that the revised for Daubert motions is as follows; moving papers by 7/18/05; opposition by 8/12/05; replies by 9/9/05; the parties are ordered to discuss and agree on a date for producing the documents the Court ordered on 6/20 must be produced. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/15/05) (pl, ) Modified on 7/25/2005 (pl, ). (Entered: 07/25/2005)
136 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Certain Defendants on the Grounds that Plaintiffs have Failed to State a Claim Against them, and there are are no Material Issues of Fact that Warrant a Trial Against them With Respect to Such Claims; Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.23(c), Decertifying the Class for Lack of Standing; Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3), Dismissing All Class Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; and Such Other and Furthet Relief as this Court Deems Just Proper. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 38 of 47

07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005

Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
137 DEFENDANTS' LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
138 DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [136] MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
139 DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin in Support re: [136] MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 39 of 47

07/22/2005 07/24/2005 07/24/2005
07/28/2005 09/02/2005

Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 4952, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
140 ORDER. The parties shall meet and confer regarding settlement on or before 8/5/05. The meeting shall take place at a mutually convenient location to be agreed upon by the parties. The Department of Correction will provide a senior staff member with settlement authority, who will be in a position to discuss specific settlement terms, to participate in the meeting. In addition, the Court has scheduled another settlement conference with the Court for 8/10/2005 at 09:00 AM (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/21/05) (yv, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
141 DECLARATION of ARTHUR G. LARKIN - July 18, 2005 - Volume II of II - Exhibits O-BB. (tb, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
143 MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 5662, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (Filed in the night deposit on 7/18/05 at 5:46 p.m.)(ae, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
142 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), by and between all parties to this case and it is so ordered by the Court, that the following defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party against the other: 1. Captain Velez, 2. Craig Haynes, 3. Miriam Rivera, 4. Beverly Smalls; and 5. David barbour. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/24/05) (dt, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
146 Defendant David Caldero's Proposed Jury Charge Additions.(rw, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 40 of 47

09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/06/2005 09/06/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005
09/13/2005

147 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: [143] MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jco, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
148 DECLARATION of Claire Coleman in Opposition re: [143] MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D. Appendix 1,2,3 attached. (jco, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
149 Cross MOTION to Strike the declaration of Allen Breed, dated 7/11/05 submitted by plaintiffs in support of their motion in limine to exclude certain opinions offered by defendants' expert. Also striking section I, Parts B-1 and B-2, and Section II, of plaintiffs' moving brief. Annexed declaration of Robert Johnson. Document filed by Elmer Toro. (kw, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
150 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of re: [149] MOTION to Strike and opposition to[143] MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D. Document filed by Elmer Toro. (kw, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
151 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [131] MOTION in Limine.. Document filed by Adam Ingles et al. (cd, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
152 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in further Support re: [143] MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 5662, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jco, ) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
153 DECLARATION of Manuel D. Romero in further Support re: [143]

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 41 of 47

09/14/2005
09/16/2005 10/17/2005 11/03/2005 11/04/2005

MOTION (1) excluding any and all expert opinions offered by Steve J. Martin and Vincent M. Nathan, (2) excluding portions of the opinions offered by Mark Henry, M.D. (jco, ) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
154 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur C. Larkin dated 9/8/2005 re: to request leave to serve a brief in reply to plaintiffs' opposition to the City's Daubert motion that is fifteen (15) pages in length, rather than ten (10) pages as required by the Court's rules. Plainfiffs do not consent to the request. The reason we ask for the additional space is that plaintiffs have made a number of arguments in opposition to the City's motion that are either (i) not supported by the record citations reflected in their brief, or (ii) supported only by plaintffs' counsel's say-so, and not by the words or testimony of their experts. While we are extremely reluctant to burden the Court with additional submissions, we believe that the extra brief space is necessary to permit us to repond effective to plaintiffs' arguments. In the event the Court were to grant the rquest, we would have no objection to a similar fivepage extension for plaintiffs on thir reply, as well.ENDORSEMENT: Approved for both. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 9/8/2005) (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
155 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Caroline M. Flintoft dated 9/14/05 re: a request that the schedule for motions and trial be adjusted. ENDORSEMENT: Approved. Pretrial Order due by 10/28/2005. Replies due by 10/7/2005. Responses due by 9/23/2005. Trial by 11/14/2005. Voir Dire by 11/10/05, Requests to Charge by 11/18/05. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 9/14/05) (kco, ) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
156 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur G. Lurkin dated 10/12/2005 re: to request that the Court extend the deadline for two weeks to October 28, 2005. Settlement Conference set for 10/25/2005 at10:00 AM before Judge Denny Chin.ENDORSEMENT: The trial date and all deadlines are extended two weeks. The parties are ordered to meet and discuss the reajouring issues by 10/21/2005. THe Court will conduct a further settlement conference set for 10/25/2005 10:00 AM. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 10/12/2005) (jmi, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
157 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Arthur G. Larkin dated 11/1/2005 re: defendant's are requesting an extension of time to serve its reply brief on its motion for summary judgment until 11/4/2005 and an extension of the page limit from 20 pages to 30 pages. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted, in both respects. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 11/2/2005) (lb, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
158 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [136] MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 42 of 47

11/04/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005
11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005

Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (djc, ) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
159 REPLY DECLARATION in further support of the City's motion for summary Judgment; (djc, ) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
160 MOTION for a order pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404(b), and 803(6), excluding certain evidence at trial. Document filed by Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Keith Jackson. (jco, ) Modified on 11/28/2005 (jco, ). Modified on 11/28/2005 (jco, ). (Entered: 11/28/2005)
161 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [160] MOTION for a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403,. 404(b), and 803(6), excluding certain evidence at trial. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
162 DECLARATION of Mathew Paulose Jr. in Support re: [160] MOTION for a order pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404(b), and 803(6), excluding certain evidence at trial. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
163 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [160] MOTION for a order pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404(b), and 803(6), excluding certain evidence at trial. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Gary Smith, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
164 MOTION in Limine. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small,

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 43 of 47

11/23/2005
11/23/2005 11/23/2005

Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 5662, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
165 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [164] MOTION in Limine. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
166 DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin in Support re: [164] MOTION in Limine. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
167 APPENDIX OF INMATE VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 49-52, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small.(jco, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 44 of 47

11/23/2005 12/12/2005
12/15/2005
01/12/2006 01/12/2006 02/01/2006 02/15/2006 02/17/2006

168 APPENDIX TWO- INMATE DECLARATIONS. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
169 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Plaintiffs' re: [131] MOTION in Limine.. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 4952, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
170 ORDER the Wardens and/or Superinterndents of any New York City Department of Correction and/or New York State Department of Correctional Services and/or Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center correctional facility with custody over the following fifteen inmates authorize and permit said inmates to participate in emergency telephone conferences with their counsel from Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLp and/or The Legal Aid Society, on or about December 14,15 and 16,2005, and thereafter as is reasonably necessary, until the final resolution of this matter. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 12/14/05) (jco, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
173 ORDER; summary judgment motion is scheduled for oral argument on 1/20/2006 at 2:30 p.m. The motions in limine and Daubert motions are scheduled for oral argument on 1/27/2006 at 2:30 p.m. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 1/10/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
174 DECLARATION of Jonathan S. Chasan. (jco, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
175 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 1/20/06 before Judge Denny Chin. (lma, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
176 ORDER denying [131] Motion in Limine, denying [136] Motion for Summary Judgment, denying [143] Motion, denying [149] Motion to Strike, denying [160] Motion, denying [164] Motion in Limine . So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 2/10/2006) (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
177 ORDER: It is hereby ordered that the Wardens and or Superintendents of any NYC Dept. of Correction and/or New York State Dept. of Correctional Services and/or Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center correctional facility with custody over the following 15 inmates shall

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 45 of 47

02/21/2006 03/27/2006 03/29/2006
03/29/2006

authorize and grant said inmates immediate and expedited access to the services of a notary public, and in all cases within 24 hours of the inmate's oral or written request to access a notary public, throughout the months of February 2006 and March 2006, until the final resolution of this action for purposes of executing (signing) documents in connection with this lawsuit. 1. Waverly Allaway, DIN # 01-A-0109 2. Jamal Butler, DIN # 96-A-3389 3. Phillip Campbell, B/C 141-04-17336 4. Calvin Daniels, B/C 349-05-18080 5. Shawn Davis, DIN # 02-A-6250 6. Rogelio Figueroa, DIN # 02-A-1874 7. Darold Freedman, DIN # 01-A1403 8. Randolf Johnson, DIN # 01-A-4768 9. Jonathan Lukes, DIN #00A-4909 10. Paul Person, DIN # 04-A-2244 11. Eric Richards, DIN # 02A-2583 12. Patrick Washington, DIN # 02-A-1981 13. Allen Smith, DIN # 03-A-3024 14. Kimada Dixon, B/C 566-73-054 15. Miguel Roman, B/C 210-05-00629. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 2/17/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
178 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, a hearing is scheduled on 3/31/06 at 10:30 am in courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl St., NY NY, and as further set forth in this document. Attached is the unsigned Settlement Agreement. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 2/17/06) (cd, ) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
183 DECLARATION of Jonathan S. Abady in Support. Document filed by Miguel Roman, Al Smith, Charles Paige, Jamal Butler, Andre Pratt, Robert Allaway, Patrick Washington, Randolph Johnson, Rogelio Figueroa, Paul Person, Adam Ingles, Calvin Daniels, Bobby Jones, Phillip Campbell, Johnathan Lukes, Lamont Bradley, Darold Freeman, Eric Richards, Kimada Dixon, Shawn Davis, Ed Sykes. (jmi, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
180 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of Defendants' Motion Approval of the Class Settlement. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Does 1-15, 17-44, 4952, 56-62, 64 and 66-75, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, John Does 16, 46-48, 53-55, 63 and 65, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
181 DECLARATION of Steven Conry. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Bobby Jones, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 46 of 47

03/29/2006
04/03/2006 04/04/2006 04/04/2006

Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
182 DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin. Document filed by Caldero, Powell, Small, Spencer, Elmer Toro, The City of New York, Robert Dash, Robert Davoren, William Fraser, Steven Conry, Bernard Kerik, Lanausse, Gray, Givens, McConnon, Rivera, Department of Correctional Services, McKeller, Roberts, Natale, Elliott, Kramer, Cox, Guarneri, Williamson, Graham, Smalls, Codero, Powell, Torres, Echiveria, Clark, Hershaway, Dice, Officer Lewis, Yates, Swetokas, Mastroainni, Supervisory Officers, Officer Straughn, Raymond Ortiz, Darrow Arnold, Alfredo Tolentino, Angel Orozco, Wells, Lopez, Vasquez, Fernandez, Case, Wright, Fisher, Gatto, Bradford, Lamont, Valentine, Chapman, Keith Jackson, R. Jackson, Rivera, Kinder, Dedicke, Anderson, John Doe, Alcia, Sullivan, Cardo, Wright, Velez, Hayes, Mulvaney, Hernandez, Gallagher, Crooms, Ramos, Perez, Daniels, Pennes, Gerard O'Gara, Roger Slattery, The City of New York, Small. (jmi, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
184 OPINION #92960;...Nonetheless, in view of all the other considerations discussed herein, I conclude that the Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Agreement is hereby approved. The Court will issue today the final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/3/06) (djc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
186 OPINION: The agreement is hereby approved. The Court will issue today the final order of Dismissal with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/3/06) (js, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
187 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: the individual claims for damages and for injunctive, declaratory or equitable relief asserted by the named plaintiffs in this action are dismissed with prejudice and settled for the amounts as further set forth in this stipulation; dft City of New York agrees to pay the sums as further set forth in this order in full satisfaction of any and all of the named plaintiffs' individual claims for damages and for injunctive, declaratory or equitable relief against it; dfts K. Jackson, Torres, Clark, Echevarria, Turissi, Debblay and Arnold will pay the sums as further set forth in this stipulation to the City as contribution and in full satisfaction of any and all of the named plaintiffs' individual damage claims against them; in consideration for the payment of the sums specified herein, plaintiffs each agree to release and

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006

SDNY CM/ECF Version 2.5L - Docket Report

Page 47 of 47

04/04/2006 04/27/2006

discharge all of the dfts from any and all claims or causes of action for damages as further set forth in this stipulation; this release does not affect the claims asserted in Eric Richards v. City of New York, et al 05cv3611 or 05cv9602. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/3/06) (dle, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
188 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, The parties having requested approval of, and the Court having approved, the Settlement Agreement of February 17, 2006, and all other claims in this action having been resolved by separately executed agreements, this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice by consent of the parties. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action except if Class Counsel seeks, and the Court grants, reinstatement of the Action. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/3/06) (dt, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
189 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings (Conference) held on 3/31/06 before Judge Denny Chin. (ja, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/20/2006 23:40:35

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

1:01-cv-08279-DCDCF
2.40

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?422298362485467-L_923_0-1

9/20/2006